Gandhi and fingerprinting in colonial India

Philosophers and Fingerprints

Gandhi and Fingerprinting

Today's environment has a lot more security measures that seem to border the notion of a police state. With the threat of terrorism constantly looming over the American public, there have been a lot more allowances in security measures. This, however, would be seen as a violation of rights and privacy by many philosophers, including Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi was a powerful force in the fight against oppression and public injustice during the English occupation of India. His philosophies captured the attention of the world and helped show that you don't always have to fight violence with violence to win. Gandhi preached the importance of self-discipline as a way to ensure good citizenship and behavior without coming into breaches with the law. According to his principles, "Brahamchraya means control of all the organs of sense. He who attempts to control only one organ, and allows all the others free play is bound to find his effort futile" (Manu Bhavan Ganndhi Sangrahalaya, 2014). When one lives a self-disciplined life, one becomes a better human being and thus a responsible member of a functioning society. Those who possess this quality should then be trusted, and not explicitly told they are not trusted through actions like requiring the fingerprinting documentation of all individuals under a nation or organization. For responsible men, there is no need for such heightened security measures, and instilling them in an organization such as an academic institution is only a flagrant insult to those who work within it. Gandhi would have seen such procedures as insulting and a breach of justice within the organization.

In fact, Gandhi had a history with issues regarding fingerprinting. Here, the research suggests that "Gandhi organized popular resistance to a law that subjected Indian and Chinese immigrants to a stigmatizing system of fingerprint identity registration" (Breckenridge, 2011). He saw it as a clear injustice in how it was being used, with documentation purposes alone for non-criminals. It was a form of racial profiling from his perspective. Although the current case is not so cut and dry in regards to it being an oppressive practice, it is clear that Gandhi would have seen such intense security measures as aggressive and insulting.

If such a measure is to be taken, professors would ultimately have the right to stand against such a policy. Gandhi whole-heartedly believed in the principle of civil disobedience. One has the right to civil disobedience if it is "in response to an instance of substantial and clear injustice" (Brownlee, 2013). From this perspective, if one feels that one's rights are being denied by an authority, one has the right to challenge that authority in the attempt to reinstate one's legal and natural rights. This is possible through conscious action that does not comply with the injuring principle, policy, or law. Such measures can then "serve to inhibit departures from justice and to correct departures when they occur; thus it can act as a stabilising force in society" (Brownlee, 2013). They help restore the balance between the authority figures and the individual citizens under that authority. Professors do, then, have the right to refuse to be fingerprinted if they feel that it violates their own principles and expectations with working with the institution.

Yet, this civil disobedience must be non-violent. Gandhi believed that non-violent methods were far superior to more base, violent methods. Thus, he stated that "Ahimsa is not the way of the timid or cowardly. It is the way of the brave ready to face death. He who perishes sword in hand is no doubt brave; but he who faces death without raising his little finger and without flinching, is braver" (Manu Bhavan Ganndhi Sangrahalaya, 2014). Non-violent measures could be just as effective as violent ones in getting the awareness and attention about the injustice out to the rest of the world. So any civil disobedience would have to be from this non-violent perspective.

Personally, I would agree with Gandhi on judgment of this practice. I don't feel that I would think it was insulting or rejecting my own rights, but I do believe that if people had an issue with the practice, they should have the right to refuse to submit to fingerprinting. I feel that it would not be an issue for me personally, but I do see the perspective that there should be methods for professors to object without fear of risking their position within the organization. Individuals who do not feel comfortable with getting fingerprinted should thus have the option not to. Yet, since that would defeat the purpose of the program entirely, I think it would be best left unimplemented or terminated if already in practice. The situation presents a paradox, where individuals feel obligated to follow it in fear of loosing their jobs. This is an oppressive situation in that it forces people to act against their will.