During the speech the crowd issued approving hums and adoring sigh. When it was over the speaker received a standing ovation. The audience, regardless of what spurred them to their feet, in their reasons for standing should have included this: to signal their gratitude that the U.S. government and the rest of the world’s democracies know the speaker’s message is irresponsible and immoral.

The speaker was Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma, and last week, in a lecture titled “Lessons Learned From Grandfather,” Gandhi spoke to a University audience about the philosophy of nonviolence.

Pacifism is difficult to digest, and to make it even somewhat palatable Arun Gandhi, a professed pacifist, had to address a question he should have expected and which was asked after his speech. It is a question the answer of which banishes the relativism of even the most incurable liberal. And it is a question one 20th century writer would not ignore.

In his 1949 “Reflections on Gandhi,” George Orwell, regarding the late war, wrote that “one question every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: `What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?'” Orwell recorded Gandhi’s answer, which was: German Jews should commit collective suicide.

Ghastly, yes, but as Orwell wrote, “Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way.”

Perhaps not wanting to tell the assembled undergraduates, law students, professors and local citizens that the German Jews should have all raised their hands for Auschwitz, Arun Gandhi, when asked about the issue, (to paraphrase) replied:

Well, Hitler didn’t just come about out of the blue. The pressures on Germany after World War I helped create the conditions for Hitler’s rise. And we humans are not very good at conflict prevention. We always wait until the conflict-management stage.

The questioner-can you believe it?-was not satisfied. True, said the student, Hitler ground German grievances into a potent nationalism that enabled the rise of the Nazis. And true, the Treaty of Versailles was a nadir of diplomacy. But, he continued, mistakes happen. Humans are fallible, and the future’s general opacity is prohibitive. So what do world leaders do in the meantime, when an entire race is being burned, gassed and buried alive?

Arun Gandhi: Let’s consider the war on terrorism . . .

Good move: His evasiveness was becoming embarrassing.

Gandhi never found the forthrightness to admit that either his pacifism is qualified and that he will occasionally permit violence, or he is instead willing to sacrifice millions of innocent people in obedience to a single imperative. The latter choice is the natural consequence of his philosophy, but his unwillingness to say it reflects the strength of his conviction.

Because of his last name, and because he radiates gentility, Arun Gandhi probably maintains an uncommon immunity from potential critics. This may explain the generally uncritical reception given to Gandhi by the crowd. After all, it is easy to hear what he says and respond: Gee, what a great guy. He wants everyone to get along; he wants no one to die.

Distinctions, however, must be drawn between Gandhi the man and Gandhi the political philosopher. The morality of an idea or policy does not depend on mere intentionality, and if someone is going to encourage college students to support a philosophy that lends a helping hand to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, this person had better fortify his assertions with more than the drooping platitudes that were constructed last Thursday in Cook Hall. Certainly (even granting that his lecture was not a time to turn professorial) Gandhi owed it to the audience to honor, just like his grandfather, what for every pacifist Orwell called “a clear obligation”-the question about the Jews.

Pacifists say galling things, and Arun Gandhi, to say no more, does not disappoint. If you missed his speech, go to his Web site (gandhiinstitute.org) and read his essay “Terrorism and Nonviolence,” in which the following thought appears:

“We saw some people in Iraq and Palestine and I dare say many other countries rejoicing over the tragedies at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. . . . But let us not forget that we do the same thing. When Israel bombs the Palestinians we either rejoice or show no compassion. Our attitude is that they deserve what they get.”

Recall the scenes in Palestinian streets a few hours after the Trade Center came crashing down. Those of Palestinians setting fire to the American flag; the dancing in the streets; the exultation of both the young and old. Arun Gandhi says that after Israel bombs Palestine, Americans do the same thing.

Oh? The same thing?

It is hard to believe that such a statement reflects a lesson learned from grandfather.

Matt Emerson is a sophomore studying political science and philosophy.