The Global Gandhi Board, a collective of eminent persons chaired by Sam Pitroda, has released (March 26, 2026) an AI-generated statement that it claims reflects what Mahatma Gandhi might have said in response to the present-day Middle East crisis, based on his archives. Those who have endorsed this initiative are highly respected individuals, and expressing disagreement may invite criticism from those close to me. However, in the true Gandhian spirit, it is important to state one’s views honestly.
The first question that arises is: why rely on AI in the first place for a task that these eminent individuals could have undertaken themselves? Drawing on their knowledge and understanding of Gandhi’s thought, they could have prepared a well-reasoned and reflective document. Such an effort might have encouraged constructive dialogue, with others contributing suggestions, followed by revisions and refinement. This process could have evolved into a thoughtful and genuinely Gandhian exercise, involving scholars and concerned individuals across countries.
Unfortunately, this creative, collaborative, and reflective process appears to have been set aside in favour of an AI-generated response. This risks discouraging meaningful dialogue among thoughtful and concerned individuals, as the task is perceived to have been completed more conveniently by artificial intelligence.
There is also something inherently problematic—and arguably un-Gandhian—about using AI for such a purpose, even while acknowledging its legitimate uses. It is important to reflect on where the use of AI is appropriate. Those behind this initiative might first have engaged in a careful discussion of Gandhi’s views on technology, particularly his caution against the uncritical acceptance of modern innovations. If time constraints prevented such reflection, one might ironically suggest an AI-generated review of Gandhi’s views on technology itself.
A careful assessment of Gandhi’s likely position on the current crisis would arguably have involved a clearer and more direct condemnation of the attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran on February 28, 2026. This development cannot be overlooked, particularly in a world already facing multiple crises. The escalation has had serious consequences for global peace, a concern that is increasingly being acknowledged even within the United States. Israeli peace activists who have criticised the government of Benjamin Netanyahu for initiating the conflict may, in this sense, be closer to Gandhian principles.
At the same time, Gandhi’s response to such an attack would likely have differed significantly from that of Iran. In pursuing its strategic objectives, Iran expanded the conflict by targeting US bases across several countries. Many advocates of justice-based peace, including this writer, have not supported this approach, even while strongly criticising the initial actions of the United States and Israel. A response more aligned with non-violent principles might have better enabled Iran to garner global sympathy and support.
On a personal note, I have reflected on Gandhi’s possible responses to war in my earlier books on the Iraq conflict, written in both English and Hindi. In those works, I explored possibilities for non-violent resistance, particularly in situations where conflict could be anticipated. For instance, I had proposed that peace-loving individuals from various countries—including the United States and its allies—could gather in Baghdad for multi-faith prayers in the lead-up to the invasion. At the same time, those writings firmly condemned the United States, its allies, and broader imperial forces for initiating a destructive and unjust war based on false claims—an assessment that has since been widely validated. Commitment to truth remains central to any pursuit of justice-based peace.
Even today, many peace activists within countries involved in military aggression continue to advocate for justice-based peace. They represent a continuation of Gandhian resistance. The ideals advanced by Gandhi have also found expression in movements led by figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States. Such movements offer more meaningful pathways forward than AI-generated statements, particularly when the latter do not clearly and unequivocally condemn unjust and destructive wars that pose serious risks to global peace.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener of the Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders, A Day in 2071, and Man over Machine—A Path to Peace
Comments