The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 52, Chapter XVI: Brute Force.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 51 - 52, Chapter XVI: Brute Force.

201

even in places where these measures are enacted and enforced, political corruption continues to

occur. This approach to voting rights notably neglects the responsibilities of citizens to dutifully

serve in the political process. If citizens were regularly involved in the political process, such

consistent engagement would do much to check, if not eliminate, political corruption. Gandhi

realized the means of service and duty would address the targeted problems as well as establish

and sustain beneficial solutions and approaches. For him, the means to attaining Swaraj lay in

the performance of one’s duty and service to others.

Gandhi realized the connection between means and ends (goals) went further than just

duty and service. He held firmly to the virtue that: “We reap exactly as we sow.”

Thus, if we

seek just and beneficent ends we must seek these through just and beneficent means:

“The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is

just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end

as there is between the seed and the tree. I am not likely to obtain

the result flowing from the worship of God by laying myself

prostrate before Satan. If, therefore, anyone were to say: “I want

to worship God; it does not matter that I do so by means of Satan,”

it would be set down as ignorant folly.”

Following this approach to means and ends, Gandhi was clearly against using brute force or

immoral means to attain an independent India that would honor ahimsa, morality, and the quest

for Truth. Note his reasons for rejecting the use of brute force to address British oppression:

“Let us first take the argument that we are justified in gaining our

end by using brute force because the English gained theirs by

using similar means. It is perfectly true that they used brute force

and that it is possible for us to do likewise, but by using similar

means we can get only the same thing that they got. You will

admit that we do not want that. Your belief that there is no

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 51, Chapter XVI: Brute Force.

202

connection between the means and the end is a great mistake.

Through that mistake even men who have been considered

religious have committed grievous crimes. Your reasoning is the

same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious

weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do so only by means of a

vessel; if I were to use a cart for that purpose, both the cart and I

would soon find the bottom.”

Appropriate means must be used to reach the desired goals. And Gandhi surely didn’t want, in

his quest for Swaraj, to create a so-called free India that continued to colonize its own nation in

the guise of liberation. So not only did he commit to use just and beneficent means, he warned

others of the traps of seeking independence through means that would place India in a colonized,

destructive, or oppressed state. This is a lesson lost by many in the contemporary community

organizing, peace, and social justice fields. Too often individuals and organizations who

recognize the harm (evil) of oppressive governments and corporations will seek to use the means

of such entities for beneficial aims. To give an example, many organizers will acknowledge the

great harm the mainstream media causes by broadcasting lies, incomplete and trivial information

to billions of people worldwide. Yet, in seeking to attract attention to a worthy cause, these

same persons will use the same sensationalistic and manipulative practices of the mainstream

media, thinking that any attention garnered in this way will be free from the harms of these

methods. This is a delusional approach. If we want to have people informed about a matter in a

way that goes beyond the media conditioning that reduces serious issues to sound-bytes that

rarely remain relevant longer than a twenty-four hour news cycle, we must find other means than

the contemporary mainstream media approaches.

The means a persons uses also shapes who that person becomes. Gandhi used the

following example to demonstrate this point:

“If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to

fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you for

it; and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to

the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 52, Chapter XVI: Brute Force.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 52, Chapter XVI: Brute Force.

203

property, or a donation. Thus we see three different results from

three different means.”

As a consequence of the three different results, Gandhi would become either a thief, an owner, or

a recipient of charity. The relevance of such consequences are important to Satyagraha on so

many levels. To look at the use of suffering, Gandhi would be less effective in using suffering to

affect just change if he was a thief as opposed to a recipient of charity. Also, being a thief would

impinge upon his character and morality, making him less reputable in engaging in public

dialogue. This would also make him less suited to be a teacher in the Satyagraha approach to

education (given the importance of character and morality as educational foundations). If we

seek to be just and beneficent beings on the quest for Truth, our choice of means in pursuit of

goals has a direct impact on who we become. This important lesson has been lost to many in

contemporary times, but it is vital to those on the Satyagraha path.

Gandhi also acknowledged that different opponents may call for different means. He

explained his point using an example of different thieves breaking into his home:

“Now we shall take the example given by you of the thief to be

driven out. I do not agree with you that the thief may be driven out

by any means. If it is my father who has come to steal I shall use

one kind of means. If it is an acquaintance I shall use another; and

in the case of a perfect stranger I shall use a third. If it is a white

man, you will perhaps say you will use means different from those

you will adopt with an Indian thief. If it is a weakling, the means

will be different from those to be adopted for dealing with an equal

in physical strength; and if the thief is armed from top to toe, I

shall simply remain quiet. Thus we have a variety of means

between the father and the armed man.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 375, excerpt from Harijan, July 13,

1940.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 53, Chapter XVI: Brute Force.

204

In his example, Gandhi acknowledged differing responses to different thieves. And this

certainly is a valid point for those developing the love needed to engage in civil disobedience. In

the quest to engage opponents, we should definitely have an awareness of who our opponents

are. And, when appropriate, cater our means to the opponents. For many developing their

ability to live and act out love, the range of difference between dealing with a loved one and

opponent may be large. There may be more kindness and willingness to surrender and suffer for

a loved one than for a stranger. But, as we will explore in the next section, with the maturity of

love this range of difference should shrink, if not completely disappear. Gandhi reached a point

in his love maturity where he would treat all the different thieves as his father, whom he loved.

He explained:

“When you give more to a robber than he needs, you spring a

surprise on him, you give him a shock although agreeable. He has

not been used to it. Historical instances are on record to show that

such non-violent conduct has produced a wholesome effect upon

evil-doers. These acts cannot be done mechanically; they must

come out of conviction and love or pity for the other man.”

There may be initial resistance to this point by some who have not reached the love maturity to

fully understand it. But whether we reach this state or not, civil resisters must have great love

for their opponents to engage in the transformative art of civil disobedience.

“I only wish to show that fair means alone can produce fair

results, and that, at least in the majority of cases, if not indeed

in all, the force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the

force of arms. There is harm in the exercise of brute force,

never in that of pity.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 306, excerpt from Harijan, April

27, 1940.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 271, excerpt from Young India,

May 8, 1930.

205

THE TEMPERAMENT OF A CIVIL RESISTER

“Civil disobedience, if it is really civil, must appear so even to

the opponent. He must feel that the resistance is not intended

to do him any harm.”

The above quote identified a key quality to civil disobedience: that Satyagrahis must be

explicitly clear that they mean no one harm. Satyagrahis hold to and stand upon Truth in

opposition to evil (destruction) and injustice, but even this stance is clearly against the evil and

unjust actions, not those who commit such actions. Such a stance must sometimes be held close

to a thin line, because sometimes there is a very thin line between opposing a person’s actions

and opposing that person. To stay clearly on the Satyagraha side of that line, Gandhi required

civil resisters to embody the highest levels of civility in all their actions. He required that they

endure persecution, abuse, insults, and physical violence with the utmost courtesy and a spirit of

joy. In upholding their values and dignity, civil resisters were expected to be willing to risk all

they had, even their lives -- and to do so without the slightest bit of anger or ill will against

others. The inability to meet this standard meant one could not be a civil resister, but such a

person could contribute to Satyagraha efforts in other meaningful ways. Thus, it should be no

surprise that Gandhi required that “Incivility should be answered not by incivility but by a

dignified and calm endurance of all suffering in the name of God {Truth}.”

Humility is a key quality to possess to maintain a high level of civility. Gandhi

expounded on how humility is part of the core approach of Satyagraha:

“Remember that ours is a non-violent struggle. It pre-supposes

humility. It is a truthful struggle and consciousness of truth should

give us firmness. We are not out to destroy men. We own no

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 169, excerpt from Young India,

May 27, 1926.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 59, excerpt from Young India,

January 12, 1921.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 322.

206

enemy. We have no ill-will against a single soul on earth. We

mean to convert by our suffering.”

Without humility, it will be much more difficult to hold firmly to Truth and refrain from having

ill-will against our opponents, especially if they use violence. Without humility, it will be much

more difficult to embrace the path of suffering as a part of service and duty, and find the

corresponding joy in it. These points may seem crazy for those who have yet to embrace and

deepen their humility, and I know not the words to explain the validity of these points to those

who lack humility. I can direct you to the example of Gandhi and other spiritual leaders whose

lives demonstrated the great potency of deep, pure humility.

Gandhi cited another reason for humility: the large scope of work to be done to impart

beneficent and just change. He explained:

“Non-co-operation is not a movement of brag, bluster or bluff. It

is a test of our sincerity. It requires solid and silent self-sacrifice.

It challenges our honesty and our capacity for national work. It is

a movement that aims at translating ideas into action. And the

more we do, the more we find that much more must be done than

we had expected. And this thought of our imperfection must make

us humble.”

The above statement reminded of another Gandhi quote: “In trying to cure one old disease, we

give rise to a hundred new ones.”

The imprint of evil and destruction is often deeper and more

far reaching than people realize, and the efforts to correct one form of injustice may require that

ten forms of injustice be addressed too. The task of beneficent and just change is very daunting,

and a full realization of all such change is often very humbling. Gandhi knew that even to

transform colonized India into a just and beneficent independent nation would require more

work than could be done in a single lifetime. And even when a country reaches that state, more

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 245, excerpt from Young India,

April 3, 1930.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 252, excerpt from Young India,

April 3, 1930.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 148, excerpt from Young India,

February 16, 1921.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 322, excerpt from Harijan, October

13, 1940.

207

work must done to sustain and continue the growth of that nation’s just and beneficent

independence. Thus, even for civil resisters who give their entire lives to Satyagraha work, the

whole of their contribution may only amount to a small part of a larger effort that spans many

lifetimes. (But just because it’s small doesn’t mean it’s insignificant.) The willingness to accept

such a role calls for great humility.

And, which at this point in the book should be obvious, in keeping in line with humility:

“We may not consider anybody as low.”

Arrogance has no place in Satyagraha.

Humility can be deepened and strengthened by purity. Thus, Gandhi constantly

reminded the people of India about the importance of cultivating and enhancing purity in their

Satyagraha work:

“Ever since 1921 I have been reiterating two words, self-

purification and self-sacrifice. God {Truth} will not assist [one]

without these two.”

Although Gandhi made the above statement in 1930, he continued to reiterate these same two

words until the last days of his life. He further emphasized that: “Non-co-operation being a

movement of purification is bringing to the surface all our weaknesses as also excesses of even

our strong points.”

In light of what Satyagraha work brings to the individual and collective

surface, Satyagrahis must carry on their work and development with great care. Gandhi noted:

“a pure undertaking can become tainted owing to lack of

watchfulness on the part of the doer. There can be no room for

selfishness, anger, lack of faith, or impatience in a pure fast.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 123, excerpt from Young India,

July 28, 1920.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 39 - 40, excerpt from From

Yeravda Mandir, 1932, Chapter I: Truth.

208

Although the above referred to fasting, the same call for watchfulness applies to all Satyagraha

work.

To highlight the importance of purity in civil disobedience and other Satyagraha efforts,

it was not uncommon for Gandhi to begin civil disobedience campaigns with acts of purity. He

wrote on the eve of commencing such a campaign:

“And so we must approach non-co-operation [civil disobedience]

with confidence and hope. As in the past, the commencement is to

be marked by fasting and prayer -- a sign of the religious character

of the demonstration.”

The range of commencement activities can surely extend beyond fasting and prayer, but the

practice of beginning civil disobedience campaigns and activities with acts of purity is wise to

emulate.

For the civil resister, courage (or fearlessness) must accompany humility and purity. To

this point, Gandhi made the following statements:

“Therefore the pursuit of Truth is true bhakti (devotion). It is the

path that leads to God. There is no place in it for cowardice, no

place for defeat. It is the talisman by which death itself becomes

the portal to life eternal.”

“Passive resistance [civil disobedience] cannot proceed a step

without fearlessness. Those alone can follow the path of passive

resistance who are free from fear, whether as to their possessions,

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 59, Chapter XVII: Passive Resistance.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 262, excerpt from Young India,

April 24, 1930.

209

false honour, their relatives, the government, bodily injuries or

death.”

The above quotes demonstrated that civil resisters must have a courage to face all loss, including

death. This is not a call to be suicidal or to become a martyr, but Gandhi clearly realized that

any efforts to affect just and beneficent change in an age of violence could result in suffering

very brutal violence. The courage demanded to face such requires the shedding of several fears,

not just the fear of losing of one’s life. In his study of applied Satyagraha, Gandhi realized the

fearlessness of death is not necessarily the same as the fearlessness of losing one’s property; and

one who has shed the fear of death may not have shed the fear of losing all possessions. Thus,

he was explicit in stating the need to address all the various types of fears we may have: “One of

the lessons that a nation yearning for freedom needs to learn is to shed several fears of losing

title, wealth, position, fear of imprisonment, of bodily injury and lastly death.”

(emphasis mine)

But Gandhi was not content with the mere shedding of fears, he felt a bold courage to

face death was necessary given the excessive brutality of the modern era of violence. He shared

these thoughts in relation to the Jalianwala Bagh massacre. In this incident, hundreds of

unarmed Indians were trapped inside a walled public garden and killed by the colonial British

army. Prevented from leaving the garden, the Indians became slaughter for a massacre that

ensued as the British army shot into the crowds until they ran out of bullets and then left the

wounded to die among those killed by the gunfire. When the shooting started, some Indians ran

and tried to escape the barrage of bullets, to which Gandhi made the following remarks:

“Soon after the Jalianwala massacre, I used to express and reiterate

the hope that next time in no part of India must people run away on

bullets being discharged against them, and that they must receive

them in their chests with arms folded and with courageous

resignation. That testing time seems to be coming faster than I had

expected. And if we are to train ourselves to receive the bullet

wounds or bayonet charges in our bare chests, we must accustom

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 259, excerpt from Young India,

April 17, 1930.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 56, excerpt from Young India,

August 25, 1921.

210

ourselves to standing unmoved in the face of cavalry or baton

charges. I know that it is easier said than done.”

Part of the reason Gandhi implored such courage is to ensure the maximum effectiveness of

suffering: the bold courage of one pure Satyagrahi can inspire the bold courage of others. It also

has a greater impact on those who commit the violence to see someone embrace death (or even a

lesser form of violence) without avoiding it, as well as others in the public sphere who may see

or hear about this courage and be moved to support Satyagraha efforts. From a tactical

perspective: if the opponent is willingly to kill a civil resister the opponent may kill the civil

resister in any circumstance -- even under the cloak of night as a civil resister sleeps. Therefore,

the civil resister has nothing to lose by facing such death willingly, without fear or flight. In

fact, as Gandhi learned, the civil resister has more to gain by facing death courageously given the

impact bold courage can have on others. Gandhi warned, this is easier said than done, but those

seeking the maximum effectiveness of applying Satyagraha (of which civil disobedience is a

part) must commit themselves to the task of being able to face death looking in the eyes of those

who would kill them. This is no small task, and Gandhi was understanding of those not able to

commit to such. He also respectfully asked that such persons not engage in civil disobedience

and instead commit to other ways of supporting Satyagraha efforts.

A sure support to embodying bold courage is discipline. In fact, discipline becomes

essential in the face of provocative responses to civil disobedience:

“Victory is impossible until we are able to keep our temper under

the gravest provocation. Calmness under fire is a soldier’s

indispensable quality. A non-co-operator is nothing if he cannot

remain calm and unperturbed under a fierce fire of provocation.

“There should be no mistake. There is no civil disobedience

possible, until the crowds behave like disciplined soldiers.”