The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
80
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 133, excerpt from Young India,
August 11, 1920.
81
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 373, excerpt from Harijan, May
25, 1940.
82
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 244, excerpt from Young India,
April 3, 1930.
83
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 128, excerpt from Young India,
March 16, 1922.
231
India can gain more by waiving the right of punishment. We have
better work to do, a better mission to deliver to the world.”
80
Even as the Indian masses gained power, via Satyagraha work, over the smaller number of
English in the country, Gandhi refused to allow the great outnumbering of Indians over English
to be a means to dismiss the benefits of forgiveness. He warned that the people’s goals “should
never be attainment of power for power’s sake.”
81
He also used the experience of one hundred
thousand British oppressing the Indian masses as an omen for what could happen if the Indian
masses lacked the ability to forgive. Being imperfect (as most humans are), the Indian masses
would most likely commit wrongs among themselves in their quest for Swaraj. Any inability to
forgive each other for those wrongs would certainly bring ruin to India, as people sought
retribution and punishment from each other. He warned:
“It is enough that one hundred thousand men prey upon three
hundred million. But how will it be when we begin to prey upon
one another? In that event dogs will lick our corpses.”
82
In light of the need for forgiveness, Gandhi encouraged civil resisters to realize the need
for unity. Certainly, a beneficent sense of unity would enhance the quality of forgiveness among
civil resisters, as well as other traits. But to the importance of unity, Gandhi made the following
comment regarding the necessity of Hindu and Muslim unity in India:
“We all now realize, as we have never before realized, that without
that unity [Hindu and Muslim] we cannot attain our freedom...
Divided, we must ever remain slaves. This unity, therefore, cannot
be a mere policy to be discarded when it does not suit us.”
83
84
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 299, excerpt from Harijan, July 8,
1939.
232
Although this remark was made specific to Hindu and Muslim unity, the principle applies to all
differing and distinct groups in Satyagraha campaigns -- if not all groups in a nation’s society.
The commitment to unity must be able to withstand the temptations of spoils offered to create
division among differing groups. The divide and conquer strategy has a long history and
remains one of the more common tactics used by oppressive and evil forces. But a genuine
approach to unity will not only be immune to such tactics, it will strengthen and expand the
shared interactions and interests of all parties involved to deepen the reality of their shared
community.
And lastly, civil resisters should be keenly observant and aware of what is happening
around them. This includes what’s happening to the people in all veins of life: politically,
socially, economically, spiritually, etc. Gandhi warned: “To blind one’s eyes to the events
happening around us is to court disaster.”
84
Thus, we are challenged to be keenly observant and
aware of what is happening within ourselves -- especially since, for most of us, our self becomes
the lense by which we perceive the world.
Clearly, there are other traits civil resisters should embody in order to offer very
impacting civil disobedience. (And in considering all that is involved in civil disobedience we
will realize great value in presenting civil disobedience that is as powerful as it can be.) But I
trust what has been covered will serve as a strong foundation to continue the process of personal
growth and maturation along the Satyagraha path. Gandhi would not advocate people embarking
upon civil disobedience until they understand the importance of service, duty, and civility as well
as live the temperament and character traits discussed. To attempt civil disobedience
prematurely often results in presenting a weak form of protest that may be labeled “civil
disobedience,” but usually has little lasting effect and is often wrought with violence. The
weakness of such actions is a clear sign that is not civil disobedience, a part of the strength-based
approach of Satyagraha.
85
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 148, excerpt from Young India,
February 16, 1921.
86
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 84, excerpt from Young India, May
7, 1931.
233
“Moreover, social boycott to be admissible in a campaign of
non-violence must never savour of inhumanity. It must be
civilized.”
85
“I have said before in these pages that I claim no followers. It is
enough for me to be my own follower. It is by itself a
sufficiently taxing performance. But I know that many claim to
be my followers. I must therefore answer the questions for their
sakes. If they will follow what I endeavour to stand for rather
than me they will see that the following answers are derived
from truth and ahimsa.”
86
˜ ˜ ˜
1
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 69, excerpt from Young India, July
14, 1927.
2
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 4, excerpt from Young India, March
23, 1921.
234
CHAPTER TEN
In Search of a Comprehensive Definition
of Civil Disobedience
“All Civil Disobedience is a part or branch of Satyagraha, but all
Satyagraha is not Civil Disobedience.”
1
“By its very nature, non-co-operation is even open to children
of understanding and can be safely practised by the masses.
Civil Disobedience presupposes the habit of willing obedience
to laws without fear of their sanctions. It can, therefore, be
practised only as a last resort and by a select few in the first
instance at any rate. Non-co-operation, too, like Civil
Disobedience is a branch of Satyagraha which includes all non-
violent resistance for the vindication of Truth.”
2
The above statements addressed two common misconceptions about Satyagraha. The
first dispelled the myth that Satyagraha (or non-violence) is civil disobedience or that the full
scope of Satyagraha fits within civil disobedience. As the previous chapters presented, there is
much more to Satyagraha that extends beyond the scope of civil disobedience. Satyagraha is a
way of life and for those who mature and grow within this life approach they will develop to
become persons capable of offering genuine and pure civil disobedience. And I say offer civil
disobedience, because Gandhi approached it as a sacred gift to be engaged for the benefit of
one’s self and others, even if it meant that the those offering it bore hardships. He certainly
didn’t view civil disobedience as something to be unleashed or afflicted upon his opponents like
235
a tactic in a game intended to gain victory at the expense of others’ defeat. Another common
misconception about Satyagraha is that it allows civil resisters to use civil disobedience outside
the context of being a last resort. Many in the community organizing, peace, and social justice
fields are quick to utilize civil disobedience or its tactics in efforts to respond to evil and
injustice. Gandhi would regard such use premature and strongly advise against it: he strictly
reserved all forms of civil disobedience as a last resort to be embarked upon only after all other
reasonable means have been attempted in sincere and appropriate manners. In fact, at times he
cautioned on the side of extended attempts to use means other than civil disobedience before
considering this as an option. Thus, he overextended himself at cooperation, negotiation,
patience, preparation and education (of Satyagrahis and others) before engaging in civil
disobedience. But once he engaged the last resort of civil disobedience, he did so with a
complete effort and without reservation -- unless participants violated the tenets of civil
disobedience at which he considered the termination of such campaigns.
The two above misconceptions are reflective of a larger confusion regarding
contemporary concepts of what civil disobedience is. Definitions and understandings of it
abound, and the range of what is considered civil disobedience has expanded over the years -- to
even include forms of disobedience that lack civility. This has created a lot of confusion about
the traditional tenets of civil disobedience, a confusion exasperated by the modern tendency to
apply recognizable labels to a broad range of actions -- even if the labels are wrongly applied.
But Gandhi was very specific in his definition of civil disobedience and how this definition
informed how Satyagrahis put it in practice. Therefore, before proceeding to an exploration of
the practice and application of civil disobedience, it makes sense to explore Gandhi’s definition
and conceptual framework for civil disobedience.
A BASIC DEFINITION AND THE MODERN ROOTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Gandhi offered the following as a basic definition of civil disobedience:
“Civil Disobedience is civil breach of unmoral statutory
enactments. The expression was, so far as I am aware, coined by
3
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 3, excerpt from Young India, March
23, 1921.
4
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 4, excerpt from Young India, March
23, 1921.
236
[Henry David] Thoreau to signify his own resistance to the laws of
a slave State. He has left a masterly treatise on the duty of Civil
Disobedience.”
3
In the context of contemporary uses of the term civil disobedience, I would supplement the
above definition with Gandhi’s explanation of non-cooperation:
“Non-co-operation predominantly implies withdrawing of co-
operation from the State that in the non-co-operator’s view has
become corrupt and excludes Civil Disobedience of the fierce type
described above.”
4
In many respects, non-cooperation and civil disobedience go hand and hand, but there may be
some aspects of non-cooperation that, within the spirit of Satyagraha, fall short of breaking
unmoral laws. For example, a community that has suffered the neglect of a government to
provide adequate public education may choose to organize their own self-run schools; and by
operating their own schools, the people withdraw from cooperating with the state in participating
in badly run public schools. This form of non-cooperation falls short of breaking unmoral laws
although it is a proactive form of communal resistance to the government’s neglect. Now in
most cases, such neglect happens in the context of a larger oppression, so in some instances the
non-cooperation of setting up community schools will occur in a larger effort to address a
government’s injustice and oppression. And a tyrannical government may even pass laws
designed to outlaw or weaken the community schools, such as mandating compulsory attendance
to the government schools at the very hours the community schools operate. Such action will
naturally move the people’s non-cooperation to a level of civil disobedience (breaking the law by
not attending government schools) to sustain their participation in their own community schools.
This type of government response was common by the British colonial government in India,
making Gandhi’s (and other Indians’) practice of non-cooperation and civil disobedience almost
inseparable. So in this chapter, I will deal with non-cooperation as a part of civil disobedience;
in many instances, Gandhi used these terms and others (such as passive resistance, non-violence,
5
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, essay originally titled Resistance to
Government, 1849.
6
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, essay originally titled Resistance to
Government, 1849.
237
etc.) to refer to the same efforts of withdrawing cooperation from unjust states and breaking
unmoral laws.
Also, Gandhi most often referred to the government or the state as the opponent of civil
disobedience. But what is said in regards to an unjust government can be applied to other unjust
entities: whether it’s an unjust family member or neighbor in a case of personal civil
disobedience, or an unjust business or corporation that a group offers civil disobedience against.
But for the sake of simplicity, I will most often refer to the government instead of listing all
these various entities throughout this and the following chapters.
Some may be surprised that civil disobedience did not originate with Gandhi. His
embrace of the term laid in his study of Henry David Thoreau, an American writer and
philosopher. The treatise Gandhi referred to in the basic definition of civil disobedience is
(mostly likely) Thoreau’s 1849 essay titled: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, originally titled
Resistance to Civil Government. There are a number of key points in this essay that resonate
with Gandhi’s approach to Satyagraha. To list a few, Thoreau stated that governments can be
corrupted: “The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to
execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through
it.”
5
Yet, in spite of this potential fallacy of government, Thoreau did not advocate anarchy or
the elimination of a system of governance:
“But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call
themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no
government, but at once a better government. Let every man make
known what kind of government would command his respect, and
that will be one step toward obtaining it.”
6
7
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, essay originally titled Resistance to
Government, 1849.
8
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, essay originally titled Resistance to
Government, 1849.
9
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, essay originally titled Resistance to
Government, 1849.
10
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, essay originally titled Resistance to
Government, 1849.
11
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, essay originally titled Resistance to
Government, 1849.
238
Thoreau acknowledged that “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse
allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and
unendurable.”
7
In this vein, he challenged:
“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign
his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience
then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It
is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for
the right [or what is right]. The only obligation which I have a
right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”
8
He went to explain his refusal to pay taxes to an evil state: “I simply wish to refuse allegiance to
the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually.”
9
He also pointed out: “A wise man
will not leave the right [or what is right] to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through
the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.”
10
And as a
concluding pont, Thoreau stated:
“There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the
State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and
independent power, from which all its own power and authority are
derived, and treats him accordingly.”
11
As much as Gandhi agreed with most of the above statements, there were clearly points
of difference (even if in just emphasis) between himself and Thoreau. Gandhi stated:
12
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 3, excerpt from Young India,
March 23, 1921.
239
“But Thoreau was not perhaps an out and out champion of non-
violence [or ahimsa].”
12
This is a key point: Gandhi’s embrace of the Satyagraha way of life guided his embrace of civil
disobedience in a way that created significant differences between himself and Thoreau -- but
don’t think that these differences are incompatible or directly opposed to each other, or that one
is better than the other. Gandhi worked with others with whom he had points of difference, and
he acknowledged their right to their positions as he insisted on his right to his positions. And if
anything was to serve as a measure of which points were better, it should be the application of
one’s ideas on the stage of life and the benefits such application manifested. But in drawing a
line between Thoreau and Gandhi, we would be mistaken to think that Gandhi’s practice of civil
disobedience was identical or bound to Thoreau’s, his predecessor. Thoreau, at least in his essay
on civil disobedience, is not as explicit as Gandhi is in seeking Truth and having it be an
essential requirement before engaging in civil disobedience. Thoreau’s insistence on
withdrawing allegiance from an evil state falls short of Gandhi’s scope of combining non-
cooperation with sincere efforts to convert his opponents. Gandhi holds to this point, in part,
because of his realization that all are capable of living Satyagraha and embarking on the quest of
Truth. Gandhi also went beyond the scope of Thoreau’s essay with his efforts to:
* embrace the willingness to suffer and sacrifice for one’s cause and do so
efficiently and with joy;
* educate the masses about the reasons of Satyagraha campaigns and the benefits
of the just change sought;
*insist on a Swaraj (self-rule or home-rule) based on a people’s traditional,
spiritually-centered culture and values, and use these to create a just and
beneficent community and nation;
*devise community-based economic means and symbols that supported Swaraj
and Satyagraha efforts;
* and more.
The extended scope of Gandhi’s approach to civil disobedience in no way diminishes the
important contribution of Thoreau’s approach. One of the main reasons I point out the
differences is so that those who are familiar with Thoreau’s approach to civil disobedience (or
other streams that emanate from Thoreau) not make the mistake that such an approach is
13
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 67, excerpt from Young India,
October 20, 1921.
14
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 67, excerpt from Young India,
January 8, 1925.
240
identical to Gandhi’s, or vice versa. Much can be learned from both men’s approaches from
different points and situations in the human kaleidoscope of history. But as this book focuses on
Satyagraha, let’s further examine Gandhi’s approach.
FROM BASIC DEFINITION TO A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Gandhi described civil disobedience as “the active expression of non-violence.”
13
He
gave countless explanations of civil disobedience throughout his life, but I will focus on one that
framed civil disobedience in the context of three key lessons. He delved into the first lesson by
stating civil resisters:
“generally appreciate the laws of the State and obey them
voluntarily without the fear of punishment. Reasoned and willing
obedience to the laws of the State is the first lesson in non-co-
operation.”
14
(emphasis mine)
As stated earlier in the book, obedience to just laws teaches citizens how their cooperation
empowers laws -- no human law is obeyed simply because it is written. It also follows that
cooperating with an unjust law empowers that law and its corresponding injustice. Also stated
previously in the book, Gandhi held cooperation with a just government to be a duty for all
Satyagrahis. Without demonstrating obedience to just laws, he would strongly advise against
offering disobedience of unjust laws. In fact, the moral argument of disobedience to a law
because it’s unjust is rendered weak and hypocritical if we also disobey just laws.
Gandhi went on to explain the second lesson:
“The second [lesson] is that of tolerance. We must tolerate many
laws of the State, even when they are inconvenient. A son may not
approve of some orders of the father and yet he obeys them. It is