The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 67, excerpt from Young India,

January 8, 1925.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 67, excerpt from Young India,

January 8, 1925.

241

only when they are unworthy of tolerance and immoral that he

disobeys them. The father will at once understand such respectful

disobedience. In the same way it is only when a people have

proved their active loyalty by obeying the many laws of State that

they acquire the right of Civil Disobedience.”

(emphasis mine)

I am reminded of my childhood days of weekly chores: and yes, I hated cleaning the bathroom!

But my (sometimes unwilling) tolerance of this assigned task by my parents contributed to my

now highly appreciated learning of the importance of hygiene and cleanliness. This same

dynamic applies to state laws (and rules). Not all such laws will be enjoyable, and some may

certainly be uncomfortable. But discomfort does not suffice as a justifiable reason to disobey a

moral law. In realizing the fruit of the first lesson -- that our cooperation with a just law

contributes significantly to an orderly manifestation of justice -- we can develop an appreciation

for the call to tolerate all just laws. Nothing says that the manifestation and sustenance of justice

will be comfortable and convenient -- in fact, Gandhi’s call for civil resisters to be willing to

suffer and sacrifice should quickly dissolve that delusion. But even when just laws are

somewhat burdensome, we can examine ways to change such laws to be more efficient and less

troublesome within a sustained, tolerant obedience.

This brings us to the next lesson:

“The third lesson is that of suffering. He who has not the

capacity of suffering cannot non-co-operate. He who has not

learnt to sacrifice his property and even his family when necessary

can never non-co-operate. It is possible that a prince [or

government] enraged by non-co-operation will inflict all manner of

punishments. There lies the test of love, patience, and strength.

He who is not ready to undergo the fiery ordeal cannot non-co-

operate.”

(emphasis mine)

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 238 - 239, excerpt from Young

India, March 27, 1930.

242

Gandhi’s use of the word suffering can also include sacrifice. He also pointed out in the above

quote the importance of love, patience, and (soul-based) strength -- three components of

Satyagraha that have been strong themes throughout this book. Without these, we are less likely

to retain the purity and ahimsa of the Satyagraha approach to civil disobedience if met with a

violent response by our opponents. And just as it is morally weak to advocate against unmoral

laws while breaking moral laws, it is morally weak (and very dangerous!) to engage in civil

disobedience without first cultivating and embodying love, patience, strength, and other

components of Satyagraha.

Regarding civil disobedience, Gandhi explained that the danger of its use lays not in civil

disobedience itself:

“There is danger in civil disobedience only because it is still only a

partially tried remedy and has always to be tried in an atmosphere

surcharged with violence. For when tyranny is rampant much rage

is generated among the victims. It remains latent because of their

weakness and bursts in all its fury on the slightest pretext. Civil

disobedience is a sovereign method of transmitting this

undisciplined life-destroying latent energy into disciplined life-

saving energy whose use ensures absolute success. The

attendant risk is nothing compared to the result promised.”

(emphasis mine)

Gandhi was clear in stating any risk involved with offering civil disobedience is not in civil

disobedience itself, but in the atmosphere in which it may be utilized. And in this age of brutal

violence, many social and political atmospheres are charged with intense cycles of violence. It is

also worth noting that the risk involved compares not to “the result promised:” a changed

atmosphere in which no violence occurs -- and for those who mature Satyagraha toward its

fullness, they will manifest an atmosphere in which the possibility of violence doesn’t exist. The

creation of such an atmosphere was an explicit aim of civil disobedience:

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 240, excerpt from Young India,

March 27, 1930.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 239, excerpt from Young India,

March 27, 1930.

243

“The plan of civil disobedience has been conceived to neutralize

and ultimately entirely to displace violence and enthrone non-

violence in its stead, to replace hatred by love, to replace strife by

concord.”

For this and other reasons Gandhi was adamant in his demands on civil resisters to stay within

the bounds of Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience: because when engaging Truth-assured path

of success (such as Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience) it is extremely illogical to engage in

violent acts that are counter to the path of guaranteed success. And when more campaigns

treading this path attain at the guaranteed success, Satyagraha and civil disobedience will have a

world-wide impact. Gandhi stated:

“When the world has become familiar with its use and when it has

had a series of demonstrations of its successful working, there will

be less risk in civil disobedience than there is in aviation, in spite

of that science having reached a high stage of development.”

Thus, all who engage in Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience need be aware that if their

discipline remains within the necessary limitations they will achieve guaranteed successes that

will make future uses of civil disobedience less dangerous -- and possibly more potent. This

contributes to a self-perpetrating cycle since when Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience is less

risky, more people will be open to pursuing it even in violent and oppressive societies.

Despite the potential danger of offering civil disobedience in a violent age, it remains a

duty when dealing with an immoral government. This duty does not negate the need for

Satyagrahis to adequately prepare themselves and others to offer civil disobedience within the

scope of Satyagraha. But Gandhi declared:

“Civil disobedience therefore becomes a sacred duty when the

State has become lawless, or which is the same thing, corrupt.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 174, excerpt from Young India,

January 5, 1922.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 238, excerpt from Young India,

March 27, 1930.

244

And a citizen that barters with such a State shares its corruption or

lawlessness.”

The point about citizens sharing in the corruption of a state that they cooperate with is made

clearer in the following statement:

“You assist an administration most effectively by obeying its

orders and decrees. An evil administration never deserves such

allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good

man will therefore resist an evil system or administration with his

whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil State is therefore a

duty. Violent disobedience deals with men who can be replaced.

It leaves the evil itself untouched and often accentuates it. Non-

violent, i.e. civil, disobedience is the only and the most successful

remedy and is obligatory upon him who would dissociate himself

from evil.”

Cooperation with a government not only demonstrates our allegiance with that government (even

if it be an unwillingly allegiance), cooperation supports the efficient functioning of a government

as well as serves as a form of validating it. Cooperation also provides other benefits to a

government, such as money (i.e. taxes), service (even in the form of employment), and the

benefits of cooperative citizenry -- for example, when citizens do not break laws the government

does not have to engage in the enforcement of such laws or the pursuit of those who break such

laws. Careful reflection will show that these and other benefits of cooperation constitute a great

asset to the government such cooperation is given to. But if we seek and live Truth, justice, and

beneficence, why would we render such great assets to forces that live counter to these virtues --

especially when such cooperation makes us partners in the violation of these virtues? Thus, the

pursuit of and holding on to Truth, justice, and beneficence makes it a sacred duty to not

cooperate with those who violate these. And civil disobedience is an orderly and explicit manner

to demonstrate our non-cooperation. Now, the duty to non-cooperate doesn’t mean we must

245

proceed from cooperation to complete non-cooperation. Even Gandhi acknowledged the

appropriateness of levels of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, a topic that will be

addressed in the next chapter.

The above quote also mentioned the fallacy of violent disobedience. One aspect of this is

the use of violence. As has been addressed earlier in the book, the use of violence contributes to

the sustenance and continuance of cycles of violence: even an one second insult can culminate

into years of ongoing violence that include violent words, thoughts, and deeds. Another

common trait of violent disobedience is to target those who operate and work within a violent

system, and less often the system itself. Even today, I’m reminded of how much of the anti-war

organizing during the Iraq War (or invasion) that began in 2003 focused on George W. Bush,

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other high ranking officials in the government overseeing

aspects of the war. And the level of violence against these persons -- often in words and

thoughts, but also in public demonstrations -- was virulent from many who claim to stand for

justice and peace. But, as has occurred often in history, these individuals have been replaced and

yet the war continues on as I write these words. The violence of war and occupation continue to

be a prevalent reality in Iraq and other countries throughout the world subject to American

imperialism and military conquest. This speaks to one of the fallacies of violent disobedience:

its (often) inherent short-sightedness. The removal of individuals operating within an evil

system almost always leaves that system intact. And there is even a miscalculation in thinking

that the removal of an evil (destructive) system will suffice to bring about a beneficent and just

reality. In many modern unjust societies, citizens have been conditioned since birth to live

within an evil system, a conditioning that has spanned across generations. When such citizens

are faced with the removal of an evil system, they will usually put in its place another evil

system. In fact, these “new” systems often resemble the old systems, sometimes with some new

aspects in place to protect people from the more notable evils of the past systems. For example,

the creation of the American system of government eliminated monarchy in its quest for a just

system, but it did not eliminate corruption, unrestrained capitalism (which justified the practice

of chattel slavery, abuse of workers, and other exploitation), pursuit of military power and

conquest, the ability of the aristocracy to dominate government and society, and more. Without

a change in the moral character of the people, which must be achieved through individual

transformations that amount to collective shared values, the tendency to commit and live evil

(destruction) will continue among the people. Violent disobedience rarely involves a process of

transformation for the resisters and larger society that moves them from an immoral way of life

(or one that cooperates with immorality) to a moral and spiritual quest for Truth. An immoral

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 7, excerpt from Young India,

January 14, 1920.

246

way of life often condones violence and evil (destructive) outcomes that emanate from violence,

as evident by the use of violence as a way to demonstrate disobedience against a government.

The quest for Truth involves the cultivation of moral character and the beneficence that springs

from this; and its maturation will result in a spiritual maturity that results in people removing the

possibility of evil and violence (and the corresponding destruction) from their way of life.

Gandhi’s approach to civil disobedience acknowledged its use for the benefit of society.

He also stressed that the choice to break a law included a willing acceptance of the penalty for

breaking that law. He explained:

“The lawbreaker breaks the law surreptitiously and tries to avoid

the penalty, not so the civil resister. He ever obeys the laws of the

State to which he belongs, not out of fear of the sanctions but

because he considers them to be good for the welfare of society.

But there come occasions, generally rare, when he considers

certain laws to be so unjust as to render obedience to them a

dishonour. He then openly and civilly breaks them and quietly

suffers the penalty for their breach.”

Regarding the openness with which civil resisters break laws, I would point out that it was

common for Gandhi to announce, before doing so, what laws he planned break in acts of civil

disobedience. He also did not complain about being arrested or imprisoned for acts of civil

disobedience, nor did he seek an avoidance or reduction of imprisonment (or other penalties) for

these acts. Inherent in his approach was a cooperation with the legal principle that sanctions can

be imposed for breaches of the law. As he felt this was moral, he felt his cooperation with this

principle was a duty even for breaking immoral laws. He explored this point when he wrote:

“Our civil disobedience, therefore, must not be carried beyond the

point of breaking the unmoral laws of the country. Breach of the

laws to be civil assumes the strictest and willing obedience to gaol

[jail] discipline because disobedience of a particular rule assumes a

willing acceptance of the sanction provided for its breach. And

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 60, excerpt from Young India,

December 15, 1921.

247

immediately a person quarrels both with the rule and the sanction

for its breach, he ceases to be civil and lends himself to the

precipitation of chaos and anarchy.”

Gandhi’s adherence to this point contributed, in part, to him spending considerable time (many

years of his life) in jail, sometimes being convicted to long maximum sentences despite his

publicly known commitment to morality and ahimsa (non-violence). (And this was within a

judicial system that allowed court officials to consider a person’s moral character to be a factor

for lessening jail sentences.) Yet, Gandhi accepted such imprisonment without complaint,

willing to pay whatever price necessary to affect the beneficent and just change he sought. His

example is a telling lesson to some “non-violent” protestors who seek to avoid or minimize

sanctions imposed on them for acts of civil disobedience, or even decry such sanctions as unjust.

If such protestors hold the principle of sanctions for breaches of law to be unjust, it’s probably

best that they not engage in Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience. And if they seek to offer civil

disobedience against the principle of imposing sanctions for breaches of law, it would benefit

them to clearly state their positions before engaging in such civil disobedience and find ways to

emphasize their position. Yet, the same condition of reserving Satyagraha-guided civil

disobedience as a last resort would apply to challenging this principle, meaning all other

reasonable means to affect change must have been attempted prior to offering civil disobedience

against this principle. But if we hold the legal principle of sanctions for breaches of law to be

just -- and most of us do -- Gandhi would encourage us to accept whatever sanctions imposed

quietly, even if the sanctions imposed within existing law are extreme. He would disapprove of

civil resisters pleading “not guilty” to acts of civil disobedience they committed or asking for

leniency in sentencing; and he may even consider such acts untruthful and hypocritical.

Also, in line with Gandhi’s approach to suffering and sacrifice, he advised civil resisters

who commit civil disobedience to accept any sanctions for such with joy. He wrote that civil

disobedience:

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 4, excerpt from Young India,

March 23, 1921.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 175.

248

“signified the resister’s outlawry in a civil, i.e., non-violent

manner. [The civil resister] invoked the sanctions of the law and

cheerfully suffered imprisonment.”

He regarded the act of civil disobedience as the factor that invokes the sanction: without the

breach of the law, there would be no sanction. And if we don’t want to expose ourselves to

potential sanctions (including extreme ones), we should not engage in civil disobedience.

Therefore, civil resisters are largely responsible for whatever sanctions are imposed, and take on

these sanctions as they would other forms of suffering and sacrifice to be bore in Satyagraha

work. Just as with confronting cycles of violence, Satyagrahis may have to bear great amounts

of violence to bring such cycles to an end; this same principle applies to those who seek justice

possibly having to bear great amounts of injustice to bring cycles of injustice to an end. And as

Gandhi held that Satyagrahis should embrace suffering and sacrifice with joy, the same applies

with sanctions for civil disobedience. In fact, if we are not capable of bearing arrest,

imprisonments, fines, loss of citizen privileges, loss of property, and other sanctions with joy,

Gandhi would advise against us engaging in civil disobedience. He would certainly be troubled

by civil resisters who complained or looked unfavorably upon sanctions imposed for their civil

disobedience. As long as the sanctions imposed do not humiliate civil resisters or offend their

self-respect, Gandhi expected them to bear such sanctions happily. And he fulfilled this

expectation within colonized India, where the arrest process and imprisonment could be very

unpleasant -- and even extreme for civil resisters who were treated as political prisoners.

Gandhi noted that the use of civil disobedience, particularly when it is effective, often

generates condemnation from one’s opponents. He observed, “As soon as it was proved that the

Indian could put up a manly fight, he came to be regarded as a danger.”

(Note that Gandhi is

referring to a non-violent fight within the means of Satyagraha.) In India, this condemnation

resulted in civil resisters being labeled as unlawful rebels, terrorists, extremists, unpatriotic

insurgents, criminals -- and even anarchists who wanted to dissolve any sense of law, order, and

civilization. With such labels came implicit and explicit inferences that civil disobedience was

to be blamed for any violence (rightly or wrongly) associated with it. Despite these and other

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 60, excerpt from Young India,

December 15, 1921.

249

labels, Gandhi insisted that genuine civil disobedience existed within the scope of law, order,

and the freedom of opinion and its expression -- a right of any just civilization. He explained:

“But I hold the opinion firmly that civil disobedience is the purest

type of constitutional agitation. Of course it becomes degrading

and despicable if its civil, i.e., non-violent character is a mere

camouflage. If the honesty of non-violence be admitted, there is

no warrant for condemnation even of the fiercest disobedience

because of the likelihood of its leading to violence. No big or

swift movement can be carried on without bold risks and life will

not be worth living if it is not attended with large risks.”

Gandhi pointed out one key reason an unjust government may label civil resisters as dangerous:

that a civil resister “is dangerous for an autocratic State, for he brings about its fall by engaging

public opinion upon the matter for which he resists the State.” Thus, to combat this,

governments often launch attacks upon civil resisters in the space of public opinion. So civil

resisters should not find these attacks surprising. But neither should they fall into the trap of

engaging in a (violent) war of words in the realm of public dialogue: there is rarely a need to

counter or respond to such attacks since civil disobedience and Satyagraha work are sufficient to

speak for themselves in the face of any attacks.

CLOSING WORDS

This chapter provided a basic definition and conceptual framework for civil disobedience

(which incorporates non-cooperation). I encourage the readers to have a firm understanding of

this definition before proceeding to the next chapters, which will explore how Gandhi carried out

this definition and conceptual framework in the social and political landscape of human activity.

˜ ˜ ˜

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 4, excerpt from Young India, March

23, 1921.

250

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Civil Disobedience: Application of a Last Resort

Part One

“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.”

I repeat this opening quote from the last chapter because it stated a few key points about

Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience. First, that it can be offered by those who understand it,

even children, and applied on a mass level. Second, that it is a means to be used as a last resort.

In many respects, the entire book up to this point presented many of the foundational

components necessary before offering Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience. And if we

understand and live what the previous chapters covered, we will be well on the way to becoming

fit to offer civil disobedience. So once we have reached this point, what lessons can we garner

from Gandhi’s experience to guide us in the science of applying civil disobedience to our

particular situations? The next two chapters explore this question with the intent of providing a

guiding framework to inform how civil resisters can address the specific challenges they face in

their quests for Truth, justice, and beneficence. These chapters won’t provide a step-by-step list

of tasks and tactics civil resisters can employ, since Satyagraha leaves the contemplation of such

to individuals and groups within the specific situations they face. And clearly, a genuine