The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 333, excerpt from Young India,

May 1, 1930.

261

to a situation in which Satyagraha supporters in Peshawar (a city in India prior to partition, now

in Pakistan) ended up committing violence:

“Those who not being sure of perfect non-violence being

observed, do not take an active part in the struggle, are most

assuredly helping it. Those who wanting to serve take part in it

and violence results, as happened at Peshawar, are as assuredly

harming the movement. That the people in Peshawar meant well I

have no doubt. They are perhaps more impatient (if such a thing

were possible) than I am to win freedom. But nobody can get

freedom today in this land except through non-violence. We

cannot get India’s freedom through the way of violence; we are

within reach of it, if we would but keep up non-violence to the end.

The way lies not through the burning of armoured cars and taking

the lives of administrators of the Government machinery; it lies

through disciplined organized self-suffering. I deeply regret the

occurrences in Peshawar. Brave lives have been thrown away

without the cause itself being served.”

(emphasis mine)

Peshawar was surely not the only incident where this type of violence occurred. But the

standard that Gandhi held to was clear, as was his reasoning. And the same standard still applies

to anyone who engages in Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience: we must completely refrain

from violence even in the face of great provocation and violence being inflicted upon us. Any

doubt to our ability to meet this measure should guide us to voluntarily remove ourselves from

activities that may result in us committing violence (words, thoughts, deeds, etc.) -- even if this

means we refrain from any involvement in Satyagraha activities. There were enough incidents in

the Indian Swaraj campaigns to show that an act of violence committed by those involved in

Satyagraha activities most often created more harm than the benefits of having such persons

involved in such activities.

Despite the great emphasis Gandhi placed on warning Satyagraha participants and

supporters of the dangers of violence, he was realistic to know there would likely be incidents of

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 275, excerpt from Young India,

May 8, 1930.

262

violence committed by those on the side of Satyagraha. There were numerous reasons for this:

ranging from the multi-generational social conditioning of the people in a culture that accepted

violence to the people’s need for continual spiritual development to fully embrace Satyagraha.

Yet, Gandhi saw the need to make peace with himself for continuing to engage people in

Satyagraha work even when they committed violence. To this point he wrote:

“I know the dangers attendant upon the methods adopted by me. ...

And I have been saying for the last fifteen years in India and

outside for twenty years more and repeat now that the only way to

conquer violence is through non-violence pure and undefiled. I

have said also that every violent act, word and thought interferes

with the progress of non-violent action. If in spite of such repeated

warnings people will resort to violence, I must disown

responsibility save such as inevitably attaches to every human

being for the acts of every other human being.”

Do not misinterpret this statement as Gandhi completely absolving of himself of responsibility

for acts of violence by Satyagraha participants and their supporters. He regarded the

responsibility for one person’s acts as shared by all humans in our collective existence as a very

serious responsibility. The realization of this collective responsibility, in part, spurred his

commitment to work toward the benefit of others via beneficent and just change. The weight of

this responsibility was something he held with great awareness and was a strong presence in his

search for Truth and the development of Satyagraha. And he was known to be very deeply

troubled by acts of violence committed by those on the side of Satyagraha, incidents that moved

him to embark on numerous fasts to purify himself (from perhaps his disappointment, sadness,

and sense of guilt) and others.

Gandhi’s realization of this shared responsibility for acts of violence among all humanity

moved him to vehemently pursue ways to end all violence. In the context of people suffering

oppression under an unjust government, he saw the importance of the victims of such injustice

being able to express their feelings to affect change -- especially if the feelings evolved to a point

of fury. He explained:

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 117, excerpt from Young India,

May 5, 1920.

263

“But it is no easy task to restrain the fury of a people incensed by a

deep sense of wrong. I urge those who talk or work against non-

co-operation to descend from their chairs and go down to the

people, learn their feelings and write, if they have the heart, against

non-co-operation. They will find, as I have found, that the only

way to avoid violence is to enable them to give such expression to

their feelings as to compel redress. I have found nothing save non-

co-operation. It is logical and harmless. It is the inherent right of

a subject to refuse to assist a government that will not listen to

him.”

I stress that Gandhi stated “expression to their feelings to compel redress.” This is a very

important point. Over the years, some unjust governments (and other entities) have sought to

give oppressed groups a place or means to “express themselves” (or their dissatisfaction) as a

way to calm and temper outrage and resistance. These avenues for expression, whether as a

street protest or writing letters of dissent, are often reduced to shallow gestures with no real

possibility (or expectation) of affecting beneficent and just change: such gestures will not be

taken seriously by the governments that allow (or sometimes facilitate) them to happen. And

without an impetus (or at times, leadership) among the people to commit to an appropriate

escalation of non-cooperation, most people will not go beyond these shallow gestures and,

therefore, not attain beneficent and just change. This tendency holds true doubly for those who

have limited or no knowledge of Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience. Even some in the

community organizing, peace, and social justice fields have fallen into this trap: content to have

done “something” but they lack a genuine resolve to achieve beneficent and just change. Any

acts of expression that lack the commitment to beneficent and just change run the risk of using

such expression as a laxative that soothes discontent but falls short of genuine civil resistance

committed to outcomes of beneficence and justice. Often, as the social scripts of discontent

proceed, you find people organizing repeated campaigns of limited expression over the same

issues that may relieve people but not change their situation. And when these exercises of

expression lose their relieving qualities, people usually abandon such expression to often fall

into great states of apathy, or the fury behind their expressions escalate to greater levels of

violence in words, thoughts, and sometimes actions. I’m reminded of the social scene in

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 121, excerpt from Young India,

July 21, 1920.

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. 32, excerpt from Young India,

January 21, 1920.

264

America during the 1960s, in which the shallow expressions of previous years laid the

groundwork for increased violence: ranging from increased racial violence (i.e. Whites attacking

and killing civil rights workers) to riots in urban areas plagued by decades of poverty and

neglect. Suffice it to say, we should take Gandhi’s warning about providing people the means to

express their feelings to compel redress very seriously.

When such expressions to compel redress are successful in affecting change (even if

requiring appropriate escalation of non-cooperation), Gandhi felt these successes would lead to

an end of all violence. He declared: “Once the infallibility of non-co-operation is realized, there

is an end to all bloodshed and violence in any shape or form.”

The guaranteed success of

Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience not only makes violence pointless for those on the side of

Satyagraha, it also makes violence pointless for opponents on the other side. The opponents’

realization of this may take time and require patience and tolerance from Satyagrahis but the fact

remains that within Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience:

“A civil resister never uses arms and hence he is harmless to a

State that is at all willing to listen to the voice of public opinion.”

And, as has been stated earlier, this discouragement from using violence applies not only to civil

resisters but also their supporters. On commenting about the pledge to be taken of supporters of

civil resisters, Gandhi said:

“For those who were not civil resisters, therefore, another vow was

devised asking people to follow truth at all costs and to refrain

from violence.”

I will conclude this section addressing violence against property and inanimate objects.

Some have argued that sabotage (i.e., blowing up a bridge or government building) which does

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 371, excerpt from Harijan, April

13, 1940.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 378, excerpt from Harijan,

February 10, 1946.

265

not harm or kill living beings (or sometimes just humans) could be a justified tactic that fits

within the ahimsa (non-violence) code. Some have stated that such destruction can serve as a

powerful symbol of the resistance and will of the people to no longer cooperate with injustice

and oppression. Others have said that the use of such sabotage can quicken the process of

affecting just and beneficent change. Gandhi flatly rejected all such arguments as having no

place within the Satyagraha path:

“I have never been able to understand this reasoning. It is pure

violence. Satyagraha is self-suffering and not inflicting suffering

on others. There is surely often more violence in burning a man’s

property than doing him physical injury. Have not so-called

Satyagrahis preferred imprisonment to fines or confiscation of

their property?”

He supplemented the above point with the following about government property and the ability

of governments to function within an atmosphere that utilized sabotage as an appropriate means

to register disagreement with a government:

“In the first place, conceding that Government property is national

property -- which today [in colonized India] it is not -- I may not

destroy it because I am dissatisfied with the Government. But

even a national Government will be unable to carry on for a day if

everybody claimed the right to destroy bridges, communications,

roads, etc., because he disapproved of some of its activities.

Moreover, the evil resides not in bridges, roads, etc., which are

inanimate objects but in men. It is the latter who need to be

tackled. The destruction of bridges, etc. by means of explosives

does not touch this evil but only provokes a worse evil in the place

of the one it seeks to end.”

(emphasis mine)

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 379, excerpt from Harijan,

February 10, 1946.

266

And, as has been discussed throughout this book, Satyagraha has many ways of addressing the

evil acts humans commit.

But Gandhi had another reason for rejecting sabotage: that its use does not cultivate the

courage needed to affect beneficent and just change. It is worth noting that, historically, most

sabotage is done in indirect ways: for example, bombs are often planted secretly and detonated in

the absence of those who placed them there, even if responsibility for the bombing is later

claimed. This lack of directly facing one’s opponents is a tendency that does not require the

courage or strength to face one’s opponents openly and directly -- and some may say, such

approaches induce or are tolerable of cowardice and weakness, traits Gandhi rejected.

Throughout time, people have invented new ways to justify the use of sabotage, although Gandhi

saw these “new” justifications are nothing but refurbished old arguments:

“It is an old argument... Sabotage is a form of violence. People

have realized the futility of physical violence but some people

apparently think that it may be successfully practised in its

modified form as sabotage. It is my conviction that the whole

mass of people would not have risen to the height of courage

and fearlessness that they have but for the working of full non-

violence. How it works we do not yet fully know. But the fact

remains that under non-violence we have progressed from

strength to strength even through our apparent failures and

setbacks. On the other hand terrorism resulted in demoralization.

Haste leads to waste.”

(emphasis mine)

Thus, Gandhi not only rejected sabotage because it is a form of violence, but also because it

undercuts the Satyagraha path of developing (soul-based) strength, and progressing from

strength to strength along this path to affect just and beneficent change.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 67 - 68, excerpt from Young India,

January 8, 1925.

267

MOVING TO MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

“A whole people cannot be considered fit or ready for non-co-

operation when only an individual or two have mastered these

three lessons.

A large number of the people must be thus

prepared before they can non-co-operate. The result of hasty

non-co-operation can only lead to harm. ... Previous

preparation is needed for non-co-operation as it is for all

important things. A man cannot become a non-co-operator by

merely wishing to be one. Discipline is obligatory.”

[** NOTE: The three lessons refer to the key lessons of civil disobedience

mentioned in the previous chapter: 1) reasoned and willing obedience to laws; 2)

tolerance, and; 3) suffering.]

Gandhi had many reasons for insisting on preparation of the masses before engaging in

mass civil disobedience. Without the necessary development and discipline among civil resisters

and (to a lesser extent) their supporters, offering mass civil disobedience could result in great

disaster -- and sometimes a disaster worse than the injustices the people sought to change. But

there is another very important reason Gandhi emphasized preparation prior to mass engagement

of civil disobedience, as reflected in his comments on a situation in Kathiawad, a section of

India:

“I do not know that many have undergone the needful discipline

[and preparation] in any part of Kathiawad. And when the

requisite discipline has been gone through probably non-co-

operation will be found to be unnecessary.

“As it is, I observe the necessity for individuals to prepare

themselves in Kathiawad as well as in other parts of India.

Individuals must cultivate the spirit of service, renunciation, truth,

non-violence, self-restraint, patience, etc. They must engage in

constructive work in order to develop these qualities. Many

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 68, excerpt from Young India,

January 8, 1925.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 379, excerpt from Young India,

April 1, 1926.

268

reforms would be effected automatically if we put in a good deal of

silent work among the people.”

As the layout of this book demonstrates, the vast majority of Satyagraha exists beyond the realm

of civil disobedience. And Gandhi required that these qualities be studied, understood, and lived

prior to engaging any forms of civil disobedience. Thus, if in the Satyagraha development

process, people grow and change -- within themselves individually and collectively -- to a point

where they attain states of beneficence and justice that extend beyond the reach of present

injustices, there may be no need to offer civil disobedience to address such injustices. Also, such

growth may transform a situation such as to render injustice impotent in the presence of the

beneficence and justice that emanates from persons transformed by the Satyagraha development

process. If just and beneficent change can be achieved (through such transformation) in a way

that doesn’t require the risk of offering civil disobedience in a violent age, then civil resisters

need not utilize civil disobedience or invite potential hardship by offering it. Remember,

Satyagrahis should avoid needless suffering, and this includes not needlessly invoking potential

suffering and sacrifice via civil disobedience. Ultimately, whether civil disobedience is applied

or not, the Satyagraha solution to injustice and oppression lays in the people themselves. Civil

disobedience is merely a last resort to be used so that the solution of people seeking Truth,

justice, and beneficence may be brought to the forefront of social situations. Gandhi wrote:

“My opinion is becoming daily more and more confirmed that we

shall achieve our real freedom only by effort from within, i.e., by

self-purification and self-help, and therefore by the strictest

adherence to truth and non-violence. Civil Disobedience is no

doubt there in the background.”

In understanding the above points, Satyagrahis should never advocate civil disobedience

without first cultivating themselves (and sometimes others), through rigorous preparation, to

offer civil disobedience to the standards set by Satyagraha. This principle is even more vital

when considering mass civil disobedience since it involves larger groups of people, larger risks,

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 110, excerpt from Young India,

May 12, 1920.

269

and the potential for greater impacts -- whether they be beneficent or destructive outcomes. If

people can be their own solution without invoking civil disobedience, let them do so: because

even after any successful application of civil disobedience the people will need to be the

continuing solution of living and upholding beneficence and justice. Too many in today’s age

have put civil disobedience on a higher pedestal than it deserves, and often seek it prematurely as

a treatment overused. Others look to utilize mass civil disobedience for purposes counter to

manifesting situations where the people are their own living solutions. Therefore, any calls to

“take it to the streets” prior to individuals living Satyagraha within are gravely misguided -- even

if such calls have become common due to misguided understandings of Satyagraha and civil

disobedience.

In stressing the “last resort” aspect of Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience: if a

significant portion of a group has been adequately prepared to offer civil disobedience, and the

transformation of such collective individual development still requires civil disobedience to

address prevailing injustice(s), only then is it appropriate to offer mass civil disobedience. One

key element in preparing for mass civil disobedience is the development of collective strength.

Gandhi addressed how he approached the development of this type of strength among oppressed

people under an unjust government:

“By allying myself with the weak party, by teaching him direct,

firm, but harmless action, I make him feel strong and capable of

defying the physical might. He feels braced for the struggle,

regains confidence in himself and knowing that the remedy lies

with himself, ceases to harbour the spirit of revenge and learns to

be satisfied with a redress of the wrong he is seeking to remedy.”

It is extremely difficult to cultivate collective strength among individuals who have not

developed (or are developing) their own individual strength. In other words, a group of weak

persons cannot be made collectively strong. The Satyagraha path has ways of cultivating the

individual soul-based strength that becomes the foundation for collective strength, particularly

through constructive service which Gandhi endlessly encouraged. When a very strong person

allies one’s self with other (lesser) strong persons, these other strong persons can be made to feel

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 171, excerpt from Young India,

August 4, 1921.

270

stronger. And Gandhi supplemented this openness to greater strength with Satyagraha-based

education, teaching these persons things that actually made them stronger. A number of

religious and spiritual traditions acknowledge the great difficulty of a person acquiring great

strength if one is not open to the possibility of attaining such. Through his compassion, Gandhi

helped others overcome this difficulty by allying himself (and his great strength) with people

developing their strengths. In cultivating greater strength, the residues of weakness can be

removed, such as feelings of doubt and wants for revenge. Signs of acquiring greater strength

will include a greater cooperation among group members and a genuine, lasting unity -- even

among groups with histories of conflict. Without great collective strength it is unwise to embark

on mass civil disobedience. When a group stands as a group it is less likely to fall to attacks

targeted at individuals of that group, just as a hand balled in a fist can bear a greater force

without breaking than any of the individual fingers can. It is a common tactic among evil

(violent) forces to attack the weaknesses of their opponents before testing their strengths -- if

such forces even have the courage to attack the strengths of beneficent and just beings.

With strength comes calmness, another essential quality for mass civil disobedience.

Gandhi stated:

“Mass civil disobedience stands on a different footing. It can only

be tried in a calm atmosphere. It must be the calmness of strength

not weakness, of knowledge not ignorance.”

The necessity for calm lays, in part, with the risks of offering civil disobedience in an age of

brute force in which our opponents may respond with violence. With the power embedded in

mass civil disobedience, unjust governments (and other entities) may be moved to respond to

even disciplined, orderly, and peaceful non-cooperation by groups with great levels of violence.

The potential escalation of violence in a volatile atmosphere can result in a single argument

between two individuals escalating into nation-wide riots. Gandhi would view offering mass

civil disobedience within such a situation as unwise, and possibly hold civil resisters responsible

for the violence created in such a situation. But if civil resisters carry themselves in a strength-

based calmness, their presence alone can create a calm atmosphere which influences others to

remain calm -- especially if the civil resisters have a mature spiritual purity. Such civil resisters