The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 368 - 369, excerpt from Harijan,

July 29, 1939.

281

organized they have more wealth and resources through their

labour than the capitalists through their money.”

In this context, Satyagraha-based education would enable the peasants to discover within

themselves and things already at their disposal much of what they need to engage in civil

disobedience. This includes their labor which can be used to attain other resources: if they need

something, they can find work to obtain such for their campaign -- even if they work for a salary

to be used to buy what they need. Within such a formula, Satyagraha-based education is the

requirement, not money; because without Satyagraha-based education the peasants may not even

realize the possibility of offering their labor to acquire what they need for their campaign.

Gandhi applied this basic principle to a range of civil disobedience and Satyagraha efforts

throughout his work in India: the requirement always being Satyagraha values and traits, not

money and material things that can be acquired (if needed) through applying these values and

traits.

It is important to distinguish that the use of money doesn’t mean that it is essential to a

campaign. To return to the example of me using my computer to type this book, my use of the

computer in no way makes it essential to writing this book. Yes, there are certain benefits to

using a computer (namely the ability to save large files, make quicker edits, and utilize search

functions), but if I had no computer I would still write this book by virtue of my commitment.

To write out many drafts of the book by hand and sort through hundreds of pages of research

may make the writing process longer, but if such is necessary then the Satyagraha trait of

patience will be well served. And it may be that by writing out the first few drafts by hand and

sharing them with others, that someone else may allow me to use her or his computer -- or

perhaps give me a computer to complete the book. In the increasing materialism and greed of

the modern age, money and material things have been made overly important in the minds of

humans. This mental and social conditioning has extended to the point where many regard the

use of money or material things in an effort as rendering these essential to that effort. Such

thinking has often resulted in minimizing, sometimes completely, the importance of values,

traits, and capabilities that can be developed by a person or community. Thus, many in the

community organizing, peace, and social justice fields will seek money and material resources

before developing morality, courage, understanding, a capacity to love, and other values and

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 198.

282

traits withing themselves and among the people they work with or serve. If this is our approach,

money and material resources can be perceived as “essential” within a flawed perspective.

Gandhi’s approach was counter to this: he sought the presence and development of Satyagraha

values and traits first before even considering any possible need for money or material

resources. In fact, he sought values and traits even if it required him to be an unpaid teacher in a

community for an extended period of time -- living off of charity instead of a salary was a

practice he willingly embraced as part of his vow of non-possession. And to the extent he

demonstrated this approach honoring the ideal of non-possession, he became a living example

for millions around the world of the power and benefits of progressing toward the ideal of non-

possession.

Keeping in line with the ideal of non-possession, Gandhi felt Satyagraha organizations

should also live day to day. He explained:

“I have no doubt that the ideal is for public institutions to live, like

nature, from day to day. The institution that fails to win public

support has no right to exist as such. The subscriptions [or

contributions] that an institution annually receives are a test of its

popularity and the honesty of its management; and I am of opinion

that every institution should submit to that test.”

Note that Gandhi emphasized that contributions should be given to a Satyagraha organization on

the basis of the people determining that it should exist. This consideration includes how well the

organization is run as well as how well it serves a purpose the people deem worthwhile. This

differs from many contemporary fund development approaches that often downplay, if not

completely exclude, whether an organization functions well as a reason to contribute to it.

Instead, the cause(s) the organization seeks to address is emphasized, and usually in the context

of the organization telling the public its cause is important. Sometimes this is done in dishonest

ways that hide blatant mismanagement of funds and the indulgence of greed via exorbitant

salaries and luxurious facilities. Gandhi found these and other immoral tendencies to be more

common among organizations with permanent (or long-term) sources of funding:

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 198.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 73, excerpt from Young India,

October 13, 1927.

283

“And now after considerable experience with the many public

institutions which I have managed, it has become my firm

conviction that it is not good to run public institutions on

permanent funds. A permanent fund carries in itself the seed of the

moral fall of the institution. A public institution means an

institution conducted with the approval, and from the funds, of the

public. When such an institution ceases to have public support, it

forfeits its right to exist. Institutions maintained on permanent

funds are often found to ignore public opinion, and are frequently

responsible for acts contrary to it.”

Such permanent (or long-term) funding can include endowments, wealthy benefactors, and

grants (from foundations, corporations, and governments) that are given with little to no

consideration of the larger masses. As a result, many organizations in pursuit of such funding

have catered more to wealthy or well-connected select groups over the masses of people they

claim to serve. Many organizations seek their continued existence as a goal more important than

serving the will of the people and having such service be the means of their continued existence.

But Gandhi identified a solution to this approach and all the immoral problems that emanate

from it: to rely on funding that is short-term oriented (such as year to year) and provided by the

masses. He acknowledged that it may make sense to exclude certain things from this short-term

based approach to funding, like an organization owning a building. But he clearly stated the

operational funds of a Satyagraha organization should be short-term based and overwhelmingly

composed of contributions from the masses. This will be another influence to help prevent

organizations from ignoring or overlooking the concerns of the masses. Any organization that

seeks to utilize civil disobedience, particularly mass civil disobedience, must see that it keeps the

concerns of the masses always in the forefront of its operation. If it does not, Gandhi would

regard it better that such an organization no longer exist. The termination of organizations and

emergence of new ones within such an approach would be acceptable to Gandhi.

Once organizations receive public money (i.e., contributions), Gandhi warned: “Strictest

honesty and care are necessary in the handling of public funds.”

His approach to the careful

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 52.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 151.

284

handling of public money emanates from his own personal practice toward money, as he

reflected:

“I kept account of every farthing I spent, and my expenses were

carefully calculated. Every little item, such as omnibus fares or

postage or a couple of coppers spent on newspapers, would be

entered, and the balance struck every evening before going to bed.

That habit has stayed with me ever since, and I know that as a

result, though I have had to handle public funds amounting to

lakhs

, I have succeeded in exercising strict economy in their

disbursement, and instead of outstanding debts have had invariably

a surplus balance in respect of all the movements I have led. Let

every youth take a leaf out of my book and make it a point to

account for everything that comes into and goes out of his pocket,

and like me he is sure to be a gainer in the end.”

[**NOTE: A lakh is equivalent to one hundred thousand dollars.]

Let every Satyagrahi and Satyagraha organization take heed of this practice: its application can

greatly reduce, if not completely end, individuals and organizations operating with minimal

funds or in debt. Also note, that although Gandhi did not regard money as essential, he still held

careful use and accounting of it as greatly important. He did this, in part, because: “Without

properly kept accounts it is impossible to maintain truth in its pristine purity.”

Therefore, it is

no exaggeration to say that any individual or organization that honors Gandhi should not be

wasteful or in debt. All Satyagrahis would be wise to “count your pennies and use them wisely,”

as many of my grandparents often advised.

Following the previous paragraph, the next point should come as no surprise:

“I had learnt at the outset not to carry on public work with

borrowed money. One could rely on people’s promises in most

matters except in respect of money. I had never found people

quick to pay the amounts they had undertaken to subscribe

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 150.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 151.

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

April 3, 1930.

285

[donate], and the Natal Indians [in South Africa] were no

exception to the rule. As, therefore, no work was done unless there

were funds on hand, the Natal Indian Congress has never been in

debt.”

One certain way to avoid debt is simply to not spend money you don’t have. And this includes

money promised but not yet received. This lesson probably has even greater weight in an age

where credit (credit cards, payday loans, etc.) is often freely given with predatory conditions

attached. The negative implications of an organization working to affect just and beneficent

change operating from a place of a debt can be great, including: less efficient (wasteful) use of

money to cover the additional costs of paying debt (i.e. interest rates), questioned competence,

diminished reputation and public opinion, loss of trust and future contributions from the public,

etc.

Another helpful practice to avoiding debt lays in another of Gandhi’s financial practices:

“I had long learnt the principle of never having more money at

one’s disposal than necessary.”

This principle combined with the practice of not spending money we don’t have not only

protects us from debt but also wastefulness and extravagance. Gandhi was adamant in declaring

extravagance has no place in Satyagraha, especially civil disobedience campaigns. He shared

the following while offering civil disobedience against the Salt Tax, in which he and others

marched from town to town to bring attention to their campaign:

“Extravagance has no room in this campaign. If we cannot gather

crowds unless we carry on a hurricane expensive propaganda, I

would be satisfied to address half a dozen men and women.

Success depends not upon our high skill. It depends solely upon

God {Truth}. And He {It} only helps the vigilant and humble.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 243 - 244, excerpt from Young

India, April 3, 1940.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 222.

286

One of the reasons for this stance, besides just the wastefulness, is that extravagance is often a

characteristic of unjust individuals and governments. How would Gandhi look enriching himself

with a palace and fancy clothes while engaging in efforts to address the injustice of the British

monarchy who also had palaces and fancy clothes? Besides the hypocrisy of such an approach,

Gandhi saw the wisdom of creating clear contrasts between himself and his unjust opponents --

the same way he sought to distinguish Satyagraha from common characteristics of violence.

This clarity of contrast strengthened his ability to influence public opinion. In fact, he held to

this position even in rejecting forms of extravagance the masses, in their admiration of him,

sought to freely give to him and his fellow marchers:

“We are marching in the name of God {Truth}. We profess to act

on behalf of the hungry, the naked and the unemployed. I have no

right to criticize the Viceregal salary, if we are costing the country

say fifty times seven pice, the average daily income of our people.

... What else can be the result if they [the people] will fetch for me

from whatever source possible, the choicest oranges and grapes, if

they will bring 120 when I should want 12 oranges, if when I need

one pound of milk, they will produce three? What else can be the

result if we would take all the dainties you may place before us

under the excuse that we would hurt your feeling, if we did not

take them. ... And then imagine me with an easy conscience

writing the Viceregal letter on costly glazed paper with a fountain

pen, a free gift from some accommodating friend!!! Will this

behove [sic] you and me? Can a letter so written produce the

slightest effect?”

The moral hypocrisy of accepting costly gifts, even those offered by the impetus of the people,

moved Gandhi to write: “I am definitely of opinion that a public worker should accept no costly

gifts.”

Such acceptance not only greases the slide to immoral temptation (i.e. corruption), it

also weakens the moral validity of anyone who stands upon and holds to Truth.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 181, excerpt from Young India,

May 1, 1924.

287

Another point, which I cannot present as a settled principle of Gandhi, is the question of

who Satyagraha organizations should accept money from. Let me share the quote that raised this

issue for me. Gandhi wrote the following about a campaign to end untouchability at a Hindu

temple in Vykom, India:

So far as non-Hindu assistance is concerned, I am as clear about

such pecuniary [monetary] help as I am about such personal help.

I may not build my Hindu temple with non-Hindu money. If I

desire a place of worship I must pay for it. This removal of

untouchability is much more than building a temple of brick and

mortar. Hindus must bleed for it, must pay for it. ... As for

accepting assistance from Hindus from outside [of Vykom], such

acceptance would betray unreadiness on the part of the local

Hindus for the reform. If the Satyagrahis have the sympathy of the

local Hindus, they must get locally all the money they may need.

If they have not, the very few who may offer Satyagraha must be

content to starve.”

(emphasis mine)

The above definitely brings up some important points for discussion. First, let me be clear that

the Swaraj effort in India was not supported by solely Hindu money. The effort involved people

among various religions and ethnicities, and members of all these diverse groups contributed

financial support. But in considering anything that is specific to a particular group, Gandhi’s

words indicate a clear preference that such support come from that group alone. This, for

example, would imply that Satyagraha efforts only accept money from Satyagrahis. With groups

that are open to a wide range of people, this is no problem. For Satyagrahis, this would mean

only accepting material support from those who walk the Satyagraha path. And it excludes

individuals and groups that do not embrace Satyagraha (and its values): including most

foundations, governments, and corporations that do not ascribe to the Satyagraha ways. This

clearly eliminates many common sources of material support for many community organizing,

peace, and social justice organizations. And from the limited research I’ve been able to garner

regarding material support for Gandhi’s efforts, he did not accept support from the colonial

British government or unjust businesses and organizations. This is counter to the contemporary

288

practice of some organizations working for just and beneficent change accepting material

support from governments, corporations, individuals, and other entities that are clearly unjust

and destructive.

But Gandhi’s words go even further in limiting appropriate sources of material support:

indicating a strong preference that such support be limited to the local community in which a

campaign is being conducted. This would, for example, rule out people from outside

Montgomery, Alabama, contributing to the famous bus boycott that began in 1955. This

emphasis on local-based efforts is a running theme in Satyagraha, so it is no surprise that Gandhi

would also apply it to accepting material support. But some of the Swaraj efforts with the Indian

National Congress (which he worked with at times) do not appear to have been as strict with

local limits for material support: that with the Congress supporting simultaneous locally-based

campaigns, it appears some money raised in one area of India may have been used to support

work in other areas. Not having access to research addressing such material support, I cannot

present a more definitive account.

Either way, Gandhi’s words indicate a preference that we can treat like the ideal of non-

possession: something to always keep in the forefront of our awareness and progress toward

even if we cannot meet the ideal presently. And the ideal for material support appears to be only

to accept local-based material contributions from those within one’s value-based group: i.e.,

Satyagraha organizations within a town only accepting material support from Satyagrahis in that

town. Gandhi felt so strongly about this point that he preferred that the campaign addressing

untouchability in Vykom fail instead of attain success by accepting contributions from anyone

other than local Vykom Hindus. Following this stance, we can derive a principle that it is better

that a community only receive the successful benefits of a civil disobedience campaign this is

supported from within that community. That it is better for a campaign not supported in this way

to fail, even if such failure serves as a foundation for future success by indicating shortcomings

local civil resisters must address in order to transform their community. As harsh as this may

seem to some, there is a logic within it: those who work for and achieve a benefit are more likely

to appreciate and sustain it than those who merely receive that benefit without working for or

contributing to it. Even when Satyagrahis offer civil disobedience on behalf of others, it is

toward the aim of transforming such persons to realize the potency of Satyagraha that they may

then also seek justice and beneficence. So at some point in the fulfillment of Satyagraha-guided

civil disobedience, the members of a community where such is offered must become involved in

and support the realization of justice and beneficence -- whether in efforts to achieve these via

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 47, excerpt from From Yeravda

Mandir, 1932, Chapter VI: Non-Possession Or Poverty.

289

civil disobedience or in sustaining the continued existence of these once attained. And civil

resisters should surely keep this aspect of the ideal in the forefront of their awareness as they

work toward its fulfillment.

I’ll conclude this section with a quote that has particular relevance to issues of material

support. As Gandhi wrote:

“We should remember, that Non-possession is a principle

applicable to thoughts, as well as to things. A man who fills his

brain with useless knowledge violates that inestimable principle.

Thoughts, which turn us away from God {Truth}, or do not turn us

towards Him, constitute impediments in our way.”

Let not thoughts about money and material things be impediments that turn one away from

Truth.

˜ ˜ ˜

Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, essay originally titled Resistance to

Government, 1849.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 429.

290

CHAPTER TWELVE

Civil Disobedience: Application of a Last Resort

Part Two

“Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place

for a just man is also a prison.”

-- Henry David Thoreau

“jail-going was understood to be the normal lot of

Satyagrahis...”

In continuing the exploration of applying Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience, the next

section will examine how Gandhi dealt with arrest and imprisonment. As the above quotes

indicated, arrest and imprisonment for acts of civil disobedience are to be expected. But Gandhi

drew a strict line between where disobedience is appropriate and where obedience to the law and

government is to be resumed. As the following will demonstrate, he regarded it as highly

inappropriate to carry disobedience to the arrest process and imprisonment, even when these

were carried out in uncomfortable and mean-spirited ways by unjust governments.

Also note, although there is a technical difference between jails and prisons (prisons

usually being used for long-term imprisonment), the next section will use the terms

indistinguishably: that when jail is mentioned, the same point applies to prisons; and vice versa.