The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

301

to create new tactics or expand previously used tactics; and, to center the decision of which

tactics to use in local communities so that they can address the specifics of their local situations

as well attract the allegiance and support of the local people.

One of the strongest foundations for applying civil disobedience tactics is an ongoing

practice of consistent community constructive service. This service may first begin with an

individual or small group providing service to others, but the maturity of such service offered by

pure individuals will evolve into the community joining in providing such service to itself. Too

often in the present age, many with legitimate concerns and good intentions (morally) weaken

the validity of their civil disobedience by only appearing in a community to protest a particular

wrong. At other times, they are virtually absent from the community -- even if they walk

through that community on a daily basis. Such persons usually use (exploit) the community to

address a particular wrong, to then disappear from the lives of the people once the protest efforts

are done. This mirrors the practice of many contemporary politicians who only appear in

communities during election seasons; and just as most people have great distaste for such

politicians, many communities look at those organizing protest efforts in such a way with a

weary eye. Yes, some community members may call on such organizers in times of need or

work with them from a self-interest perspective to alleviate their suffering, but this standard falls

below the Satyagraha aim of building beneficent communities through the cultivation and unity

of individuals seeking Truth and justice. Even if these protest efforts are able to affect change,

they rarely build a sufficient foundation (through their approach) to sustain such change for the

long-term -- and more importantly, to root the sustenance and growth of beneficent change in the

people of a community. But for those on the path of continuous constructive service, such

service contributes to building and strengthening a communal framework to respond to and

address injustice as well as sustain and grow justice and beneficence within their community.

Such a foundation can greatly increase the impact of any civil disobedience tactics employed.

One principle that is key to keeping civil disobedience within just (moral) limits is to

only offer civil disobedience for just causes. As evident as this may be, this principle has been

violated many times, especially when people have been allured by the power of successful civil

disobedience. Take note of Gandhi’s words regarding picketing:

“All picketing without indubitably just cause is violent even

though no physical force is used. Picketing without such cause

becomes a nuisance and interferes with the exercise of private

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 340, excerpt from Harijan,

December 2, 1939.

302

right. Generally no picketing should be resorted to by individuals

unless it is promoted by a responsible organization. Picketing like

civil disobedience has its well-defined limits without a strict

observance of which it becomes illegitimate and

reprehensible.”

(emphasis mine)

The above indicated a few important points, notably: the issue of legitimacy for civil

disobedience; the issue of violence; and, the private rights of others. Let’s deal with these points

individually, first beginning with the issue of legitimacy.

Encompassed within the issue of legitimacy is the question: what is a just cause? This

question alone can be a topic of an entire book, and in fact a number of books and writings

throughout human history have been devoted to solely this question. In acknowledging the

different paths people take to Truth (and the differing places on such paths), Gandhi was content

to allow each individual and community to answer this question on their own terms. His only

stipulation was to encourage people standing for a just cause to do so in a way that adheres to

Satyagraha and ahimsa (no harm), so that if someone is wrong in standing for a cause that person

only inflicts harm upon herself or himself and not others. It is not uncommon in an age where

ignorance flourishes that some people never realize that their cause is wrong, even if the entire

world tells them they are wrong. Other times, people will only realize the wrongness of their

cause after having held this position for an extended period of time and carried out countless

words, thoughts, and deeds on behalf of this cause. Even Gandhi admitted to pursuing causes he

later realized were wrong (or flawed), his “Himalayan miscalculation” addressed earlier in the

book is an example of this. Therefore, as much as he articulated his views on what he felt were

just causes throughout his Swaraj work in India, he never sought to bind others to them. He

could be very critical of others associating things with Satyagraha that clearly contradicted the

tenets of this path, but even in his criticism he acknowledged the rights of others to pursue their

own paths as he pleaded for them to not confuse the teachings of Satyagraha.

Although any human is free to have whatever measures they deem worthy to justify a

cause as just, the Satyagraha path places certain limits on what these measures can be for

Satyagrahis. This book has explored many of these things in earlier chapters, such as: seeking

Truth, ahimsa, morality, Swaraj (self-rule), (soul-based) strength, non-possession and a rejection

This does not negate individuals or small groups rejected by a larger community from pursuing causes on

their own, this just dictates such efforts cannot be done in the name of the larger community.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 150, excerpt from Young India,

September 22, 1921.

303

of materialism. The Satyagraha path also places consideration of such measures for community

causes in a collective context: that the determinations of just causes for communities must be

derived by or accepted by the larger community, not imposed upon the community by a select

group or others outside of that community.

Gandhi’s call for “responsible organizations” to

promote picketing, in the above quote, is an example of this principle in action.

Out of the many Satyagraha measures for a just cause I want to highlight one for its

particular importance: purity. Examine the following words Gandhi wrote about strikes:

“Even our sympathetic strikes, therefore, have to be strikes of self-

purification, i.e., non-co-operation [with wrong]. And so, when we

declare a strike to redress a wrong, we really cease to take part in

the wrong, and thus leave the wrong-doer to his own resources, in

other words, enable him to see the folly of continuing the

wrong.”

This realization of one’s wrong, which will be addressed later, can be a benefit to the opponent.

Gandhi’s constant calls for purity indicate that it is essential and vital to any just cause for

Satyagrahis. Purity not only purifies those who embody it but can have a transformative and

beneficial effect on others, especially when Satyagrahis walk with a depth of purity. Gandhi

clearly sought that all his Satyagraha causes had purity-based benefits for those standing for the

cause and others engaged in the course of standing for the cause, whether they were opponents,

supporters, or by-bystanders.

Another measure for the justness of a Satyagraha cause is the willingness to suffer

indefinitely for it. The willingness to endure hardships can range from the loss of a job, to

imprisonment, to even death. If one cannot declare affirmatively without wavering that a cause

is worth enduring great suffering, Gandhi would advise caution in offering civil disobedience for

such a cause. He shared the following about strikes:

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 150, excerpt from Young India,

September 22, 1921.

304

“A strike may fail in spite of a just grievance and the ability of

strikers to hold out indefinitely, if there are workers to replace

them. A wise man, therefore, will not strike for increase of wages

or other comforts, if he feels that he can be easily replaced. But a

philanthropic or patriotic man will strike in spite of supply being

greater than the demand, when he feels for and wishes to associate

himself with his neighbor’s distress.”

The sentiment of enduring unending hardship for a just cause is not limited only to strikes, but

applies to all Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience tactics.

Satyagrahis should also remember that a just cause does not absolve any of the aspects

involved in considering whether to offer civil disobedience and, if that decision is made, how to

progress with its application. Even confronting the most egregious injustice -- a clear just cause

-- does not mean a group can immediately proceed to complete civil disobedience. Even with

the most just cause, civil resisters must engage in processes of self-development, training,

preparation, and Satyagraha education. They must go through the planning stage and seek to

resolve the injustice through genuine attempts at negotiation or their own Satyagraha

development and cultivation of justice and beneficence. And if they reach the stage of offering

civil disobedience, they must proceed through appropriately planned progressive stages: starting

with more limited defensive civil disobedience and patiently analyzing if and when to expand to

more intense forms of aggressive civil disobedience. Gandhi’s earlier words about responsible

organizations promoting picketing are an example of the call for all Satyagraha-guided civil

disobedience to match the justness of their cause with a just means and approach.

Let’s proceed to the second point: the issue of violence. As can never be repeated

enough, Gandhi did not limit violence to physical force; for him, violence included words,

thoughts, and actions. Thus, the challenge for all Satyagrahis engaged in civil disobedience is to

see that they refrain from using force (whether as words, thoughts, or deeds) to compel others to

their will. Civil disobedience is appropriately named because it emphasizes disobedience to

injustice (often against unjust laws or governments), not forcing others to do things to affect just

and beneficent change. Even in escalating to more intense forms of disobedience, Gandhi paid

great care to see that the escalation was clearly in the form of disobedience not compulsion.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 339, excerpt from Harijan, August

27, 1938.

305

Consider these words Gandhi offered about “living walls” at pickets that prevented people from

entering -- forced them to not enter -- targeted buildings:

“And is there really any difficulty about regarding a living wall of

pickets as naked violence? What is the difference between force

used against a man wanting to do a particular thing, and force

exercised by interposing yourself between him and the deed?

When, during the non-co-operation days, the students in Banaras

blocked the passage to the University gates I had to send a

peremptory message and, if my recollection serves me right, I

strongly condemned their action in the columns of Young India [an

Indian newspaper].”

(bold emphasis mine)

Gandhi was clearly against the use of compulsory force: using force to compel others to do

something we want. Yet in the contemporary community organizing, peace, and social justice

fields, the move away from the strength of morality and purity has resulted in many seeking an

illusory strength in compulsory force. Thus, there has been an escalation in tactics that seek to

force others to do something the protestors want, even if this is cloaked in social charades: such

as doing something to compel police to arrest protestors so they can seem like victims of

injustice. Often the use of compulsory force indicates weakness -- and remember, Gandhi

defined strength as emanating from the soul and living morality. He would not only disapprove

of “living walls” that block others free movement around protests, he would disapprove of

occupying buildings or public spaces to force a response from others. He would also denounce

interrupting meetings as this is also an act of compulsory force, or looking to shut down whole

sections of a city for the sake of forcing others to suspend with normal activity. There are, at

times, a thin line between more intense disobedience and compulsory force, but any Satyagraha-

guided civil disobedience campaign would certainly start with more limited forms of

disobedience that only expand in planned and patient measures. One of the benefits of this

approach is that it provides guidance and points to reflect on if the escalation of disobedience is a

veiled attempt to get others to do what we want -- which is compulsion and outside the limits of

Satyagraha. To address this, Gandhi placed great importance on examining on his thoughts since

the seed of compulsory acts and words often lay in thoughts -- whether such thoughts be

voluntary or things that “appear” in one’s mind. Thus, he spent endless hours on spiritual

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

October 13, 1927.

306

development practices, such as meditation and prayer, to strengthen himself and increase his

purity. These practices enabled him to recognize and address his own weaknesses, which are

usually an underlying reason people engage in compulsory acts. When we act from genuine

(soul-based) strength, there is rarely, if ever, a need to force anyone to do anything: the power of

our strength, especially when joined with purity, is enough to manifest justice and beneficence,

even if the manifestation of such requires consistent effort and patience to transform others and

our situation.

Gandhi knew and trusted that just and pure disobedience has a transformative effect on

unjust opponents, revealing to them the injustice of their positions. This realization is essential

to such persons transforming to embrace justice or leaving, since the “rewards” of injustice

cannot be sustained in the face of pure efforts bringing forth justice and beneficence. Knowing

the importance of creating a situation where the process of such realization could occur, Gandhi

took deliberate steps to avoid doing things that distracted or deterred the progression of this

process. This included the willing embrace of suffering and sacrifice since this sped the

progression of this realization, particularly when pure persons suffered. This also included a

very restrained use of non-compulsory force: moderation over aggression, humble and careful

applications of Truth-force over arrogance and recklessness. Thus, Gandhi declared:

“A Satyagrahi’s appeal must contain moderate language.”

This call for moderation also applies to a Satyagrahi’s thoughts and deeds. In addition to

refraining from compulsory force, Satyagrahis are encouraged to refrain from doing things that

would cause others to react with compulsory force. Although this is not always possible,

moderation in words, thoughts, and deeds are one way of fulfilling this aim.

But the call for moderation does not mean Satyagrahis must avoid exposing disturbing

truths, even things that may stir controversy or unfavorable responses. Gandhi wrote:

“Vilification of an opponent there can never be. But this does not

exclude a truthful characterization of his acts. An opponent is not

always a bad man because he opposes. He may be as honourable

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 84, excerpt from Young India, May

7, 1931.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 84, excerpt from Young India, May

7, 1931.

307

as we may claim to be and yet there may be vital differences

between him and us.”

Gandhi made it a practice to distinguish between a person’s unjust acts and positions (which he

opposed) and the person who committed such acts or held such positions (who he sought to

convert). Reflecting on the scope of his own personal change, Gandhi knew that others could

also change: that if he could go from a self-centered lawyer to a humble seeker of Truth, the

possibility of drastic transformation existed for everyone. And if an opponent changed, such a

person could be an ally, and perhaps a great friend who joined the quest for Truth, justice, and

beneficence. But how much would such a potential partnership be hindered if there was as a

history of bad blood and vilification from both sides? Even if his opponents vilified him, Gandhi

would not contribute to creating “bad blood” by offering personal attacks of his own against his

opponents. But he saw no future potential partnership with the unjust acts and positions of his

opponents and, thus, could be brutally honest in describing these. Now due to humility and not

having absolute knowledge (of his own correctness), Gandhi would temper his criticisms of the

unjust acts and positions of his opponents. But even within such temperance, he would not avoid

strongly commenting on the unjust acts and positions of his opponents -- and even those of his

supporters and fellow Satyagrahis. Gandhi’s thoughts on this are reflected in the following:

“There is no question of any limit to which hostility may be

carried. For there should be no hostility to persons. Hostility there

must be to acts when they are subversive of morals or the good of

society.”

The final point is the private rights of others. The application of Satyagraha-guided civil

disobedience is partly based on Satyagrahis defending their right to not cooperate with injustice.

Therefore, from a Satyagraha perspective, it is of utmost importance to respect the rights of

others if Satyagrahis stand for their rights. Implicit in this stand is an often quoted spiritual

principle: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But this standard falls short of

the Satyagraha measure because, in this present age, there are people with limited understanding

and low self-esteem (forms of ignorance) that treat themselves badly and, according to this

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 147, excerpt from Young India,

December 8, 1920.

308

measure, would be justified in treating others badly. For the Satyagrahi, one must do unto others

what a just and beneficent person would want done to one’s self. And this surely includes

respecting the private rights of others. As Gandhi wrote:

“If we wish to evolve the spirit of democracy out of slavery, we

must be scrupulously exact in our dealings with opponents. We

may not replace the slavery of the Government by that of the non-

co-operationists. We must concede to our opponents the

freedom we claim for ourselves and for which we are fighting.”

(emphasis mine)

Again, the freedom Gandhi encouraged Satyagrahis to concede to their opponents includes

respecting the private rights of their opponents.

The mention of private rights makes a distinction between the public roles opponents

occupy (such as a government job or position) and the rights all private citizens have which must

be respected by Satyagrahis. Therefore, Satyagraha-guided civil disobedience would not hesitate

to target the corruption of government officials in the scope of their jobs, but would avoid

targeting any corruption in their private lives that has no bearing on their jobs. And where this a

questionable connection, there is good reason to lean toward non-disclosure, especially since

such exposure is rarely essential to affect just and beneficent change: the moral strength of civil

resisters, their purity, and willingness to suffer have much greater impact on affecting such

change. Within this paradigm, Gandhi would have no problem protesting in front of a

government building but would refrain from protesting in front of a government official’s home -

- unless it was a government building, such as the U.S. White House which serves as a residence

for the president. Gandhi would be willing to expose and criticize all the unjust and immoral

acts of a government but avoid exposing the private moral indiscretions of government officials

that have no bearing on their jobs, particularly since such exposure could bring great public

shame upon a person for a private and personal manner. I mention this, in part, because there

has a been a significant increase by those in the community organizing, peace, and social justice

fields to engage in tactics that infringe upon the private rights (and sometimes privacy) of their

opponents. I stress again that such tactics are unnecessary for those who stand and continue to

cultivate the moral strength and purity that Gandhi demonstrated. And the fact that an opponent

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 115, excerpt from Young India,

June 16, 1920.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 162, excerpt from Young India,

August 25, 1920.

309

may engage in practices that violate the private rights of civil resisters (i.e., tapping their phone,

character assassinations in the media, etc.) does not justify Satyagrahis violating the moral code

of the Satyagraha path. In everything Satyagrahis do and despite what they may endure, they

must always respect the private rights of others -- always!

“if a Government does a grave injustice the subjects must

withdraw co-operation wholly or partially, sufficiently to wean

the ruler from his wickedness.”

“I would co-operate a thousand times with this Government to

wean it from its career of crime, but I will not for a single

moment co-operate with it to continue that career. ... Better for

me a beggar’s bowl than the richest possession from hands

stained with the blood of the innocents of Jalianwala [the

Jalianwala massacre on April 13, 1919]. Better by far a warrant

of imprisonment than honeyed words from those who have

wantonly wounded the religious sentiment of my seventy

million brothers.”

˜ ˜ ˜

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

Mandir, 1932, Chapter I: Truth.

310

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

The Closing

“Generally speaking, observation of the law of Truth is

understood merely to mean that we must speak the truth. But

we in the Ashram should understand the word Satya or Truth in

a much wider sense. There should be Truth in thought, Truth in

speech, and Truth in action. To the [human] who has realized

this Truth in its fulness, nothing else remains to be known,

because all knowledge is necessarily included in it. What is not

included in it is not Truth, and so not true knowledge; and

there can be no inward peace without true knowledge. If we

once learn how to apply this never-failing test of Truth, we

will at once be able to find out what is worth doing, what is

worth seeing, what is worth reading.”

(emphasis mine)

I will be brief in closing out this book, given the vast amount covered in the previous

pages. I return to a key starting point and continuous reality of the Satyagraha path: Truth.

Within the context of Truth and the readers’ embrace and pursuit of It, there is little need for me

to list any shortcomings of contemporary applications of Satyagraha (non-violence). Within our

pursuit and embrace of Truth -- and holding on to it as Satyagraha demands -- we will realize our

own shortcomings as well as an abundance of guidance from Gandhi on how to cultivate (soul-

based) strength, humility, purity, ahimsa, love, and other potent and essential traits of

Satyagraha. It is within this faith, that I will refrain from saying anything more about the

shortcomings of contemporary approaches to Satyagraha. Instead I will encourage us,

individually and collectively, to study and cultivate what Gandhi and other Satyagrahis have

done throughout human history, that we may make our (very necessary) contributions to the

continuing human saga of seeking and manifesting the blessings of Truth.