30 January 2003, 12:18am IST
Mark Shepard.
Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence towards his opponents. The non-violent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill. Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away. But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by non-violent means. Gandhi was the first person to have the general concept of non- violent action, to declare it, and then to consciously apply it on a large scale. For Gandhi, non-violence was “a way of life based on love and compassion.” Gandhi’s most decisive influence on his opponents was more indirect than direct. Civil disobedience, for Gandhi, was aimed at working a change of heart — whether in the opponent or the public. One rule was that only specific, unjust laws were to be broken. Civil disobedience didn’t mean flouting all laws. In fact, Gandhi said that only people with a high regard for the law were qualified for civil disobedience. Gandhi ruled out direct coercion, such as trying to physically block someone. Hostile language was banned. Destroying property was forbidden. Not even secrecy was allowed. The second form of mass Satyagraha, non-cooperation, meant refusing to cooperate with the opponent, refusing to submit to the injustice being fought. Of course, non-cooperation and civil disobedience overlapped. Non-cooperation too was to be carried out in a “civil” manner — it was hoped that this willing suffering would cause a “change of heart.” Non-cooperation was a dynamic based on the power of the people themselves. Gandhi saw that the power of any tyrant depends entirely on people being willing to obey. The tyrant may get people to obey by threatening to throw them in prison, or by holding guns to their heads. But the power still resides in the obedience, not in the prison or guns. Gandhi said, “I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill.” That was Gan-dhi’s concept of power — the one he’s accused of not having. It’s a hard one to grasp, for those used to seeing power in the barrel of a gun. If exponents of armed struggle were less concerned with proving their power and more concerned with the welfare of the people they claim to stand up for, they might discover that non-violent forms of struggle work better. Satyagraha — Gandhi’s non-violent action — was not a way for one group to seize what it wanted from another. It was not a weapon of class struggle, or of any other kind of division. Satyagraha was instead an instrument of unity. It was a way to remove injustice and restore social harmony, to the benefit of both sides. When Satyagraha worked, both sides won. Gandhi said: “All my actions have their source in my inalienable love of humankind.” Love for the victim demanded struggle, while love for the opponent ruled out doing harm. But, in fact, love for the opponent likewise demanded struggle. Why? Because by hurting others, the oppressor also hurts himself. Of course, the oppressor isn’t likely to be aware of that. He may be thoroughly enjoying his power and wealth. But beneath all that, his injustice is cutting him off from his fellow humans and from his own deeper self. (Abridged extract from the 1990 Annual Gandhi Lecture, Charllotesville)
No comments:
Post a Comment