Gandhi and Revolution

Devi Prasad

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2020
• eBook ISBN: 9781000365832
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This volume is a collection of Devi Prasad's essays on Gandhi, social justice and social change. The different essays address themes ranging from Gandhi's ideals of satyagraha and ahimsa, civil disobedience and non-violence, to the Gandhian approach to education as founded in making and crafting as well as participation in the political and social movements of our times. They also engage the revolutionary potential of Gandhi's thought, drawing parallels between Lenin and Gandhi and analysing the historical significance of Gandhi's anti-imperialist yet non-violent political philosophy. In sum, the volume dwells on the continuing, critical relevance of Gandhi in our times.

It will be of interest to those in education, political science, peace and conflict studies, history and philosophy, as well as to the general reader interested in Gandhian thought.

1
Non-violence and Satyagraha^*

*This article was written in 1961 and delivered as a talk while the author was travelling in Europe before joining War Resisters’ International (WRI) in 1962 as its General Secretary.

The non-violence that I have preached is a political method

Gandhi

‘The truth is’, wrote Dr J.C. Kumarappa, ‘that we must not look upon non-violence as a negative force, but as a very active element in Hindu culture which has functioned since the epoch of the Buddha.’ And again: ‘Wars are not caused by external events. They are caused by the violence within us. The immense accumulation of hatred and sense of injustice within us leads to war’. This means that for the Hindu, the resistance to war is before everything else an internal matter. This way of looking at the problem of war and resistance to it is very different from the Western mind. According to the Hindu conception, this resistance will only become effective when the individual becomes master of himself. This is to say, ‘it is you and I who must suppress war’, as Dr Kumarappa wrote, ‘you must suppress it in yourself, in your daily life. That is the beginning’. Vinoba Bhave accepts, as a fervent disciple of Gandhi, ‘… the manner in which we have gained our liberty by non-violence is unique in the history of the world’s struggles for emancipation. But it is in conformity with our national traditions. This austere atmosphere can show itself in new forms.’

Need for Clarity

This brings us to the technique of satyagraha, or non-violent resistance, which must not be confused with the idea of passive non-resistance. Too many Westerners are ready to promote this confusion of ideas in order to justify their point of view on the need for national defence. The theory of satyagraha ought to be studied not only in connection with non-violence, but also in connection with non-cooperation, for these are its practical applications. It is necessary to understand these concepts thoroughly, because many Europeans are ready to distort the sense of them.

Satyagraha, a term invented by Gandhi in his struggle for the liberation of the Indian in South Africa, marks all that is different from mere passive resistance, which Europeans call non-resistance. Etymologically, satya signifies ‘justice and right’, and agraha means ‘determined force’. Satyagraha therefore means ‘determination to secure justice’. It is completely false to confuse non-violent resistance with non-resistance; such confusion can only arise from ignorance or ill-will. Non-resistance to evil seems to me odious and blasphemous.

There was, perhaps, no man in the world who felt a greater aversion to mere passivity than did Gandhi. Compared with many romantic revolutionaries who had little to show, or with many reformers in ministerial offices, Gandhi was a tireless fighter. He belonged to that category of resisters who begin a heroic struggle and pay for it with their own lives. His was the soul of a practical non-violent resister. His resistance was based on non-cooperation which was, in some aspects, very much in keeping with the trade unionism of those times, i.e., before its socio-political degeneration set in.

Convinced that ‘the hardest metal will melt in the fire of love’, Gandhi pursued his experiments in non-violence. He wished to be sincere before everything else, even before being strong.

Gandhi, in advocating non-violence as a method of struggle, had no pretensions that by following his method the battle would be gained immediately. If his use of it in Africa had given good results, he did not know what India had in store for him. It was always a struggle, the final result in doubt, whoever the initiator of the movement may be and whoever uses this method of struggle. While Gandhi was unsure about the reactions of the Indian populace as much as the English tyrants, he felt it was necessary to try out his non-violent method of struggle to show the efficacy of an action.

Is there such a great gulf between the non-violence of Gandhi and the defensive violence of the revolutionaries? They represent different methods of struggle, varied conceptions which develop from temperaments and characters formed in distinct schools. Both repudiate servitude and passive submission to tyrants; it is the circumstances or the epochs which impose the choice to be made.

Programme of Resistance

It is necessary to realise the important fact that the methods Gandhi used for the liberation of India marked an important stage in the larger global picture of trying to achieve the liberation of mankind. Nowhere else in the world had a transfer of power been brought about so peacefully as had taken place in India. It is due to this that the Indian National Congress stated, almost twenty-five years ago, that, thanks to this method of non-violent resistance, the British government had to seek a path of cooperation instead of pursuing the usual course of repression.

When Gandhi came forward with his programme of resistance by means of non-violence, he tirelessly expounded this method which he had experimented with in Africa. One must not imagine that the ideas of Gandhi found immediate and total acceptance; certainly, they met with some encouragement. However, Jinnah and some other chiefs of the Congress Party judged these methods to be a bit naïve and childish. Many Indians did not at all accept this kind of struggle against English occupation; in the universities in particular, the young placed their confidence in violent methods, weapons, bombs and guns.

Finally, of course, Gandhi was able to attract the majority in the Congress Party to support his programme of non-violent resistance to imperialism. But everything did not go as easily as certain people seem to think. To bring his form of action to victory, Gandhi advocated civil disobedience. He proposed to all those who wished for the liberty of India to disobey the written laws that the imperialists had imposed on the people. To disobey! That would be the magic command which was to spread through all the land of India. This initiation to civil disobedience is perhaps the most significant of all the struggles in the last century. This form of ‘resistance’ to the enemy, applied as it was by Gandhi and his disciples, shook the British Empire from the very beginning; it did not cease until the day when the independence of India was recognised by the British.

What tenacity, what courage had to be deployed in order to bring it all to a good end without a descent into chaos! It was necessary to wage many battles before the war was finally won. Civil disobedience is to the East what Direct Action is to the West. Gandhi himself, in Young India, did not hesitate to write: ‘Never has anything been done on this earth without direct action’.¹

However, we must not forget that before any of this could come about, the people had to be prepared for this form of disobedience; Gandhi realised this better than anyone else. He settled down to preaching and discoursing on this form of disobedience until he finally felt that the time had come to act. Many a time, some people became impatient and took risks and compromised the gains acquired by his superhuman efforts. Their thoughtless actions might have caused the movement to fail by giving a pretext for governmental repression; had this happened, there would no doubt have been some who would have rejoiced at the supposed bankruptcy of the Gandhian methods!

Finally, the forces which had so long been bottled up burst forth. A whole people, strong in their sense of justice, undertook a campaign of disobedience to uphold their cause. This shook the rulers of India who till then had believed that the Hindu they had to deal with was a mere docile, serving man.

Civil disobedience means much more than just non-cooperation; it involves the violation of laws. To disobey means the refusal to obey. The people will not be free unless they refuse to obey the forces that uphold violence and tyranny. Is it not the submission of the governed which gives power to those who govern? It is because they accept the servitude of military discipline, because they obey the laws and pay taxes, that the people see themselves crushed by the State. Gandhi has written: ‘The most despotic government cannot exist without the consent of the governed, often obtained by force on the part of the despots. When the subject ceases to fear the force of the despots, the power of the latter is at an end’.² Both Tolstoy’s and Thoreau’s influence can be identified in Gandhi’s idea of civil disobedience. Think for instance of Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You and Henry Thoreau’s pamphlet, Civil Disobedience.

Declaration of Non-cooperation

On 28 July 1920, Gandhi announced to the country that the people should start a campaign of ‘non-cooperation’ from 1 August. He did not fear the fury of the government, but he did fear the fury of the populace. He knew that the way to liberation is dotted with pitfalls. A profound psychologist, he knew that the masses, if left to their own devices, might be carried away by waves of hope and drawn by irresponsible leaders to act in ways that are prejudicial to their own liberation. He wished for this campaign of non-cooperation to manifest itself in an orderly and disciplined way; not an imposed discipline, but one that is freely accepted. ‘Complete non-cooperation needs a complete organisation. Disorder comes from anger. We must have a total absence of violence. All violence would be a set-back for the cause and a useless waste of innocent lives. Before all, order must be kept!’³

Non-cooperation, in the spirit of Gandhi, is a first stage. It is, if one wishes, the first turn to the handle of the formidable machine which the revolution of a whole people in search of its freedom and happiness represents. Gandhi was a sage, and it was wisdom that he counselled. And if European revolutionaries smile at Gandhi’s tactics, let them know that it was not because of hesitation on his part that he seemed to restrain, as if suspend at the first check, the action that he had set in motion; it was because Gandhi understood that it was necessary to fully prepare the populace and arm them with the appropriate skills to triumph over the enemy.

In advocating non-cooperation, Gandhi prepared the road for civil disobedience, which he regarded as a superior stage, graver in consequence for those who would follow it to its extreme limits. He set himself the task of making the people understand the spirit of swadeshi. Independence in the economic field was advocated as this would create difficulties for the enemy and make them take the movement more seriously. Such was the programme that was put into practice by the partisans of non-cooperation. The points of their programme deserve our attention, for they give us valuable hints for the struggles here in the West.

• All titles and honorary functions to be given up. While this may appear trivial, for those in authority this act amounted to contempt for authority, a rejection of the trappings of power.
• Non-participation in government loans. This represented an attack on one of the nerve centres of government, the financing of war.
• The giving up of the use of government courts and all disputes to be settled privately. The State is thus unable to utilise its forces of repression. It is no longer able, in the name of ‘justice’, to condemn the man who refuses to be a slave.
• Boycott of government schools by the students and their families. Thus, the child will no longer have to suffer the propagandist teachings of the government.
• Boycott of the councils of constitutional reform. This puts an end to the reform merchants and their promises of a beautiful future, which are only designed to put the people to sleep.
• Non-participation in the receptions of the government and all official functions. These are organised in order to dazzle the population. This marks the end of false prestige and the pretentiousness of the elite.
• Refusal of any civil or military post. This amounted to non-cooperation with the immoral organisations of the State.

Stages of the Movement

In order to reply to the criticisms expressed on the subject of noncooperation, and the fears expressed by some, Gandhi, on 9 June 1920, wrote in an article, ‘How to organise Non-cooperation’, that it would be best ‘to establish a more complete programme’. For, in fact, many anticipated that the organisers of the non-cooperation movement were going to put the entire programme into effect all at once. In the minds of the organisers, however, the programme would be conducted in four stages: first, the abandonment of all titles and renunciation of all honorary functions. In case of a check at this stage, or if the result attained was not what had been hoped for, they would resort to the second stage.

In the second stage, some preliminary preparations would be required. To cause an employee to leave his work without ensuring in advance that he had some means to keep himself and his family would be wrong. A committee must be given the task of dealing with the problem, and developing solidarity and mutual aid. Gandhi wrote that all the services ‘would not be invited to cease work at the same time’; and afterwards he announced, ‘Never will any pressure be exercised on an employee to oblige him to abandon the service of the government’. Gandhi refused to have any conflict with the private employer since the movement was not intended to be an anti-English one, ‘it is not even anti-governmental’, he added. Certainly, non-cooperation with the government was a significant step since it affirmed, in practice, the refusal to make oneself the accomplice in an injustice. But Gandhi thought that it was necessary to hold this movement back the moment it developed the use of violence, or caused even the slightest undue pressure to be exercised upon an employee. This phase of the noncooperation movement, in order that it might succeed, had to be accepted by a reasonable number of individuals; and, having got them, it would be bound to succeed entirely since no government would be able to survive if a good part of the population refused to serve it.

Withdrawal from the troops and the police formed the third stage. This Gandhi did not envisage as an immediate step, but as something that would take place later on.

The fourth phase was the refusal to pay taxes. According to Gandhi, this step implied great responsibilities. Potentially, the results that would follow from it could bring persons with an impulsive nature into conflict with the police. Gandhi could not envisage it taking place until it was certain that the people would not engage in violence.

Gandhi did not hide the risks that non-cooperation brought in its trail. ‘But the risks of indolence before a problem are infinitely grea...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• 1. Non-violence and satyagraha
• 2. Re-defining the concept of freedom
• 3. Gandhi’s educational revolution
• 4. Lenin and Gandhi: Contemporary revolutionaries
• 5. Violent struggles for freedom
• 6. Self-suffering and service for effective satyagraha
• 7. Struggle of the minorities
• 8. Why non-violence?
• 9. Gandhi: A historical necessity
• 10. True education is education for satyagraha
• 11. Satyagraha: The art of defying oppression without becoming oppressors
• 12. Do we have the will and courage to knock at Gandhi’s door?
• Works by Devi Prasad
• About the Author
• Index