LECTURE 4:   SATYAGRAHA ON THE GROUND

In terms of method there were several distinct but vital stages in a satyagraha campaign:

Stage 1. Defining conflict to resolve

involved the establishing of goals and objectives

these could be openly espoused or kept under wraps

important that battle lines were clearly and logically drawn

Stage 2. Possibility of reconciliation

Is this present?

Where goals on one side or the other are pitched too high - in the sense of being unreasonable and unrealistic - then the chances for resolution of conflict are diminished.

Stage 3. Appeal to a higher arbiter

Is arbitration possible?

this depends on context

so can take form of viceregal intervention [Champaran]

- world opinion [Salt Satyagraha]

- US support [Quit India Satyagraha]

but where higher arbiter appeal impossible, satyagraha has little option other than to manifest as Frontal Attack

Stage 4. In the event of impasse

withdrawal of cooperation

resort to tactics of pressure:

§ hartal

§ hunger strike

§ breaking the law and courting judicial punishment

§ ignoring colonial authority

Stage 5. Outcome

acid test of success or failure?

Conversion

has it occurred?

strength and uplift of participants

has it happened?

Satyagraha: Method of Conversion or Coercive Strategy?

Ideally:

§ Satyagraha, when used in the public sphere, emerges as a methodology for achieving the negotiation of conflict by peaceful means

§ Thus opponents were to be converted rather than crushed

§ The upshot was usually compromise and treaties:

As, for example,: The Gandhi-Irwin Pact

The Gandhi-Ambedkar Pact

In theory and in principle Satyagraha was not an alternative to war, but a method of conflict resolution.

It was a path of conversion for both the exponent and the opponent, since truth was to triumph over falsehood

Hence there was no victor and no victim. In the sense that victory meant the triumph of truth all round, all participants should feel if not vindicated, certainly elevated.

Reconciliation was the desired end

In Practice:

§ In some ways satyagraha took on some of the characteristics of a military campaign.

Consider:

1. The fact that satyagraha was launched by a Declaration of Intent

Could not this be considered the equivalent of a Declaration of War

[Gandhi always informed authority why, when and where the law would be broken]

2. The fact that satyagraha intrinsically involved an attack on government and the system it upheld by emphasising the withdrawal of cooperation

What was the hartal designed to achieve?

Or the hunger-strike?

Were they not designed to paralyse government rather than to reform it?

3. If satyagraha sought to avoid the humiliation of the adversary, did it not involve an assault on his/her conscience?

Were the British or the untouchables persuaded to compromise by Gandhi's going on hunger-strike?

Or were they pressured into compromising for fear of a worse result?

4. In the end satyagraha was seldom peaceful. For it seemed to encourage violence

Not the violence of the satyagrahi

But most definitely the violence of the adversary

[ In 1942 Gandhi ruefully describes satyagraha as constituting a form of 'mixed non-violence']

5. At all levels satyagraha involved discipline, both external and internal, of an almost military kind from satyagrahis and organisers.

Gandhi defines satyagraha as = the New Courage

Gandhi defines non-violence as = the Summit of Bravery

[ Note that the terminology is of a military kind]

Problems to Solve

Satyagraha in practice: Satyagraha was supposed to resolve conflict by means of conversion rather than coercion. Definite steps being laid down to achieve reconciliation between contending parties.

To what extent are they model or impaired satyagrahas?

READING