Non-Violent Resistance

by Mahatma K Gandhi

  128. RAJKOT SATYAGRAHA

  In the course of conversation Gandhiji again put Rajkot Satyagraha under the lens: "I think the initial mistake was made when all Kathiawadis were permitted to join Rajkot Satyagraha. That step introduced an element of weakness in the fight. Thereby we put our reliance on numbers, whereas a Satyagrahi relies solely upon God who is the help of the helpless. A Satyagrahi always says to himself, 'He in whose name Satyagraha was launched, will also see it through.' If the people of Rajkot had thought in these terms, there would have been no temptation to organize big processions or mass demonstrations and probably there would have been no atrocities such as Rajkot has had to experience. A genuine Satyagrahi proceeds by setting the opponent at his ease. His action never creates panic in the breast of the 'enemy'. Supposing as a result of rigid enforcement of the rules of Satyagrahis Rajkot Satyagraha had been confined to a few hundred or even a few score true Satyagrahis and they had carried on their Satyagraha in the right spirit till their last breath, theirs would have served as a heroic example."

  Harijan, 20-5-'39

  129. ABOUT THE RAJKOT AWARD

  [In the Rajkot dispute over which Gandhiji fasted, the Viceroy had to intervene and give his award, on Gandhiji appealing to him. Gandhiji, however, regarded this move of his as unworthy of a true Satyagrahi and repented in the following words:]

  The very possession of this Award has made me a coward, and I am afraid if I were to retain it, it would make cowards of you too. A Satyagrahi does not depend for his strength on external means. His strength comes from within, from his reliance on God. God becomes his shield when he throws down all his earthly weapons. But if he were to hide a firearm in his pocket, his inner strength would go and he would cease to feel invulnerable. The Award was very like a firearm in the pocket of a votary of ahimsa like me. It stood between me and my God. It shamed me and made a coward of me. I have thrown it away as Christian did his load of sin, and I am feeling again free and invulnerable and one with my Maker.

  Harijan, 3-6-'39

  130. SUSPENSION OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

  In the afternoon the talks with the Travancore friends were resumed. They were afraid that indefinite suspension of civil disobedience would bring in depression from which it would be difficult for the people to recover. Gandhiji regarded this as a very disquieting symptom. It showed that what people had so far been practising was not genuine Satyagraha. The inwardness was lacking. They must start again from the very beginning. "Suspension should never bring despondency and weakness in a Satyagraha struggle. Even though people may be ready and non-violence ensured, and suspension is ordered through a miscalculation of the general, it cannot jeopardize the future of the movement. Satyagraha means readiness to suffer and a faith that the more innocent and pure the suffering the more potent will it be in its effect. Helplessness is thus ruled out in Satyagraha. Suspension of civil disobedience, if it resulted in an accentuation of repression would itself become Satyagraha in its ideal form.

  "Today the opponent is afraid of your numbers. You cannot expect him to show a change of heart while he is filled with panic. He senses in your action a spirit of retaliation which irritates him the more. It thus becomes a species of violence.

  "Your struggle hereafter may have to be restricted to a few men only, but their Satyagraha will tell. While we are playing with non-violence we are only giving a chance to the powers that be in Travancore to organize the brute in man. This must not be."

  He developed the theme further in his discussion with the Jaipur workers who came next: "Provoking lathi charges or receiving lathi blows on your body in a spirit of bravado is not Satyagraha. True Satyagraha consists in the readiness to face blows if they come in the course of performing one's duty.

  "Today the whole atmosphere in the country is reeking of violence as was evidenced at Tripuri. Under violence I include corruption, falsehood, hypocrisy, deceit and the like. If our Satyagraha is to survive this atmosphere, we ahimsaites shall have to be more strict with ourselves. Let only the purest and the most innocent go to jail. It does not matter if they have to remain immured behind the prison bars for a whole lifetime. Their sacrifice will fill the prison with a sweet fragrance and its influence will even travel outside and subtly transform the entire atmosphere. They will never long for their release nor doubt that their sacrifice is being 'wasted'. They will realize that a consecrated resolve is more potent in its action than mere physical action can ever be. The discipline that they will be acquiring in prison will help the non-violent organization of the people outside and instil fearlessness among them.

  "So much for those who are in prison, what about those outside? They must engage in constructive work as the embodiment of the active principle of ahimsa. If it does not appeal to them, it will only betray their lack of faith in ahimsa.

  "The other thing is internal. They must cultivate a living faith in God—an attitude of utter reliance on Him to the exclusion of all external aids. A single Satyagrahi imbued with such faith will inspire the whole people by his example and may induce a heart change even in the opponent who, freed from fear, will the more readily appreciate his simple faith and respect it."

  Harijan, 3-6-'39

  131. ITS IMPLICATIONS

  The positive implication of the Rajkot chapter in my life is the discovery that the non-violence claimed for the movement since 1920, marvellous though it was, was not unadulterated. The results though brilliant would have been far richer if our non-violence had been complete. A non-violent action accompanied by non-violence in thought and word should never produce enduring violent reaction upon the opponent. But I have observed that the movement in the States has produced violent reaction on the Princes and their advisers. They are filled with distrust of the Congress. They do not want what they call interference from it. In some cases the very name Congress is anathema. This should not have been the case.

  The value of the discovery lies in its reaction upon me. I have definitely stiffened in my demands upon would-be Satyagrahis. If my stiffness reduces the number to an insignificant figure, I should not mind. If Satyagraha is a universal principle of universal application, I must find an effective method of action even through a handful. And when I say I see the new light only dimly, I mean that I have not yet found with certainty how a handful can act effectively. It may be, as has happened throughout my life, that I shall know the next step only after the first has been taken. I have faith that when the time for action has arrived, the plan will be found ready.

  But the impatient critic will say, 'The time has always been there for action; only you have been found unready!' I cannot plead guilty. I know to the contrary. I have been for some years saying that there is no warrant for resumption of Satyagraha.

  The reasons are plain.

  The Congress has ceased to be an effective vehicle for launching nation-wide Satyagraha. It has become unwieldy, it has corruption in it, there is indiscipline among Congressmen, and rival groups have come into being which would radically change the Congress programme, if they could secure a majority. That they have failed hitherto to secure it is no comfort to me. The majority has no living faith in its own programme. In any case Satyagraha through a majority is not a feasible proposition. The whole weight of the Congress should be behind any nation-wide Satyagraha.

  Then there is the ever-growing communal tension. Final Satyagraha is inconceivable without an honourable peace between the several communities composing the Indian nation.

  Lastly, there is the provincial autonomy. I adhere to my belief that we have not done any thing like justice to the task undertaken by the Congress in connection with it. It must be confessed that the Governors have on the whole played the game. There has been very little interference on their part with the ministerial actions. But the interference, sometimes irritating, has come from Congressmen and Congress organizations. Popular violence there should not have been whilst the Congressmen were in office. Much of the ministerial energy has been dev
oted to dealing with the demands and opposition of Congressmen. If the ministers are unpopular, they can and should be dismissed. Instead they have been allowed to function without the active co-operation of many Congressmen.

  It will be contrary to every canon of Satyagraha to launch upon the extreme step till every other is exhausted. Such haste will itself constitute violence.

  It may be said in reply with some justification that if all the conditions I have mentioned are insisted upon civil disobedience may be well-nigh impossible. Is that a valid objection? Every measure carries with it conditions for its adoption. Satyagraha is no exception. But I feel within me that some active form of Satyagraha, not necessarily civil disobedience, must be available in order to end an impossible situation. India is facing an impossible situation. There must be either effective non-violent action or violence and anarchy within a measurable distance of time. I must examine this position on a future occasion.

  Harijan, 24-6-'39

  132. NON-VIOLENCE v. VIOLENCE

  I must resume the argument about the implications of the Rajkot step, where I left it the week before.

  In theory, if there is sufficient non-violence developed in any single person, he should be able to discover the means of combating violence, no matter how widespread or severe, within his jurisdiction. I have repeatedly admitted my imperfections. I am no example of perfect ahimsa. I am evolving. Such ahimsa as has been developed in me has been found enough to cope with situations that have hitherto arisen. But today I feel helpless in the face of the surrounding violence. There was a penetrating article in the Statesman on my Rajkot statement. The editor had therein contended that the English had never taken our movement to be true Satyagraha, but being practical people they had allowed the myth to continue though they had known it to be a violent revolt. It was none the less so because the rebels had no arms. I have quoted the substance from memory. When I read the article, I felt the force of the argument. Though I had intended the movement to be pure non-violent resistance, as I look back upon the happenings of those days, there was undoubtedly violence among the resisters. I must own that had I been perfectly tuned to the music of ahimsa, I would have sensed the slightest departure from it and my sensitiveness would have rebelled against any discord in it.

  It seems to me that the united action of the Hindus and the Muslims blinded me to the violence that was lurking in the breasts of many. The English who are trained diplomats and administrators are accustomed to the line of least resistance, and when they found that it was more profitable to conciliate a big organization than to crush it by extensive frightfulness, they yielded to the extent that they thought was necessary. It is, however, my conviction that our resistance was predominantly non-violent in action and will be accepted as such by the future historian. As a seeker of truth and non-violence, however, I must not be satisfied with mere action if it is not from the heart. I must declare from the house-tops that the non-violence of those days fell far short of the non-violence as I have so often defined.

  Non-violent action without the co-operation of the heart and the head cannot produce the intended result. The failure of our imperfect ahimsa is visible to the naked eye. Look at the feud that is going on between Hindus and Muslims. Each is arming for the fight with the other. The violence that we had harboured in our breasts during the non-co-operation days is now recoiling upon ourselves. The violent energy that was generated among the masses, but was kept under check in the pursuit of a common objective, has now been let loose and is being used among and against ourselves.

  The same phenomenon is discernible, though in a less crude manner, in the dissension among Congressmen themselves and the use of forcible methods that the Congress ministers are obliged to adopt in running the administrations under their charge.

  This narrative clearly shows that the atmosphere is surcharged with violence. I hope it also shows that non-violent mass movement is an impossibility unless the atmosphere is radically changed. To blind one's eyes to the events happening around us is to court disaster. It has been suggested to me that I should declare mass civil disobedience and all internal strife will cease, Hindus and Muslims will compose their differences, Congressmen will forget mutual jealousies and fights for power. My reading of the situation is wholly different. If any mass movement is undertaken at the present moment in the name of non-violence, it will resolve itself into violence largely unorganized and organized in some cases. It will bring discredit on the Congress, spell disaster for the Congress struggle for independence and bring ruin to many a home. This may be a wholly untrue picture born of my weakness. If so, unless I shed that weakness, I cannot lead a movement which requires great strength and resolution.

  Harijan, 8-7-'39

  SECTION EIGHTH: INDIVIDUAL SATYAGRAHA AGAINST WAR

  [When Britain involved India in World War II in 1939 without so much as consulting her, public opinion in the country was enraged, especially as Britain was unwilling to promise independence to India, and it was therefore felt that the War was being fought only to maintain the British Empire and not for the freedom of suppressed nations. Accordingly, the people were anxious to proclaim civil disobedience against the Government. Gandhiji did his best to restrain them, as he did not think it proper to embarrass the British when they were facing a crisis, and also because he did not feel that our people were sufficiently non-violent. But when after a whole year of such restraint, the people appeared to feel stifled, he permitted what was called individual Satyagraha to assert freedom of speech, and gave the right to individuals chosen by himself for their character, public work and belief in non-violence to offer civil disobedience by preaching against war and courting imprisonment. This limited kind of Satyagraha went on during 1940 and 1941. When the Cripps Mission sent out by the British in 1942 failed to bring about a settlement, Gandhiji started his Quit India slogan. This was followed by his imprisonment and that of his followers. As the Harijan was under a Government ban from November 1940, his instructions to his followers regarding Satyagraha came to an end. Gandhiji was permitted to publish the Harijan again only in February, 1946.—Ed.]

  133. NO SUPPRESSION

  A Bengal friend came to me during the week and said that though Bengal was ready for battle the Working Committee and especially I were suppressing it and thus damaging the nation's cause. This is a serious charge. The Working Committee can take care of itself. So far as I know, it has suppressed no province and no person. But I can say as the sole authority on Satyagraha that I have never suppressed any body or organization. Satyagraha does not admit of such suppression. Thus though I have been ignorantly accused of suppressing the people of Rajkot, I never suppressed them. They were at liberty, as they are now, to civilly resist authority. Even one person could do so if he had the conviction. If he is wrong, he can only harm himself, not his opponent. Hence it is that I have called Satyagraha the most harmless, if also the most potent, remedy against wrongs.

  What, however, I did in the case of Rajkot was to use the authority the Satyagrahis of Rajkot had given me, to suspend civil resistance. It was open to them to reject my advice—it could hardly be dignified by the name of command. If they had, and if they had got responsible government, they would have received my congratulations.

  Some readers may remember that the Working Committee had refused to sanction civil resistance in Chirala Perala but had left the Chirala people to declare it at their own risk. Likewise it is open to Bengal, as also to any other province, on its own initiative and at its own risk, to offer civil resistance. What it cannot have is my approval or support. And if the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee wholly repudiates the authority of the Working Committee, it can, with all the greater force and propriety, do as it likes. If it succeeds, it will cover itself with glory, overthrow the present leadership, and rule the Congress organization as it will deserve to. I have prescribed the conditions of successful civil resistance. But if the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee thinks that the Muslim ma
sses are with the Congress, if it thinks that both Hindus and Muslims are ready for the fight, if it thinks that neither non-violence nor the charkha is necessary or that non-violence has no connection with the charkha, and if it fails to declare war, it will then be untrue to itself and to the country. What I have said applies to every province and part of India. But as the most experienced Satyagrahi I must be allowed to utter a note of warning to all concerned that whoever declares civil resistance without the proper training and a full appreciation of the conditions of Satyagraha is likely to bring disaster to the cause he espouses.

  Harijan, 20-1-'40

  134. EVERY CONGRESS COMMITTEE A SATYAGRAHA COMMITTEE

  In the coming struggle, if it must come, no half-hearted loyalty will answer the purpose. Imagine a general marching to battle with doubting, ill-prepared soldiers. He will surely march to defeat. I will not consciously make any such fatal experiment. This is not meant to frighten Congressmen. If they have the will, they will not find my instructions difficult to follow. Correspondents tell me that, though they have no faith in me or the charkha, they ply the latter for the sake of discipline. I do not understand this language. Can a general fight on the strength of soldiers who, he knows, have no faith in him? The plain meaning of this language is that the correspondents believe in mass action but do not believe in the connection I see between it and the charkha, etc., if the action is to be non-violent. They believe in my hold on the masses, but they do not believe in the things which I believe have given me that hold. They merely want to exploit me and will grudgingly pay the price which my ignorance or obstinacy (according to them) demands. I do not call this discipline. True discipline gives enthusiastic obedience to instructions even though they do not satisfy reason. A volunteer exercises his reason when he chooses his general, but after having made the choice, he does not waste his time and energy in scanning every instruction and testing it on the anvil of his reason before following it. His is "not to reason why ".