Non-Violent Resistance

by Mahatma K Gandhi

  "It is, but inhuman treatment is a very difficult term to define and anything and everything may not come under it. A Satyagrahi goes prepared to put up with tortures, brutal treatments, even humiliations, but he may do nothing that outrage his sense of self-respect or honour. However, Satyagraha is not a weapon to be used lightly or easily and at the slightest provocation. It is better that he who is easily provoked does not go to jail."

  Harijan, 3-6-'39

  172. NOT GUILTY

  Dr. Lohia has sent me a long well-reasoned letter on the current controversy on the Congress resolution on Satyagraha. There is a portion in it which demands public discussion. Here it is:

  "You will not permit the slightest separation of the principle of Satyagraha from your own specific programme. Is it not possible to universalize the principle of Satyagraha, to make it the bed-rock of programmes other than your own? Perhaps, it is not; but I have this argument against you that you have not permitted and encouraged any such experiment. The people today do not regard your own programme of ministerial action and constructive activities as wholly adequate; they are experimenting with such programmes as those of peasant action. These newer programmes entail an amount of local and isolated action even during such times when there is no general Satyagraha. Will you stop these little Satyagrahas till you have found the formula for a general Satyagraha? In such a course of action there is the danger of anarchy that arises out of suppression. Non-violent collective action is among the rarest and most precious gifts received by mankind in all history; we may not, however, know how to treasure it and continue it."

  Not only have I not prohibited separation of the principle of Satyagraha from my own specific programme, I have often invited new programmes. But hitherto I have not known a single case of any new programme. I have never suggested that there can never be any departure from or addition to my programme. What, however, I have said and would like to repeat here is that I cannot bless or encourage a new programme that makes no appeal to me. My programme I claim is a deduction from the Satyagraha of my conception. It is therefore likely that if there was any such vital activity favouring the growth of Satyagraha, it would not escape me.

  I am painfully conscious of the fact that my programme has not made a general appeal to the Congress intelligentsia. I have already pointed out that the reason for the apathy of Congressmen is not to be sought in any inherent defect in the programme, but that it is due to the want of a living faith in ahimsa. What can be more patent than that we should have complete communal harmony, eradication of untouchability, sacrifice of the drink revenue by the closing of liquor shops, and the replacement of mill cloth by khadi? I suggest that non-violent Swaraj is impossible if Hindus, Muslims and others do not shed their mutual distrust and do not live as blood-brothers, if Hindus do not purify themselves by removing the curse of untouchability and thus establish intimate contact with those whom they have for ages put beyond the pale of society, if the wealthy men and women of India will not tax themselves so that the poor who are helpless victims of the drink and drug habit may have the temptation removed from them by the closing of drink and drug shops, and, lastly, if we all will not identify ourselves with the semi-starved millions by giving up the taste for mill cloth and revert to khadi produced by the many million hands in the cottages of India. In all that has been written against the constructive programme, I have not come across a single convincing argument against either its intrinsic merit or its merit in terms of non-violent Swaraj. I make bold to say that if all Congressmen concentrate themselves on this constructive programme, we shall soon have the requisite non-violent atmosphere throughout the length and breadth of the land for cent per cent Satyagraha.

  Take the peasant action suggested by Dr. Lohia as a possible new programme. I regret to have to say that in most cases the peasants are not being educated for non-violent action. They are being kept in a state of perpetual excitement and made to entertain hopes which can never be fulfilled without a violent conflict. The same may safely be said about labour. My own experience tells me that both the peasantry and labour can be organized for effective non-violent action, if Congressmen honestly work for it.. But they cannot, if they have no faith in the ultimate success of non-violent action. All that is required is the proper education of the peasantry and labour. They need to be informed that if they are properly organized they have more wealth and resources through their labour than the capitalists through their money. Only capitalists have control over the money market, labour has not over its labour market, although if labour had been well served by its chosen leaders, it would have become conscious of the irresistible power that comes from proper instruction in non-violence. Instead, labour in many cases is being taught to rely on coercive methods to compel compliance with its demands. The kind of training that labour generally receives today leaves it in ignorance, and relies upon violence as the ultimate sanction. Thus it is not possible for me to regard the present peasant or labour activity as a new programme for the preparation of Satyagraha.

  Indeed what I see around me is not preparation for a non-violent campaign but for an outbreak of violence, however unconscious or unintended it may be. If I was invited to hold myself responsible for this ending to the past twenty years' effort, I should have no hesitation in pleading guilty. Have I not said as much already in these columns? But my admission will not take us anywhere, unless it results in the retracing of our steps, the undoing of the wrong already done. This means having a reasoned faith in the non-violent method as the only means of gaining complete independence. When we have that faith, all bickerings within the Congress will cease, there will be no longer an ungainly scramble for power, and there will be mutual help instead of mutual mud-flinging. But it may be that Congressmen have come to believe that non-violence of my definition is played out or is not possible of attainment. In that case there should be a conference, formal or informal, between all Congress groups or a special meeting of the A. I. C. C. to consider the question whether time has not come to revise the policy of non-violence and the consequent constructive programme and to find out and frame a programme in consonance with and answering the present temper of Congressmen.

  Harijan, 29-7-'39

  173. QUESTION BOX

  A Domestic Difficulty

  Q. You have rightly said that no one who has not renounced untouchability in every shape and form can take part in Satyagraha. Supposing a Congressman's wife does not share his conviction in this regard and won't let him bring Harijans into his house, what should he do—coerce his wife into conformity with his views, renounce her, or renounce the Satyagraha struggle?

  A. No occasion for coercing your wife. You should let her go her way and you should go yours. This would mean her having a separate kitchen for herself and, if she likes, also a separate room. Thus there is no question of renouncing the struggle.

  The More Essential

  Q. Which is the more essential requirement in your mind for starting civil disobedience—your inner urge which may make you fight even single-handed, or the fulfilment of your conditions by Congressmen? What will be the position if they are prepared and you have not felt the call?

  A. There can be no inner urge if my conditions are not fulfilled. It is possible that there may be apparent fulfilment of conditions but there may be no inner response in me. In such a case I cannot declare civil disobedience; but it will be open to the Congress to repudiate me and declare civil disobedience independently of me.

  Secrecy

  Q. You should give your opinion clearly about secrecy. During the last struggle there was a great deal of secrecy to outwit the authorities.

  A. I am quite clear that secrecy does no good to our cause. It certainly gave joy to those who were able successfully to outwit the police. Their cleverness was undoubted. But Satyagraha is more than cleverness. Secrecy takes away from its dignity. Satyagrahis have no reason to have secret books or secret funds. I am aware that my opinion has not found favour among many
coworkers. But I have seen no reason to change it. I admit I was lukewarm before. Experience has taught me that I should have been firm.

  Damage to Property

  Q. You know that many Congressmen openly preached that there was no violence in damaging property, i.e. destroying rails, burning thanas when they are not occupied, cutting telegraph poles, burning post boxes, etc.

  A. I have never been able to understand this reasoning. It is pure violence. Satyagraha is self-suffering and not inflicting suffering on others. There is surely often more violence in burning a man's property than doing him physical injury. Have not so-called Satyagrahis preferred imprisonment to fines or confiscation of their property? Well has one of my critics said that I have succeeded in teaching disruptive disobedience till at last it has come home to roost, but that I have signally failed in teaching people the very difficult art of non-violence. He has also said that in my haste I have put the cart before the horse and therefore all my talk of civil disobedience is folly if not worse. I am not able to give a satisfactory reply to this criticism. I am but a poor mortal. I believe in my experiment and in my uttermost sincerity. But it may be that the only fitting epitaph after my death will be "He tried but signally failed."

  Harijan, 13-4-'40

  174. QUESTION BOX

  Spinning Regularly

  Q. What do you mean by 'spinning regularly'? If one spins for a couple of hours during a month or for half an hour once or twice a week, would he be deemed to have satisfied the condition about spinning regularly?

  A. 'Regularly' was put in the place of 'daily This was meant to provide for accidental or unavoidable omissions. Therefore, spinning every week or at stated intervals will not meet the case. A Satyagrahi will be expected to spin daily except for valid reasons such as sickness, travelling or the like.

  Satyagraha Camps and Untouchability

  Q. Satyagraha camps are being organized for the training of volunteers all over the country. But the principle with regard to the renunciation of untouchability in every shape and form is not being rigorously enforced. Don't you agree that it ought to be made an absolute rule in the camps that no one who regards the touch of Harijans as polluting and does not freely mix with them should be permitted to attend them?

  A. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that he who has the slightest untouchability in him is wholly unfit for enrolment in the Satyagraha sena. I regard untouchability as the root cause of our downfall and of Hindu-Muslim discord. Untouchability is the curse of Hinduism and therefore of India. The taint is so pervasive that it haunts a man even after he has changed over to another faith.

  Legal Practice and Satyagraha

  Q. Knowing as you do how lying and deceit have become the stock-in-trade of the legal profession in this country, would you permit practising lawyers to enlist as active Satyagrahis?

  A. I am unable to subscribe to your sweeping proposition. The fact that a lawyer wants to become a Satyagrahi presupposes on his part a certain standard of purification. No doubt there may be, to my knowledge there are, black sheep in the Congress. This is inevitable in any big organization. But it would be unbecoming of a Satyagrahi to condemn a man because he belongs to a certain profession.

  Satyagraha and Obstructionism

  Q. Is the policy of obstructionism compatible with Satyagraha? Can a Satyagrahi, who is supposed to stand for principles rather than party, adopt one attitude with regard to a measure when it is sponsored by his party, and another when the same measure is sponsored by the opposite party? Would you approve of this policy in Municipalities and District Boards as is being done by some Congressmen at present?

  A. I have always opposed obstruction as being anti-Satyagraha. Congressmen, to be correct in their behaviour, should always give co-operation to their opponents when the latter are in a majority and adopt any wise measure. The object of Congressmen should never be attainment of power for power's sake. Indeed such discriminatory co-operation will enhance the prestige of the Congress and may even give it majority.

  Harijan, 25-5-'40

  175. FIVE QUESTIONS

  1. Can Satyagrahis (i.e. those who have signed the Satyagraha pledge) offer defence when they are arrested?

  2. May a Satyagrahi make an effort to get better class treatment, i.e. 'A' or 'B'?

  3. Ought a Satyagrahi in jail to acquiesce in the conditions imposed upon him, or should he endeavour to secure what he regards more humane and satisfactory treatment?

  4. What is the minimum time for which a Satyagrahi ought to spin or what is the minimum quantity of yarn he should produce?

  5. Can a man sign the Satyagraha pledge immediately you declare civil disobedience and court arrest, or is there any definite period for which he should have remained a Satyagrahi to be eligible to take part in the civil disobedience campaign?

  Answers

  1. There is no objection to offering defence, and in certain cases it would be a duty to do so as, say, in the Ajmer case.

  2. In my opinion he should not make any attempt to alter the class. Personally I am against any classification.

  3. He is entitled to make every legitimate effort for change to human conditions.

  4. I think one hour per day should be the minimum and 300 rounds per hour is a reasonable speed. Men engaged in public work may spin less.

  5. A man who intentionally refrains from signing a pledge in order to avoid fulfilment of conditions is a cheat and unworthy of being a Satyagrahi. But I can conceive an honest man just signing the pledge and straightaway going to jail. Even at the risk of losing prospective pledge-takers and those who have taken the pledge, I would say that there is no immediate prospect of my giving the call.

  Harijan, 25-5-'40

  176. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

  Q. You often refer to the Sermon on the Mount. Do you believe in the verse, "If any man will take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also"? Does it not follow from the principle of non-violence? If so, then do you advise the weak and poor tenant of a village to submit gladly to the violent encroachment of the zamindar on his 'abadi land' or tenancy rights, which so often occurs in a village these days?

  A. Yes, I would unhesitatingly advise tenants to evacuate the land belonging to a tyrant. That would be like giving your cloak also when only the coat is demanded. To take what is required may be profitable; to have more given to you is highly likely to be a burden. To overload a stomach is to court slow death. A zamindar wants his rent, he does not want his land. It would be a burden on him when he does not want it. When you give more to a robber than he needs, you spring a surprise on him, you give him a shock although agreeable. He has not been used to it. Historical instances are on record to show that such non-violent conduct has produced a wholesome effect upon evil-doers. These acts cannot be done mechanically; they must come out of conviction and love or pity for the other man. Nor need you work out all the apparent implications of my answer. If you do, you will come across blind alleys. Suffice it to say that in the verse quoted by you Jesus put in a picturesque and telling manner the great doctrine of non-violent non-co-operation. Your non-co-operation with your opponent is violent when you give a blow for a blow, and is ineffective in the long run. Your non-co-operation is non-violent when you give your opponent all in the place of just what he needs. You have disarmed him once for all by your apparent co-operation, which in effect is complete non-co-operation.

  Harijan, 13-7-'40

  177. WHAT CAN A SOLITARY SATYAGRAHI DO?

  Q. There is one solitary Satyagrahi in one of our villages. The rest do not worry about violence or non-violence. What discipline is that single Satyagrahi to undergo?

  A. Yours is a good question. The solitary Satyagrahi has to examine himself. If he has universal love and if he fulfils the conditions implied in such a state, it must find its expression in his daily conduct. He would be bound with the poorest in the village by ties of service. He would constitute himself the scavenger, the nurse, the arbitrator of disputes, and t
he teacher of the children of the village. Every one, young and old, would know him; though a householder he would be leading a life of restraint; he would make no distinction between his and his neighbour's children; he would own nothing but would hold what wealth he has in trust for others, and would, therefore, spend out of it just sufficient for his barest needs. His needs would, as far as possible, approximate those of the poor, he would harbour no untouchability, and would, therefore, inspire people of all castes and creeds to approach him with confidence.

  Such is the ideal Satyagrahi. Our friend will always endeavour to come up to, wherever he falls short of, the ideal, fill in the gaps in his education, will not waste a single moment. His house will be a busy hive of useful activities centring round spinning. His will be a well-ordered household.

  Such a Satyagrahi will not find himself single-handed for long. The village will unconsciously follow him. But whether they do or not, at a time of emergency he will, single-handed, effectively deal with it or die in the attempt. But I firmly hold that he will have converted a number of others. I may add in this connection that I had come to Sevagram as a solitary Satyagrahi. Luckily or unluckily, I could not remain alone, several from outside came and settled with me. I do not know whether any inhabitant of the village proper can be counted as a Satyagrahi, but I do hope that some of them are unconsciously shaping themselves as such. Let me say that I do not fulfil all the tests I have laid down. But I should not have mentioned them, had I not been striving to put into practice all of them. My present ambition is certainly to make of Sevagram an ideal village. I know that the work is as difficult as to make of India an ideal country. But while it is possible for one man to fulfil his ambition with respect to a single village some day, one man's lifetime is too short to overtake the whole of India. But if one man can produce one ideal village, he will have provided a pattern not only for the whole country, but perhaps for the whole world. More than this a seeker may not aspire after.