The Nature of Satyagraha - Research Paper Example

Introduction Thomas Hobbes several centuries ago argued that human beings are brutes, who live animalistic lives of violence and nastiness, and who engage in constant conflict with others. He added that the prime motivation of human beings is survival and their greatest fear is violent death. In order to avoid violent death humans have given up their rights to the state which they expect to give them protection. The Hobbesian view of human nature can be easily seen in daily life. However, several notable figures disproved the philosophy of Hobbes and proved that human beings are dignified creatures who follow more noble laws in achieving their purpose. Among them is Martin Luther King, Jr., who significantly helped in advancing the civil rights of the Black people of the United States. King did not use violence during his activism but instead followed a peaceful philosophy in dealing with adversaries and authorizes. This philosophy is called Satyagraha, which was first introduced by Mahatma Gandhi during his years of activism for caste equality in India and the abolition of British rule. The Nature of Satyagraha Etymology Gandhi recalled how a verse he learned during childhood has influenced him in forming his own principles of non-violence: “If a man gives you a drink of water and you give him a drink in return, that is nothing. Real beauty consists in doing good against evil” (Sharma, 2008, p. 14). The origin of Satyagraha shows how the philosophy is deeply rooted in doing good to others despite the violence and evil one experiences. It may well be characterized as a martyr philosophy but Gandhi’s Satyagraha goes beyond the typical martyr concepts of heroism. Unlike the traditional concept of martyrdom, which can be more closely linked to passive resistance, Satyagraha is an active philosophy that engages people in social and political activities in the pursuit for truth. The term was inspired by a distant relative of Gandhi’s, Manganlal Gandhi, who suggested the word sadagraha for his new form of non-violence (Sharma, 2008, p. 14). The word, derived from sat (being) and agraha (firm-grasping) roughly translates to English as “firmness in a good cause” or “adherence to a good cause.” The suggestion was welcomed but Gandhi felt the need for a more appropriate term. He then replaced sat with satya (truth) and paired it with agraha (Sharma, 2008, p. 21). Thus, a new term emerged, signifying “insistence on truth” (Ardley, 2002, p. 69). The etymology already suggests that Satyagraha does not teach about passivity but active insistence. The core of the philosophy explains why Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers did not only peacefully wait for the abolition of segregation. It explains why he and his followers peacefully staged rallies, civil disobediences, and speeches to pursue Negro civil rights. Active insistence on truth, in the case of King, is the insistence that Black Americans are Americans as well who deserve all the rights of a United States citizen. The Satyagraha of King brought conflicts in the community but those conflicts were only brought by hostile racists during his time. Instead of being hated by Whites, King has, in fact, received strong support from them and even kept a number of White advisors and staff members (Ling, 2002, p. 243). The Satyagraha-directed activism of King has helped in the development of the community because it marked the end of racial division in the United States. If King did not pursue the truth that all men are created equal, the needless division between races would not have ended. Satyagraha brought a community together because it sought its purpose through peaceful, unifying ways. Moreover, it made Blacks and Whites realize that they will achieve equality and unity if they only hold on to it long enough. Both King and Gandhi showed that the struggle towards social equality should be done actively and not passively through mere resistance to laws. Aside from being active on the streets, they also have been active in securing funds for their respective organizations so they may be able to continue fight for their cause. Martin Luther King, Jr., a gifted rhetorician, was able to solicit funds through his eloquence while the more timid Gandhi prodded his visitors personally into giving their jewelries and other valuable possessions for his movement (Nojeim, 2004, p. 67). Why Gandhi preferred Satyagraha to Sadagraha is simply because the “insistence on truth” is a more appropriate term than “firmness in good cause.” The latter term connotes defending an already established cause and is more appropriate in describing the purpose of nonviolent resistance. Satyagraha, however, is far from being merely a resistance no matter how nonviolent it may be. Satyagraha is an active pursuit for change as what Gandhi showed when he led the 1930 Salt March and what King did when he led millions of Americans in protest against inequality. Those acts were not strictly reactionary, not merely “a response to some initial force” (Barash & Webel, 2002, p. 522). They were instead initiatory movements against longstanding social injustices. Principles of Satyagraha Gandhi outlined nine codes of discipline to those who volunteered for the Salt Satyagraha in 1930 (Grimsley, n.d.). These codes focus on the avoidance of anger, conflict, and infliction of pain to others. Gandhi ordered his followers to refrain from any violent act and resist those who give their orders in anger. He admonished his followers to submit to authorities in cases of arrest and to give up their properties that are seized by law enforcers. The code, however, ordered the Satyagrahis to guard a property left to them in trust. Gandhi also emphasized to protect enemies from harm, even if it is at the cost of their own safety. He did not believe in violence because he sees the self as equal with god. Hence, hurting individuals would mean attacking god and undermining truth for which he stands up for (Ardley, 2002, p. 96). King’s adherence to Satyagraha was shown by the numerous times he practice civil disobedience. Although he sought to abolish segregation by defying segregation laws, as in the Greensboro, N.C. sit-ins, he did not express his disapproval of those laws in anger or resisted arrest by authorities (Fleming, 2008, p. 43). By adhering to the principles of Satyagraha, King practiced responsible stewardship. He is considered a steward of talent and leadership because of his oratorical genius and his charisma. He could have used those gifts to influence others for selfish motives. Yet he did not use them to lead a violent revolution and showed responsibility for people who emulate him by displaying a non-violent character. The apparent simplicity of the principles of Satyagraha belies the difficulty of adhering to it. Following the philosophy poses challenges since, apart from pure non-violence, direct action and self-reliance is also required of Satyagrahis (Sharma, 2008, p. 27). Self-reliance is number one among the nine fundamental rules in leading campaigns for social change by Gandhi’s followers. The philosophy requires that each individual must rely on their own capacity and never rely on outside help, though they are not necessarily to be rejected all the time. Not all practitioners of non-violence are able to do this, as in the case of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Commission (SNCC) in 1960. SNCC members are renowned for their sit-in at a lunch counter in Greensboro but they called for the presence of King in that protest. King initially put down the request because he felt that the students should act on their own (Fleming, 2008, p. 44) despite that he later conceded to their request. Following the principle of Satyagraha is difficult in practice since one would realize that Satyagrahis are persons virtually on each of their own against powerful and dominant institutions such as the government. Satyagrahi faced ever greater adversities when they try to challenge social issues such as segregation since they not only fight against the written laws of the land but they also oppose the unwritten laws of society. Those who oppose pervading norms may be stigmatized and experience “dehumanization, threats, aversion, and…depersonalization into stereotypic caricatures (Heatherton, Hebl, & Hull, 2003, p. 1). However, being able to follow the first fundamental rule of Satyagraha is highly conducive to personal development. Self-reliance is a sign of responsibility for oneself. It is also a sign of independence, which everyone who strives for freedom should have as a prerequisite. It is impossible to envision a society where social justice prevails without self-reliance. The inequalities in society can never be minimized no matter how many Gandhis there are if individuals are not willing to make themselves better. Personal improvement and commitment to change are not created by other people. It is done through self-reliance, knowing that oneself can be changed only through personal effort. Once people begin to rely on themselves, they become empowered to join the change towards social justice. Living by the principles of Satyagraha is made even more difficult by its great need for self-control. Given that Satyagrahis campaign for social change, they will almost always be met with violence by those who oppose their views, as what happened to Gandhi during the Salt March and to the followers of King who went out to streets countless of times for civil rights equality. The constant exposure to violence and life-threatening situation naturally triggers the desire for vengeance and the desire to inflict pain on others. This is the reason why some protesters are not able to resist violence. The greatest challenge to Satyagrahis is not only to receive violence without retaliation but also to protect those who have inflicted pain on them from harm. Satyagraha Fundamental Rules The nine codes of discipline that Gandhi formulated for the 1930 Salt Satyagraha are based on the Fundamental Rules governing non-violent campaigns, also formulated by Gandhi. The fundamental rules cited herein are derived from the text of Sharma (2007, pp. 27-28). As mentioned earlier, the first of these rules is self-reliance. Reliance on oneself is strongly connected to non-violence. Violence is the use of force and other harm-inflicting ways towards others. It relies on power and the ability to impose pain on others. On the other hand, non-violence is reliance on one’s value as a human being. By allowing others to hurt them, Satyagrahis are relying on their worth as human beings and in the hope that others will see that worth too so they would cease their maltreatment. It is ironic, however, that Gandhi taught self-reliance yet he plodded richer visitors to donate to their movement. It is ironic also that King moved around the country to gain financial support, aside from propagating citizen equality in the United States. The second fundamental rule for Satyagrahis is initiative. They are to continuously engage in “constructive efforts” to push their causes further. Initiative is required in any cause since the fight for social justice is, in itself, a form of initiative. Individuals who want to make a society more or less equal need to act on their own they are not likely to be supported by social institutions. In the case of Gandhi, he was not supported by the government or the whole Hindu religion in India yet he initiated the fight for equality. King also did not receive support from the government since it was the government that enforced racist laws in the first place. However, he began his fight for racial equality when he became more sensitive to injustices Blacks experienced in Montgomery (Nojeim, 2004, p. 262). Although King would only adopt Satyagraha later, his actions were an excellent example of how a fighter for social justice should start the campaign with an inner desire for change. Being a form initiative implies that any Satyagraha movement can be done even without the presence of a leader as long as they are done in unifying and constructive ways. Since Satyagraha pursues social justice, it requires community-wide change. It is for this reason that the third rule calls for the propagation of objectives. Everyone, including the opponents, must be aware of the propaganda objectives, as required by the third rule, since the community can work towards it. The fourth rule of Satyagraha is the reduction of demands. Satyagrahis are not to ask for more than is required for social justice since asking too much would do injustice to the wealthy and the powerful. Even those who are better off in society deserve justice since their possessions, whether in forms of wealth or power, do not deprive them of their rights. The fifth rule requires the use of appropriate steps in given situations. The reason why Gandhi was called a strategist (Sharma, 2007, p. xxx) is that he did not launch his campaigns impulsively. A proof of this are the codes of disciplines stated earlier, which Gandhi required his supporters to follow during the Salt Satyagraha. The campaigns of Satyagrahis should only be well-planned to make them successful and to minimize injuries to protesters. Due to the violence that Satyagrahis receive, it is natural for their non-violent attitude to breakdown. However, the sixth rule requires them constant examination of self to prevent this from happening. To avoid greater conflict with opponents, the seventh rule requires Satyagrahis to negotiate in honorable terms. Although Satyagrahis are required to avoid conflict with opponents, the eighth rule requires them never to compromise their objectives. The ninth rule requires that negotiations should not be accepted if they are against the fundamental principles of Satyagraha. The Satyagraha Dilemma Satyagraha is an ideal philosophy for achieving social justice but it has its downsides as well. There are numerous cases when non-violent protesters have to confront armed opponents and this usually led to injuries and casualties on the part of the non-violent protesters. Examples of this are the 1950 Bloody Sunday at St. Petersburg, the Tiananmen Massacre, and the Amritsar Massacre in 1919. In the United States, an infamous example of a non-violent protest dispersed by violence is the Kent State massacre. It involved unarmed students who were protesting non-violently against Richard Nixon’s plan to invade Cambodia (Grack & Pierce, 2005, pp. 4-12). Gandhi and King were both well aware that their non-violence will not be met peacefully by authorities. This is a problem since non-violent protests could lead to the loss of many lives. However, it was proven time and time again that non-violent protests (though they are not at all times rooted in Satyagraha) help in attaining social justice. For instance, the Kent State Massacre led to a nationwide campaign against the planned U.S. invasion in Cambodia and has significantly affected policymaking for the country during Nixon’s time (Lewis & Hensley, 1998, p. 9). This creates a dilemma whether the losses during Satyagraha movements or protests are worth the social justice it would bring. From observation of the lives of Gandhi, King, and the killings at Kent State, it appears that the pursuit for social justice through Satyagraha follows a pattern of general social injustice—injustice to protesters-social change. The pattern necessitates injuries and loss of lives first on the part of those who campaign for social justice. Yet there is another dilemma which creates the necessity for non-violent protests. It can be witnessed throughout history that the campaigns for social justice are led by the people themselves. Changes in legislation done by directly approaching the legislators themselves (i.e., lobbying) are only done by well-funded organizations and they are often done for corporate gain. Although Gandhi (1961, p. 6) himself said that all the legal means must be exhausted first before resorting to Satyagraha, it cannot be denied that legislation does not always suffice to abolish perennial social problems, such as racial segregation. It appears, after all, that non-violent protest is the only way for people to achieve rapid social change. Moreover, the movements led by Martin Luther King, Jr. showed that there are times when civil activism is necessary before legislations can be passed. Conclusion Although Hobbes’ observation about the violent and brutish way of human beings might at times be true, Satyagrahis like Gandhi and King showed that humanity’s most basic impulses can be overcome with a higher consciousness for what is good and just. Satyagraha shows that the most effective way to achieve social justice is by empowering the people themselves by making them aware of their rights and by showing to the rest of a given community that everyone deserves those rights. Violence is never a way in achieving those rights since it is, by essence, a violation of other people’s right to life and security. Satyagraha, however, has its price. It is often at the cost of lives that Satyagrahis are able to achieve the social justice they strive for. In assessing the worth of Satyagraha, it is important to determine whether its non-violent principles have done more good than evil and whether its prize is worth its costs. It is likewise important to determine whether citizens can have alternative means towards achieving social justice without experiencing harm and threats to their lives. Further studies on these points may prove essential to solving social issues in the future. References Ardley, J. (2002). Tibetan Independence Movement: political, religious, and Gandhian perspectives. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Barash, D.P., & Webel, C. (2002). Peace and conflict studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fleming, A. (2008). Martin Luther King, Jr: A dream of hope. New York, NY: Sterling. Gandhi, M.K. (1961). Non-violent resistance (Satyagraha). New York, NY: Schocken. Grack, R.A., & Pierce, A. (2005). Kent State tragedy. Edina, MN: ADBO. Grimsley, M. (n.d.). “The concept: Satyagraha.” In Ohio State University Community. Retrieved from http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/ grimsley1/h380/satyagraha.htm Heatherton, T. et al. (2003). The social psychology of stigma. New York, NY: Guilford. Lewis, J., & Hensley, T. (1998). The May 4 shootings at Kent Universty: The search for historical accuracy. The Ohio Council for Social Studies Review, 34 (1), 9-21. Ling, P.J. (2002). Martin Luther King, Jr. London: Routledge. Nojeim, M.J. (2004). Gandhi and King: The power of non-violent resistance. Westport, CT: Praeger. Sharma, J.N. (2008). Satyagraha: Gandhi’s principle to conflict resolution. New Delhi: Concept Publishing. Read More