Gandhi's Challenge for the Twenty-first Century |
Gene Sharp1
It is 128 years
now since Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born and fifty years since
he was assassinated.
What relevance do
his life, thoughts, and actions have fore us who soon will enter the
twenty-first century?
The answer many
people offer is “None.” It is thought by many: That he belong to an
earlier era only, irrelevant to our own. That any accomplishments he
may have made are attributed to his being a ‘mahatma.’ That he was
an ascetic eccentric without relevance a half century later, much
less to the twenty-first century.
The honour that
people seek to offer him by naming him a ‘Mahatma’ becomes a way to
permit ourselves to dismiss his life and work without much thought.
He was great, but we are not mahatmas, so you can not expect much of
us.
Gandhi’s
thoughts and work are in my view of grate relevance to us today and
will be throughout of twenty-first century. His conviction that
people should be able to control their lives and society, and his
insights and action showing how people can be master of their
societies, are of grate relevance in world of violence, oppression,
dictatorship, and conflicts about important issue.
There
are though who emphasize only Gandhi’s spiritual views and
achievement. Attention to though is fine, but though perspectives
must not be allowed to could his relevance for ordinary people.
We
opened to not recognize that Gandhi knowingly operated on two
levels. One was his own personal religious beliefs and practices.
The second was the social and the political level.
Gandhi
operated on though two levels simultaneously. He had his own
personal beliefs, philosophy, and spiritual and ascetic practices;
they were intended for his own life and for the lives of a handful
of devotees in his ashram who wish to share them. He also fought
political battles, challenging the Empire on which, it was once
said, the sun never set. Gandhi rejected the practice of personal
non violence and felt strongly obligated to apply nonviolent means
in society and politics. He wrote:
That
nonviolence which only an individual can use is not of much use in
team of society. Man is social being. His accomplishment to be of
use must be such as any persons with sufficient diligence can
attain. That which can be exercised only among friend is of value
only as a spark of non-violence. It cannot merit the appellation of
ahimsa.2
Gandhi
chose, therefore, to operate social and politically with both
political leaders and with the masses of people in struggles to up
life the suffering people of India and to win India’s independence
from British Empire.
Gandhi
committed him self to social and political transformation. In that
work he pioneered unconventional means of action that of lasting
significance and relevance. In doing so he contributed monumentally
to answering the fundamental problem of all political (and should be
of all political ethics), that is, how to act effectively to achieve
goals and to advance and defend human dignity.
Many
years ago I used to think that Gandhi had uniquely united
nonviolence and politics. Many people have believed that he had
invented a form of struggle that was both powerful and nonviolent.
We now know that is not true, even in South Africa.
At the
meeting at the Empire Theatre on Johannesburg in 1906 where Gandhi
courageously vowed deafens of anti-Asiatic legislation, other
Indians and speakers-both Hindus And Muslims-were already familiar
with and supportive of disobedience agents oppressive legislation.
Furthermore, as Gandhi himself pointed out, he had been learning
from nonviolent struggle elsewhere in the world as well as in India.
In the pages of his journal India opinion, he cited methods used in
important nonviolent struggles in Russia, china, and Bengal. It is
also clear that he was familiar with Irish non violent struggles,
religious disobedience in England, and tax resistance in the
American colonies. There had also been earlier disobedience by
Indies in South Africa and tax resistance by Africans in South
Africa, which he cited as reasons why the Indians too could act this
way.
A review
of human history reveals that non violent protests, resistance, and
defiance have occurred in all parts if the world, in all periods of
history, and against all types of oppression and regimes.
Dramatically, since Gandhi’s death, nonviolent struggles have grown
in prominence and political impact. Recall, For example, the
solidarity struggles in Poland 1980-1989, the 1986 people power
revaluation in the Philippians, and mass resistance struggles in
South Africa, brave but not yet successfully struggles in Burma and
China, the liberation of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, the defect
of the hard-line coup in Moscow in 1991, the liberation of East
Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1991, as well as other, in the
Philippines this September, renewed people power demonstration
forced the president to cancel an attempt to allow him a now
prohibited second term, The nonviolent struggles before Gandhi and
the struggles after Gandhi help us to place him in historical
perspective, and to understand his continuing significance.
Even
after Gandhi become a believer in ahimsa as religious and moral
principal, he did not engage in a campaign to win individual
converts to that very personal beliefs. Instated, he sought to
continual groups that did not accept principled nonviolence to apply
nonviolent struggle in the conflicts that faced his people. As they
did not accept ahimsa, they would only accept nonviolent action if
they become convinced that it was practical, that is that it would
“worked”.
Stated
more baldly, Gandhi presented nonviolent struggle to India as an
expedient, without apology then or later.
Yes, I
adhere to my opinion that did well to present to the Congress
nonviolence as an expedient, [he wrote in 1942]. I could not have
done otherwise, if was to introduce it into politics. In South
Africa too I introduced it as an expedient… But I have no seance of
disappointment in me over the result obedient. If had started with
men who accepted nonviolence as a creed, I might have ended with
myself. Imperfect as I am, I started with imperfect men and women
and sailed on an uncharged ocean. Thank god that, though the, boat
has not reached its haven, it has proved fairly storm proof.”2
Gandhi told
student in August 1947 that
He had all along
labored under an illusion. But he was never sorry for it. He
realized that if his vision were not covered by the illusion, India
would never have reached the point which it had today.4
At a meeting of
the All Indian Congress Committee in January 1942 Gandhi insisted
that he had no regrets on the political nature of nonviolent action
he had presented to India. He also rejected the views of those who
dismissed his policy as being “religious”.
I placed it before
Congress as a political method , to be employed for the solution of
the political question, It may be it is a novel method, but does
not on that account lose its political character…As a political
method , It can always be changed, modified, altered , and even give
up in preference to another. If, therefore, I say to you that our
policy should not be give up today, I am talking political wisdom.
It is political insight. It has served us in the past; it has
enabled us to cover many stages to words independence. And it is as
politician that I suggest to you that it is a grave mistake to
contemplate its abandonment. If have carried the Congress with me
all these years, it is in my capacity as a politician. It is fair to
describe my method as religious it is new.5
During
the 1940s Gandhi also expressed dissatisfaction with the Indian
practice of nonviolence action. Nevertheless, he affirmed the
importance of corporate and mass struggle. He explained that this
was the way by which ordinary people could themselves correct the
problems they faced, and thereby achieve a sense of their own
strength and power.
The way
was not to gain individual conversions to ethical nonviolence.
Instead, it was to initiate a pattern of specific substitutions of
nonviolent struggle in place of violent conflict.
Those
struggles were waged primarily by people who did not believe
ethically or religiously in ahimsa. They were, however, willing-as
in India-to conduct the struggle nonviolently and to nonviolent
discipline. In that way the struggles for justice could be fought
nonviolently by masses of people.
Gandhi
also conceptualized and began to organize another major tool for
transforming society. He formulated a constructive programme for
rebuilding society for the bottom up outside the State structure.
The constructive programme was and attempt to build beginnings of a
new more decentralized popularly controlled society order while the
told system still exists. For this he outlined eighteen components,
ranging form communal unity, through village sanitation to women’s
rights and work with the peasantry and labour. Such work was to be
conducted by voluntary efforts and self-help.
The
needed work was not all struggling but also building, constructing,
nurturing, and healing.
We need
to examine our own social problem to determine whether constructive
programmes can be developed that would be help in our very different
societies, and if so how to do that.
How are
we, then to evaluate Gandhi and his challenge for the twenty-first
century?
Although
Gandhi was not the originator of nonviolent struggle, he was a major
historical player in this refinement and development. He brought
greatly increased strategic sophistication to the technique. HE
charted was in which people-both intellectuals and the so0-called
ordinary people alike-who did not shared his full personal beliefs
could join in the nonviolent struggle and could become empowered. He
challenged the most vast empire the world had ever soon-and won.
In my
view, Gandhi’s extremely important contributions include:
Where
then does nonviolent struggle need to be applied in our societies
and time and during the coming new century? We need to continue to
examine the problem of conflict, oppression, and violent struggle in
our world today, and assess how we cam develop nonviolent struggle
to be an effective way to conducting those conflict, operation, and
violence in our world today, and assess how we can develop
nonviolent struggle to be an effective way of conducting those
conflicts that need to be fought.
For
example, we must continue and expand our work on the relevance of
nonviolent struggle to answer the hard questions before us. What is
the possible role of nonviolent struggle in dismantling
dictatorship? What is the possible role of nonviolent struggle in
blocking new coups d’eta so as to prevent the rise of new
dictatorships? What is the possible role of nonviolent struggle in
defense against foreign aggression and occupations?
And what
additional situation merit consideration of nonviolent struggle as a
tool empowerment and liberation?
It is
important to us remember that Gandhi brought to nonviolent struggle
strategic sophistication and careful planning. Nonviolent struggle
was not a formula that could simply be repeated in different
conflicts. Instead, Gandhi developed separated plans for the use of
nonviolent struggle for each conflict. Instated, Gandhi developed
separate plans for the use of nonviolent struggle for each
conflict-For example, his strategies for Champaran in 1917, India in
1930-31, and Calcutta in 1947 were very different.
He also
recognized the importance of strategy in nonviolent struggle and
contributed to the refinement and practice of more effective
strategic planning for this type of conflict. We need to build on
and expand his important contribution on strategy-the wise use of
available resource to increase the possible the success. There are
significant reasons to believe that grater strategic sophistication
can improve the effectiveness of future nonviolent struggles, well
beyond our present understanding.
Gandhi’s
effective of this conscious choice of nonviolent struggle in place
of violence are profound. Normally most people and need to be
expanded into the coming conflicts the twenty –first century.
The
implication of this conscious choice of nonviolence struggle in
place of violence as the unlimited sections-the final means of
applying pressure and power to again one’s objective.
In
thought and action Gandhi challenged that view. We must ask now, can
nonviolent pressure and struggle become to a much grater degree
ultimate sections for the twenty-first century? Can nonviolent power
replace violence in conflict after conflict, and issue after issue?
Efforts to achieve that development are very important and are a
fitting tribute to Gandhi.
We still
live in the world of immense problems, as we all known, Gandhi
challenges us to help to change our world and point us towards some
important tool that we can use to tackle the problems before us.
All this
work on the present and the future relevance of Gandhi specifically
and nonviolent struggle generally requires adequate funding. From my
long work in this field I known all too well just how hard it is
your efforts to develop your foundation and to secure the much
needed resources to make future work possible.
The
twentieth century has been a century of grate violence. Two world
wars. Dozens of other wars. Nuclear weapons and other means of mass
destruction. Nazi and Stalinist totalitarianism. Military and
political dictatorships. Repeated genocide. Destruction of the ways
of life of indigenous people. Terrorism in the name of justice and
freedom. Mass killing of nonviolent demonstrator. Popular
powerlessness of masses of people. And more and more.
Yet,
something different has also been happening. We must not forget that
the twentieth century has also been a hundred years of a major
development in the practice of nonviolent forms of struggle often
aimed precisely to remove and to combat those forms of political
violence.
We also
need to remember and learn form the people who have waged nonviolent
struggle in many other parts of the word. These include Russian
strikers, Norwegian teachers, Berlin wives of Jews, Lithuanian
patriots, Chinese and Burmese students, Polish workers, Guatemalan
teachers, South African demonstrators, African-American bus
boycotters, French conscripts, Mexican and Irish hunger strikers,
Filipino mutineers and nuns, Serbian marchers, and Kosovo an
resisters. And of coerces many others. Gandhi and the brave Indians
who participated in the struggles he led or inspired rank very high
among these.
It is
now possible to refine the technique of nonviolent struggle, to plan
strategies that are more effective, and to learn how to increase the
chances of success while reducing the casualties of conflict.
If we
can accomplish those tasks, the chances are significantly grater
that brave women and responsible political leaders will increasingly
apply nonviolent struggle in the conflict of the coming decades. The
result can be major reduction in violence, dictatorships, cruelties,
and oppression, and a growth of freedom, justice, and peace.
Gandhi’s
challenge is to reshape politics. Are we ready to take up his
challenge?
References
1 GENE SHARP,
a renowned scholar-researcher on Nonviolence, is Senior Fellow at
the Albert Einstein Institution, 50 Church Street, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA. He is the author of a number of books including
The Politics of Nonviolent Action; Gandhi Wields the Moral Weapon of
Nonviolence and Gandhi as a Political Strategist.
Source:
JOURNAL OF PEACE AND GANDHIAN STUDIES, Volume
Three, October-December
1997 |