It is a common understanding that the emergence of an ideology or philosophy is a consequence of its times. The birth of Satyagraha in its consolidated form in colonial India also needs to be understood in the same context. The technologically advanced military prowess of Britain during this time surpassed that of India by multiple chasms, making it a formidable power. In this context, India’s struggle to overthrow the British imperial rule necessitated a different tangent – a need that came to be fulfilled by Gandhi’s Satyagraha.
Satyagraha (holding onto truth), an ideological brainchild of Mahatma Gandhi, is regarded as the legacy of the Indian independence movement. The pursuit of truth is the fulcrum of its philosophy and the purpose of a ‘satyagrahi’ – who is expected to strive for “truth in thought, truth in speech, and truth in action”. ‘Ahimsa’ or non-violence, which forms the basis of this search for truth, commands the destruction of the thoughts of ill-will or harmful action against others and its substitution with goodwill and love. Satyagraha is the melting pot of these two ideals of non-violence and truth. As noted by Gandhi: “Satya (Truth) and Ahimsa (Non-violence) together make the parent trunk from which all innumerable branches shoot out.”
Satyagraha as a form of protest was first put to test in 1906 in South Africa when a law discriminating against Asians was passed by the British colonial government. Gandhi’s personal experience as an Indian and the discrimination he faced as a consequence in South Africa challenged him to rise up in protest. The philosophy traveled with Gandhi back to India in 1917 when he launched his first Satyagraha campaign to oppose the oppression of indigo farmers in Champaran. From here on, it evolved in tandem with the growing momentum of the Indian independence movement.
In popular understanding, Satyagraha is a form of non-violent political resistance. While this is not inaccurate, it fails to accommodate the distinctive quality of Satyagraha as first and foremost a lifestyle in pursuit of truth. The resistance to injustice is merely a phase and part of this journey, albeit an essential one. The silence or non-action towards injustice is condemned, while a courageous, calm, determined, yet modest response is encouraged. The faith in such a response is grounded in a belief in its ability to appeal to the conscience of the opponent and make overt, not only the wrongful nature of the action but also in undermining the legitimacy of the oppressive act. The maintenance of integrity and discipline is vital to the principles of Satyagraha; it operates on a notion of transparency and commands indomitable ethical conduct.
The ideas of non-cooperation, direct action, and civil disobedience are central to its efficacy as a form of political protest and conflict resolution. Satyagraha is also defined by its opposition to the concept of victory and defeat; its goal was not conquest over the other, but harmony and peace. Hence, it condemns any force which engenders divisions, oppression, and exploitation of groups or individuals within a society. Additionally, its notion of justice is not sclerotic but flexible enough to carve space for negotiation and strive towards convincing the opponent about the legitimacy of its own demands. In this effort, it advocates for suffering in the form of deprivation, imprisonment, and even death. Its support for a cooperative relationship augments its potency as a tool of conflict resolution.
The otherwise widely accepted belief of ‘the means justify the end’ is also discredited and denounced by the ideology of Satyagraha. On the contrary, it upholds that the achievement of even a righteous goal cannot be justified if the means through which it is achieved is morally corrupt or violent.
Non-cooperation and civil disobedience are vital concepts in the application of Satyagraha as a tool for political resistance. Non-cooperation demands a stand against a corrupt socio-political and economic system. It is distinct from civil disobedience in the sense that the former targets whole systems, whereas the latter attacks specific laws regarded as unjust. While satyagraha is often used synonymously with civil disobedience, this is a situation of misinformed conflation. Civil disobedience is not a concept formulated by Gandhi, he molded it and integrated it into Satyagraha. It was initially conceptualized by Henry David Thoreau as a “refusal to the government’s supposed authority to interfere with individual liberty”. In this regard, it refers to the rejection of a law considered to be unjust or immoral and a form of “conscientious objection”.
Its understanding requires a juxtaposition with the obedience that the law commands to maintain order and peace in society. A citizen is most often defined by their duty to abide by the laws of the society and state. However, Thoreau argued that it also came with a need to sometimes disobey these laws in situations of obstruction of personal liberty and discriminatory laws. The defiance of such a law could manifest in two ways – as violent or “criminal” disobedience, or by what Gandhi called “civil disobedience” – protest in a non-violent manner and suffer the legal consequences of disobeying a law. However, what is also a necessary part of this civil disobedience is a duty to otherwise be a law-abiding citizen because it bestows upon the individual the authority and insight to distinguish the good and just from the unjust.
A rather neglected aspect of satyagraha was constructive work. Gandhi advocated for engagement in some form of positive constructive work by the satyagrahis. This belief was in tandem with the understanding of satyagraha as engulfing the wider concerns of one’s social and political realities. Hence, it is a continuous process and a committed lifestyle, not just a tactic to be invoked for opposition. The satyagrahi is expected to be a “perpetual reformer”.
Satyagraha, instead of fading away with the culmination of the Indian independence movement, had the power to live on and underpin many other movements in India and across the world. Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaigns in the civil rights movements in America and Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption protests in 2011 in India are among some examples of the influence of non-violent protest. In more recent times, the Shaheen Bagh and farmer’s protests are also being labeled as a Satyagraha.
However, Satyagraha is also not an ideology without loopholes, especially when examined in today’s democratic state structure and complex society. An examination of its efficiency and ability to yield results must take into account the political, social, and economic structures in place. The application of Satyagraha as a protest, for example, in a democratic society only becomes more complex because the government – established “by the people ” – has the claim over the nation’s consent.
D.C. Grover in his paper ‘Satyagraha and Democratic Power Structure’ argues that it is the notion of individual autonomy which legitimizes opposition to constitutional laws and systemic injustices. Satyagraha also siphons its authority from the theory of social contract; it refers to a mutual contract wherein the people, through their trust, bestow upon the rulers the authority to govern, and if this trust is violated, then the people have the right to revoke that authority and demand change. Hence, the sustenance of consent, which is the basis of a government in a democracy, also requires accountability, transparency, and responsibility, which in contemporary times seems to be fading away.
The evaluation of Satyagraha also leads one to ethical contemplations and questions like the criteria to determine what is good or bad, just and unjust, and most importantly what is the truth that lies at its core. The subjective and ambiguous nature of these concepts can become a source of further conflict, undermine its legitimacy as a form of protest and prove to be ineffective in the kind of polarized world we inhabit today; a world in which the importance of morality and ethics has virtually been extinguished and replaced by other, more narrow-visioned, selfish and achievement-oriented concerns. Keeping in line with this transformation, the legacy and the nature of Satyagraha have been somewhat tarnished in recent times as it has only been invoked to grab more power.
However, the justification that Satyagraha offers for protest against an unjust law or a deliberate violation of law, although in a non-violent and disciplined manner, can prove to be of extreme significance in today’s context of unprecedented repression of protest and dissent. Finally, a close study of Satyagraha can also lead to an acceptance of the relative and contractual nature of laws. As observed by D.C. Grover – “laws have no automatic claims to respect, in order to gain obedience, they must be able to elicit the consent of those expected to obey’. This is an understanding that needs to be reinforced consistently and can be regarded as perhaps the most simple yet powerful, universal, and timeless legacy of the ideology of Satyagraha.
Being an art and culture enthusiast, Sumira is an avid reader, a passionate dancer and a curious writer. She has a keen desire to learn and feels strongly about the issues of diversity and inclusivity. She finds solace in food, music and the company of her friends.
Weve been looking through your articles or blog posts on this site for at some time. This really is our very first comment. Your current blog is very helpful for me and it supplies top notch content material.
I appreciate your piece of work, appreciate it for all the good posts.