Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict. With a new epilogue by the author

CONQUEST OF VIOLENCE

Conquest of Violence

The Gandhian

Philosophy of Conflict

BY JOAN V. BONDURANT

NEW REVISED EDITION

PRINCETON UNTVERSITY PRESS

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY

Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street Princeton, New Jersey 08540

In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Chichester, West Sussex

Copyright © 1958 by Princeton University Press New Revised Edition copyright © 1988 by Princeton University Press

All Rights Reserved

First Princeton Paperback printing, 1988

LCC 87-37539

ISBN 0-691-02281-X (pbk.)

eISBN: 978-0-691-21804-5

R0

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE NEW REVISED EDITION

IN the summer of 1953, I had the rare good fortune to discuss with Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, the technique developed by Gandhi for conducting conflict—a method which Gandhi called satyagraha. Nehru explained that he, and others who had participated in the Gandhian movements, became integral parts of these processes.

As the Prime Minister reflected upon Gandhi's experiments and his own participation in them, he spoke of a new dynamic that Gandhi brought into the political and social field. The mind struggled with these new ideas often put out without much method or logic, he said, but the whole System reacted to them and grew under their impress. The processes which emerged not only changed the history of India, Nehru reflected, but changed us as individuals.

What, then, were these processes, this new dynamic? How are we to understand the force of the ideas that Gandhi represented and translated into action? Is it possible to use Gandhi’s method in social and cultural settings which differ greatly from those of India? Indeed, is there a fundamental, universal essence in Gandhian satyagraha?

In this book I have formulated an approach to a philosophy of action suggested by the social and political experiments conducted by Gandhi in India. I argue that social and political theory have neglected the central question of means, and, therefore, the problem of inevitable conflict. The solution to this overarching problem can best be sought by a theory of process and of means, rather than by continuing concern for structure, for ideal ends, or even for procedures. The study of Gandhi’s method points the way in which an adequate treatment of the ends-means problem can be undertaken.

Perhaps I should make explicit what is implied in my interpretation: it is not necessary to subscribe either to the asceticism so characteristic of Gandhi or to his religious notions in order to understand and to value the central contribution of his technique of non-violent action. The name Gandhi and the word Gandhiism frequently touch off startling emotional responses. The reservoir of reverence for Gandhi in India is readily understandable. In the West, the response is often of a different order. The non-Indian is likely either to afford Gandhi the respect due a saint, thereby dismissing his significance in the realm of practical politics; or, worried by what appears to him to be a diffuse spirituality, to impute to Gandhi obscurantism, thereby denying the relevance of his contribution. Or, fearing that Gandhian notions of political economy necessarily issue in primitive agrarianism, one may tend to reject Gandhi's technique of action as having little or no significance in contemporary circumstance. Such responses tend to obscure developments which emerged from the Gandhian experience long after Gandhi had gone, and to obstruet an understanding of his total impact. Even more important, these attitudes serve as a barrier to further exploration of the potentialities of the technique which Gandhi introduced.

As Nehru and I talked about Gandhi and satyagraha, he expressed to me the difficultes which Indians seemed to have in viewing the Gandhian movements objectively. Nehru’s contemporaries had been too close to the greatness of the man to view his works dispassionately. He speculated that the task of interpreting Gandhian thought could perhaps best be done by searching for its meaning in terms familiar to the West. And so it seemed also to this Westerner, whose basic predispositions were rationalist and humanist and who shared with some of Gandhi's severest critics an abiding suspicion of religions Systems and of obscurantist approaches.

It is the unsystematized and often inconsistent jungle of Gandhi’s writings that makes it difficult but tempting to others to formulate a Gandhian Philosophy. With the history of the movements in which Gandhi was involved as evidence from the field of action, it is possible to thread one’s way through his extraordinary writings and speeches in search of theme and thesis. For those who would pursue such an endeavor now, there are rich sources, organized and available—sources which were not available when I wrote this book. Currently researchers have ninety volumes of Gandhi’s Collected Works,¹ as well as the nineteen-volume reprint edition of Harijan, Gandhi’s newspaper, which in itself played so instrumental a role in India’s nationalist movement.²

In the course of the search for Gandhi’s true meaning, one necessarily interprets and abstracts. I hope that in my own efforts at interpretation and, in finally formulating one aspect of a philosophy of action, I have not done violence to Gandhi’s thought. Inasmuch as Gandhi himself did not formulate his philosophy, the temptation for others to do so lies ever at hand. My own endeavor has been to define the social and political technique of satyagraha, to formulate its dialectical nature, and to lay the foundation for the fuller development of a philosophy of conflict.

My interest in the Gandhian impact was first aroused during my residence in India in 1944-46. Observations made concerning developments in the post-independence period are based both upon my study in India during 1947-48 and 1952-53 and upon continuing research in the course of my work as Research Political Scientist with the Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley. A fellowship from the Southwestern Region of Soroptimist Clubs supported the writing of the original manuscript. The research conducted in India during 1952-53 was made possible through a fellowship from the Social Science Research Council.

I am indebted to George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., for permission to quote passages from Clarence Marsh Case, Non-Violent Coercion: A Study in Methods of Social Pressure, Halidé Edib, Inside India, and S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol. I; and to Constable and Company Ltd. for passages from Naomi Mitchison, The Moral Basis of Politics. A passage from Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, has been reprinted by permission of The John Day Company. The Macmillan Company has granted permission for the use of material from C. F. Andrews, Mahatma Gandhi's Ideas, copyright 1930; and the New York Times has kindly permitted the use of passages from an article by Morris Llewellyn Cooke, The Quaker Way Wins New Adherents, New York Times Magazine, 17 June 1951. I am also grateful to the Navajivan Trust for having granted permission to quote passages from Mahadev Desai, The Gospel of Selfless Action or The Gita According to Gandhi; Pyarelal, A Pilgrimage for Peace; and from the following works by M. K. Gandhi: An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth, From Yeravda Mandir: Ashram Observances, Non-Violence in Peace and War. Acknowledgment is made to Oxford University Press, Inc., for passages from Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by A. M. Henderson & Talcott Parsons, edited with an introduction by Talcott Parsons, copyright 1947 by Oxford University Press, New York, Inc., reprinted by permission.

Many friends and colleagues played a part in advancing the progress of this study and my debt to them is great. I would first mention the many Indian friends who supplied both data and evaluation of the Gandhian movements in India, among them Professor Nirmal Kumar Bose, The Honorable R. R. Diwakar, Sri R. R. Keithahn, and Sri Pyarelal. To Dr. Chandra Uttam Singh belongs the credit for my initial interest in satyagraha. The information, critical comment, and consistent support lent to the work in its early stages by Dr. Satya Prakash Agarwal and Mary L. Allison proved indispensable. Dr. Frances W. Herring read the manuscript at a later stage and made valuable suggestions.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to my friend and colleague Dr. Margaret W. Fisher, from whose methods and high standards of scholarship I have learned so much. Her critical reading of the manuscript has allowed me to strengthen and improve the study in many of its aspects. I am also indebted to Dr. Edna C. Cardish, whose substantial suggestions for the Epilogue have proved invaluable.

My association with the Indian Press Digests Project of the Institute of International Studies (University of California, Berkeley) enabled me to revise my initial work and to substantiate sonie of the factual data. I am also indebted to Mrs. Corinne Bennett, whose help in preparing the manuscript for the publishers greatly lightened my task. To these and to many other friends and colleagues I express my keen appreciation. Sole responsibility for soundness of fact and interpretation rests, of course, with me.

Tucson, Arizona

November 1987

1. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division). Hereafter cited as Collected Works.

2. Harijan: A Journal of Applied Gandhiism. 1933-1955. repr. ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1973).

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 3

CHARTER II: SATYAGRAHA: ITS BASIC PRECEPTS 15

Truth 16

Non-violence 23

Self-suffering 26

The Role of the Individual 29

The Relationship of the Three Elements in Satyagraha 31

The Problem of Means in Satyagraha 32

CHAPTER III: SATYAGRAHA AS APPLIED SOCIO-POLITICAL ACTION 36

The Essentials of Satyagraha in Action 38

Fundamental Rules 38

Code of Discipline 39

Steps in a Satyagraha Campaign 40

Satyagraha or Duragraha? 41

An Analysis of Five Satyagraha Campaigns 45

The Vykom Temple Road Satyagraha 46

Summary Analysis of the Vykom Temple Road Satyagraha 50

The Bardoli Campaign of Peasants Against the Government of Bombay 53

Summary Analysis of the Bardoli Campaign 61

The Ahmedabad Labor Satyagraha 65

Summary Analysis of the Ahmedabad Labor Satyagraha 71

Nationwide Satyagraha Against the Rowlatt Bills 73

Summary Analysis of the Satyagraha Against the Rowlatt Bills 82

The Salt Satyagraha 88

Summary Analysis of the Salt Satyagraha 100

Concluding Note on the Five Campaigns 102

CHAPTER IV: HINDU TRADITION AND SATYAGRAHA: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GANDHIAN INNOVATIONS 105

Satya 108

Ahimsa 111

Tapasya 113

The Concepts of Karma and Non-attachment 115

The Traditional Methods of Hartal, Fast, Dharna 118

The Character of Gandhi’s Appeal 120

Satyagraha in an Islamic Setting 131

Conclusion 144

CHAPTER V: CONSERVATIVE OR ANARCHIST? A NOTE ON GANDHI AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 146

Gandhi and Conservatism 148

Respect for the Wisdom of Established Institutions 149 Religious institutions 151 Property 153

Continuity in the Historical Changes of the Social System 159

Impotence of Individual Will and Reason 164

Attachment of Members of a Society to Their Stations 167

Anarchist Elements in Gandhian Thought 172

Conclusion 188

CHAPTER VI: THE GANDHIAN DIALECTIC AND POLITICAL THEORY 189

A Theoretical Statement of Satyagraha 190

How the Gandhian Dialectic Operates 192

Satyagraha versus Compromise 196

The Element of Sacrifice 198

Hegelian, Marxian, and Gandhian Dialectic 198

The Failure of Traditional Political Theory 199

Conservatism and the Problem of Means 200

Authoritarian Idealism and the Problem of Means 211

Liberal Democratic Theory 214

The Operation of Satyagraha against a Totalitarian Regime 226

A Note on the Functioning of Suffering in Satyagraha 228

Ends-means as Convertible Terms 230

Epilogue 234

Notes 243

Bibliography 259

Glossary 269

Index 273

CONQUEST OF VIOLENCE

I

INTRODUCTION

IN THE WEST civil disobedience is a familiar, if unpopular, concept. The post-war years in America have witnessed a revival of the debate over the source and meaning of political obligation. The death of Socrates, the dilemma of Antigone, the action of Thoreau—these highlights in the course of mans rellection upon the problem of obligation dignify arguments concerning the conscientious objector’s position in the Contemporary circumstance, or the refusal of a witness to testify before an American Congressional investigating Committee.¹ Civil disobedience has usually been understood to be substantially an individual consideration: it has meant resistance or refusal to obey a given law, usually on grounds that such law offends the individual’s conscience or is repugnant to a higher law towards which the individual owes prior allegiance. The problem has been one of competing, conflicting moral values, and the solution has appeared to lie—necessarily, but also uneasily—with the individual.

In India, under the leadership of Mohandas K. Gandhi, experiments (as Gandhi called them) which had first been undertaken in South Africa were extended beyond the individual protest. Later experiments conducted during the struggle for Indian independence carried mass action beyond the confining limits of civil disobedience. Out of these emerged a new technique which Gandhi called satyagraha. Satyagraha embraced the method and the essential philosophy of civil disobedience, but through its application and refinement it became a technique for social and political change which transcended the substantial limitations of the earlier concept. Satyagraha became something more than a method of resistance to particular legal norms; it became an instrument of struggle for positive objectives and for fundamental change—a technique more widely used than understood and one which yet called for testing in the field of social and political action. When, in 1948, Mahatma Gandhi died by an assassins bullet, the experiments in truth, which he had begun, remained far from complete.

The most potent legacy Gandhi left to India was the technique of satyagraha. There was in this instrument of action, power to effect change. Satyagraha had become the cry of all those who felt aggrieved, and popular agitations, however organized and whatever their objective, were widely described as satyagraha movements. Informed, responsible, and concemed Indians today reflect upon the use and meaning of satyagraha with misgivings, yet with hope; with fond memories, and yet with anxiety for the future. What then, are the essential characteristics of satyagraha? Is it, as Nehru says, a tool which when debased may be used for wrong ends?

The ambivalence which marks the attitude of many former satyagrahis (those who employ or offer satyagraha) is part of a general and greater confusion which settled in upon Interpreters of satyagraha once Gandhi was no more leading the great experiment. To no small extent this confusion follows upon the failure either to delineate the method in terms of practical rules of procedure or to formulate the philosophy of action which informs and conditions the technique. Satyagraha, the name, has been seized upon to describe many forms of opposition to government, and to explain almost any direct social or political action short of organized violence. Throughout India local satyagrahas have been reported almost daily. Partisans readily turn major public issues into satyagraha objectives; threat and counter-threat are couched in terms of resort to satyagraha. Those who claim these satyagrahas and those who criticize alike appear to accept them as satyagraha.

Is, then, satyagraha to be equated with demonstration, with shouting of slogans, with fasting, with strike and with boycott? Is satyagraha no more than the generic term for all organized efforts in opposition which do not include overt violence? If this were so, the difference between Gandhian satyagraha and mass demonstration for a given political objective would be reduced perhaps to the factor of Gandhi himself. Such an analysis cannot, however, satisfy anyone who has troubled to examine the procedures, and the progress, the assumptions and the behavior involved in satyagraha movements of the Gandhi genre. There are characteristics which clearly mark out one type of action as different from others. Properties peculiar to satyagraha can be described, and it is therefore possible to establish which movements are and which are not to be properly classified as satyagraha. To make this distinction is valuable for those who would interpret the current processes of political and social change in India; and for those who would pursue Gandhi’s experiments with truth or extend them to other fields of action, to distinguish is essential.

As one threads his way through the Gandhian experiments questions of another sort pose themselves. These questions center upon the role played by Indian tradition, and more specifically, by Hindu tradition. When the evidence is sifted one is struck by the conclusion that the significant contribution of Gandhi lay not in any revival of traditional forms or method, but in a transformation of traditional concepts in such a way that only the symbols remained familiar—for the symbols were made by Gandhi to stand for a quite different set of values.

Gandhi’s own use of traditional terms to describe new approaches tends, to be sure, to obscure the essential elements in satyagraha. The problem here—for Indian and Westerner alike—is to probe beyond the traditional garb in which explanations of satyagraha are clothed. Had this technique of action been developed in another cultural matrix, by another leader, it might well have been couched in terms immediately familiar to the rationalist and the humanist. But in the absence of an explicit formulation of satyagraha, there developed an easy and imprecise identification of terms, a habit which persists today. For not only is satyagraha inaccurately equated with non-violence and with passive resistance, but satyagraha is also loosely identified with such further Gandhian concepts as sarvodaya.

To clarify the confusion which arises from this faulty identification of Gandhian concepts, it may be helpful to note, in passing, that there are at least three categories into which Gandhian notions may be classed: they are, simply stated, Gandhian objectives, Gandhian principles, and Gandhian means. The overall objectives for Gandhi were these two: swaraj, which, in its broadest political sense, meant independence, and sarvodaya (literally, uplift of all) which loosely described the ideal society towards which he worked. Following the achievement of political independence, sarvodaya became the primary Gandhian objective, and it is towards this ideal that leading contemporary Gandhian figures of India are still working.² Prominent among Gandhian principles are non-violence, adherence to truth, and dignity of labor.

Finally, Gandhian means include not only satyagraha, which remains the premier technique thus far developed, but also Bhoodan (literally, land-gift), a movement for voluntary sacrifice of land inaugurated in 1951 by Vinoba Bhave, as well as Nai Talim, the System of basic education which centers all instruction around a craft and is ideally self-supporting.

Other efforts or objectives given the name Gandhian may be considered ancillary to those here noted. We may call them Gandhian policies, Such, for instance, are the subsidiary objectives of prohibition and removal of untouchability, and the program for social and political decentralization. These may be understood as characteristics of sarvodaya, the ideal society. It is such subsidiary objectives as these which make it quite correct to characterize certain of the Directive Principles of State Policy laid down in the Constitution of India as Gandhi-influenced. In the same way Panchayat Raj legislation, which aims at revitalizing self-government in the villages, and the Bhoodan Yajna legislation, which facilitates the collection and distribution of land, may be said to be influences of Gandhi on Contemporary legislation.

We are here concerned with that part of the Gandhian impact which centers upon satyagraha, the premier Gandhian means. An analysis of the function of the concept of satyagraha within and upon Gandhian political thought indicates that satyagraha provides the key to an understanding of Gandhi’s political philosophy. One cannot, of course, turn to the writings of Gandhi for a definitive Statement in political theory. Gandhi was a political actionist and a practical philosopher; he was not a theorist. His writings abound with inconsistencies—one result of his persistent habit of thinking in public. Whatever philosophical formulations he made were inspired by and directed towards the solving of immediate problems. The unsophisticated explanations which Gandhi offered for his methods, his objectives, his policy, and creed were part of a program of action. They should not be interpreted in terms either of theory or of practical master-planning.

The vast body of Gandhi’s writing consists of opinions in the form of short sermons to those who sought his advice, or concise Statements in reply to critics. The problems with which he dealt range from experiments in dietary reform to high policy considerations. He wrote only four Works of book length.³ Other books ascribed to Gandhi are collections of articles, pamphlets and speeches organized by subject or by period.⁴ One must turn to files of the weekly publications⁵ and to collections of his correspondence to follow the evolution in Gandhi’s thinking.

From the wealth of material offered in Gandhi’s editorials and popular periodical articles one can extract a Gandhian philosophy. In so doing it is possible to emerge with a System of ethics, a way-of-life, a metaphysical formula, or a religion complete with ritual and hagiology. But it is only after a rigorous consideration of the historical realities of specific satyagraha campaigns, together with an analysis of the relationship of Gandhi’s teachings to those campaigns, that a valid theory based upon the Gandhian experiment can be formulated.

Satyagraha is a word coined during the movement of Indian resistance in South Africa to the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance introduced into the Transvaal Legislative Council in 1906. Gandhi explains that he first called the movement passive resistance, but as the struggle continued he became aware that some new principle had come into being. He then announced through the pages of his newspaper, Indian Opinion, that a prize would be given for the best name invented to designate the movement. One competitor suggested the word sadagraha, meaning firmness in a good cause.

I liked the word, but it did not fully represent the whole idea I wished it to connote. I therefore corrected it to Satyagraha. Truth (Satya) implies love and firmness (Agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement Satyagraha, that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase passive resistance . . .⁶

From the first use of the word satyagraha in South Africa to Gandhi’s last days in New Delhi⁷ Gandhi not only wrote elucidations of the term, but strove to understand and to explain its implications as the technique evolved. The number of satyagraha efforts undertaken in India during Gandhi’s life-time is impossible to determine. It is well within a conservative estimate to suggest that during the period from 1917 which marks the first large-scale satyagraha led by Gandhi in India (that of the peasants in the indigo fields of Champaran) to the time of Gandhi’s death in January 1948, there were hundreds of group satyagraha movements.

In examining satyagraha as it has been applied in historical situations on the Indian scene I shall have occasion to use such words as force, violence, injury. A note on definitions may help to clarify the chapters which follow.

Force I take to mean the exercise of physical or intangible power or influence to effect change. Violence is the willful application of force in such a way that it is intentionally injurious to the person or group against whom it is applied. Injury is understood to include psychological as well as physical harm.⁸ Non-violence when used in connection with satyagraha means the exercise of power or influence to effect change without injury to the opponent.

In considering the use of non-violent in contradistinction to violent force, the question of coercion arises. Coercion has been defined⁹ as the use of either physical or intangible force to compel action contrary to the will or reasoned judgment of the individual or group subjected to such force. Despite the protestations of a few followers of Gandhi that satyagraha is always persuasive and never coercive¹⁰ the method does contain a positive element of coercion. Non-cooperation, boycott, strike—all of these tools which may be used in satyagraha involve an element of compulsion which may effect a change on the part of an opponent which initially was contrary to his will—and he may suffer from the indirect results of these actions. But there remains a significant difference between non-violent and violent coercion.

The difference between violent coercion in which deliberate injury is inflicted upon the opponent and non-violent coercion in which injury indirectly results is a difference of such great degree that it is almost a difference of kind. Certainly this tends to be true in cases of extended and intensive use of violence in the one case and of non-violent coercion in the other. Withholding of services or profits may cause a very real discomfiture to the opponent, and he may interpret this as serious injury—but compared with physical destruction and deliberate undermining of morale, possibly coupled with extreme distortion of truth (as in the use of certain types of psychological warfare), the contrast is significant. Beyond this difference of degree, there are yet other distinguishing elements. In the case of non-violent coercion there is a willingness on the part of the one who would coerce to submit himself to suffering; in contrast, one who uses violence to coerce intentionally causes suffering to his opponent. In one of the few scholarly works published on the problem of non-violent resistance, Clarence Marsh Case contrasts violent and non-violent coercion in these words:

True non-violent coercion is, and ought to be, a two-edged sword. In other words, it causes, and it is well that it should cause, inconvenience and suffering to those who wield it, as well as to those against whom it is invoked. In this it is exactly contrary to violent methods; for a principal reason accounting for the appalling growth of terrorism in modern times, is the unfortunate fact that the development of fire-arms and high explosives carries no automatic check and penalty for all who use them. As for the methods of non-violent coercion, particularly the strike and the boycott, the public usually stands more or less in position