Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, and Satyagraha in the Real World

Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, and Satyagraha in the Real World


Excerpt:
Gandhi set out a number of rules for the practice of civil disobedience. These rules often baffle his critics, and often even his admirers set them aside as nonessential. But once you understand that civil disobedience, for Gandhi, was aimed at working a change of heart—whether in the opponent or the public—then it’s easy to make sense of them.

One rule was that only specific, unjust laws were to be broken. Civil disobedience didn’t mean flouting all law.

In fact, Gandhi said that only people with a high regard for the law were qualified for civil disobedience. Only action by such people could convey the depth of their concern and win respect. No one thinks much of it when the law is broken by those who care nothing for it anyway.

Other rules: Gandhi ruled out direct coercion, such as trying to physically block someone. Hostile language was banned. Destroying property was forbidden. Not even secrecy was allowed.

All these were ruled out because any of them would undercut the empathy and trust Gandhi was trying to build, and would hinder that “change of heart.”
cont'd

http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html



Some further thoughts on nonviolence:

All of these forms of direct action are effective, Sharp asserts, because they diminish the legitimacy, and hence the power of the opponent. "Nonviolent action tends to turn the opponent's violence and repression against his own power position, weakening it and at the same time strengthening the nonviolent group. Because violent action and nonviolent action possess quite different mechanisms, and induce differing forces of change in the society, the opponent's repression. . . can never really come to grips with the kind of power wielded by the nonviolent actionists." (The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part II. Pp. 111-113). Sharp compares this approach to the martial art of jiu-jitsu--in which the violent party loses its balance when confronted with nonviolent opposition...cont'd

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/nonviolc.htm

"Other rules: Gandhi ruled out direct coercion, such as trying to physically block someone. Hostile language was banned. Destroying property was forbidden. Not even secrecy was allowed."

Not to say I'm a strict Gandhian, but assuming I was...

The problem is that provocateurs/plants can easily be inserted into any group, thereby providing the "justification" for a crackdown.
Just yesterday, press reports claimed that in Denver, "A man kicked over a motorcycle and kicked several officers" prior to the mass assault. We now know that the individual in question was himself knocked over by the motorcycle; he did not "kick" officers but was gang-tackled and punched in the face.

Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that provocateurs will, in future, hurl objects at police, vandalize property, and even instigate violence. As in the 60's, some protesters may be duped into aping this behavior.

Lesson 1 -- Police lie. Constantly.

Lesson 2 -- Provocateurs are a standard police/intell tactic.

Lesson 3 -- the actions of one or two protesters do not justify collective punishment.

The corporate media will never acknowledge 1 or 2. However it may be possible to spread the radical concept that a hundred people should not be brutalized because some guy throws a water bottle at riot police. In a country where many consider it hunky dorey if dozens of civilians are slaughtered by a drone in order to kill an alleged "militant", this idea may be difficult to impart. But it's worth a shot.

"Other rules: Gandhi ruled out direct coercion, such as trying to physically block someone. Hostile language was banned. Destroying property was forbidden. Not even secrecy was allowed."

Not to say I'm a strict Gandhian, but assuming I was...

The problem is that provocateurs/plants can easily be inserted into any group, thereby providing the "justification" for a crackdown.
Just yesterday, press reports claimed that in Denver, "A man kicked over a motorcycle and kicked several officers" prior to the mass assault. We now know that the individual in question was himself knocked over by the motorcycle; he did not "kick" officers but was gang-tackled and punched in the face.

Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that provocateurs will, in future, hurl objects at police, vandalize property, and even instigate violence. As in the 60's, some protesters may be duped into aping this behavior.

Lesson 1 -- Police lie. Constantly.

Lesson 2 -- Provocateurs are a standard police/intell tactic.

Lesson 3 -- the actions of one or two protesters do not justify collective punishment.

The corporate media will never acknowledge 1 or 2. However it may be possible to spread the radical concept that a hundred people should not be brutalized because some guy throws a water bottle at riot police. In a country where many consider it hunky dorey if dozens of civilians are slaughtered by a drone in order to kill an alleged "militant", this idea may be difficult to impart. But it's worth a shot.

with what 'they' will do or think and pre-determining what will happen. Ultimately all we can do is stand
in our truth, whatever the circumstances or whatever others choose to do. That kind of truth has a particular
resonance that others recognize. Provocateurs have always been around to provoke, slander and test our resolve.

"Gandhi called his overall method of nonviolent action Satyagraha. This translates roughly as “Truth-force.” A fuller rendering, though, would be “the force that is generated through adherence to Truth.”
I believe that Truth is not dependent on what others say or do. It's about following our own inner compass, holding our center, our true north and the rest will be what it will be and we will respond accordingly. That is the definition of courage too.

If "adherence to truth" is a high priority, then exposing the truth about police state methods should not be hidden or dismissed. I wouldn't go for a walk in the jungle without bringing along a map. We have a lot to learn from previous movements.

Provocateurs are no minor matter. In Italy and other European countries during the 60's, 70's and 80's, fascists working for NATO intelligence actually created fictitious leftist organizations which set off dozens of bombs. Hundreds died as a result. The campaign, widely known as Operation Gladio, led to a succession of right wing governments and the dismantling of many socialist and progressive groups. COINTELPRO in the United States acted in similar fashion.

Far from "putting power in their hands" by "concerning myself" with such matters, I am drawing attention to a major tool in their arsenal. Knowledge is power.

You may be concerned that pointing out this history could lead to paranoia, and therefore hinder our efforts. There is some truth to this, but the alternative -- ignorance -- is far worse. Moreover, since violence often leads to violence, widespread understanding of provocateurs and false flag operations will discourage violent behavior.

Provateurs vel non, I believe Gandhi's method will work better than the alternatives.

That said, India now seems fully possessed by the worst kind of capitalism. But that is, I think, another discussion.