Politics and Nonviolence

Spring 2022

Aaj Sikri- 18010015

1- In which way do principled advocates of nonviolence differ from practitioners of

pragmatic nonviolence?
Violence can be denoted as an act which is mischievous and deliberate and something which
spoils the moral foundation of a society , it is not something which is unforeseen and can be
overlooked. It is a force which oppresses a lot of institutions, individuals or anything else. It
also has the capacity to supress the dignity and identity of any person or being. It comes in
two ways, physical or metaphysical force. However, violence just not exist in these forms, it
exists in a lot of forms and has numerous features which makes it difficult for a use of
violence to overcome violence. Therefore, popular leaders have started various movements
by adopting various approaches, once such approach is the propagation of non-violence,
primarily designed to end the use of violence. It exists in two forms, Pragmatic and
Principled non-violence.
In principled non-violence, the origin lies in the religious perceptions of way of life and the
theories and values of each religion. Where the focus is on harmony and there seems to be a
rejection of violence. On the other hand, the second approach i.e., ‘pragmatic,’ which has
been propagated by Sharp, where the focus is on conflict and it is seen as a way to challenge
power. This is primarily achieved by consent theory. The former is also known as satyagraha,
holding nonviolence to be a way of life. It rejects all physical violence as wrong and it is
grounded in morality. It has sacred, spiritual and religious base. There are various individuals
who are the forbearers of principled non-violence, for e.g. Martin Luther King Jr and
Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi dedicated his entire life during the Indian independence
movement. Gandhi always focused on solving the root problems by first identifying them. In
his hind swaraj, he talked about solving problems that started violence. He also attacked
various lawyers who created a divide in the society by their litigious behaviour. The reason
being that lawyers focus upon making the rich richer and poor poorer and thus propagating
oppression by their practice. Gandhi also attacked the use of modern technology, he
considered modern technology as a tool of surveillance over the oppressed by the elites. For
e.g. when he was in south Africa he objected against the use of finger-printing modes to keep
the races in check. For the adoption of a non-violent society suffering is an inevitable part, it
is a small price to pay to achieve a morally correct society. For e.g. Gandhi and Luther often
submitted themselves to get arrested and other forceful state actions in order to stay true to
their commitment towards non-violence. When Gandhi was on a sedition trial, he argued that
he will break the immoral laws and will be ready to face the consequences of his
disobedience. For both Luther and Gandhi victory was only achieved when there was a
change in moral outlook of the people. For e.g. for both of them their political aim was never
solely political but they wanted people to learn endurance, patience and brotherhood from
their long marches. Gandhi taught amity with his adversaries as during his speeches at Kheda
and Champaran, he raised his arms wide and asked the colonial officers to embrace him, this
way he persuaded them to cooperate with him. On a same level, Luther persuaded all the
oppressed members of the society be it because of their race, caste or class, to join him in his
marches and showcasing the gesture that enemy has turn into ally. It is imperative to mention
that such movements never pave way for violence and they teach us that violence can be
given up holistically by embracing our inner self, patience and endurance. This approach is
also built on the pedestal of community of interest which is committed to spiritual evocation
of peace. Gandhi formed a group of believers who believed in his cause, i.e., Satyagrahis.
Their agenda and idea was simple, i.e., the achievement of Swarajya which is the rule of self.
It does not mean that the government would be created for one self but the government which
protects the self-identity and dignity of its people. His movements was successful as he
brought inclusiveness to it. He borrowed various ideas from different religions such as jains,
sikhs, buddhist and Christianity. Gandhi always focused on achieving Ramrajya, however, he
does not want everyone to be believers of ram but wanted to create an atmosphere like there
was under the reign of Lord ram i.e., a society which is just and righteous which is free from
crime and violence.
Pragmatic non-violence is a bit different but the line of distinction is really thin. In fact it is
borrowed from the idea of principle nonviolence. However, it is also based on a method of
struggle. What’s different in this approach is that it is completely secular and is free from any
faith or worship. There’s a political objective behind adopting pragmatic non-violence as a
political tool, for e.g. achieving a democracy, achieving self-determination within a nation.
Pragmatic non-violence adopts suffering and struggle as two key components of achieving
their end goal which comes at a justifiable cost to end intolerable regime. Pragmatic no-
violence can be identified as an objective process where there are steps and conditions to
achieve a successful non-violent struggle. Gene Sharp one of the key people who practiced
and advocated for pragmatic non-violence identifies some of the following preconditions:
1. Balance of dependencies: The idea is to support their agenda and not challenge those
acts which are indeed supportive in nature. For e.g. if a government runs a a
department for progressive healthcare which is beneficial to the people in the society
then even if the struggle on nonviolence is against the oppressive acts of the
government, the followers must not challenge the government.
2. Source of political power: The root of political power is identified as the key problem
be it money or muscle power. The idea is to defend and fight against the oppressive
warlords who use physical aggression and taken bribes to ensure fidelity to their
regime. However the idea is to stand in the way and fight against the system.
3. Activities that aggravate weaknesses of the oppressive system: The idea is to chose
those activities which best harms the oppressive system. Some other movements uses
protests or writing petition as an effective mode but here the idea is more strategic.
4. Importance of initiative in the conflict: the idea is to taken an initiative in the conflict
without any other incentive or fear. One should not be just a passive observer in the
movement , it accords for unity in the movement.

Sharp further laid down 4 mechanisms of change that happen because of methods of
nonviolent actions. 1) first is the conversion principle. It is the process where members of
a society are emotionally moved by the suffering and oppression of nonviolent protestors.
2) the second mechanism is accommodation. This occurs as a result of withdrawal from
political or economic cooperation by the resisters which compels the opponents to
compromise. If these two mechanisms fail to achieve the desired ends then nonviolent
coercion is used as a third mechanism. This removes the dictator from power, they might
still be ruling but practically they are devoid of any control or power over the government
or society. The most extreme mechanism is that of disintegration. This goes far from
nonviolent coercion as it dictates that now the oppressors are removed from their
positions as well. Which further leads to a collapse of the government.

It can be fairly concluded that principled non-violence if of value while pragmatic non-
violence is of strategy.
2- Discuss the relevance or non-relevance of Gandhi’s nonviolence for today’s world?
Gandhi has remained the most popular known political leaders of modern India even after 74
years of his death. Much of the credit is owed to the movements led by him again the British
rule, the hallmark of the movements was that all were non-violent in nature. A principle
which Gandhi was very keen on adopting and the legacy of the same has remained. His ideas,
beliefs and values still continue to inspire million of people to fight inequality, injustice and
historical wrongs, and this is what makes him relevant in today’s world. His vision and belief
in the moral growth of humanity apart from his simplicity and honest, is what distinguishes
him from other political leaders even today who just pretend to represent our wills. October 2
apart from the birth anniversary of Gandhi is also celebrated as the international day for non-
violence to pay respect and acceptance to the true spirt of non-violence promoted by Gandhi
throughout his life. According to the general assembly, the international dat for non-violence
is an occasion to “disseminate the message of non-violence, including through education and
public awareness.” This means that in today’s world there is reaffirmation for the Gandhian
principle of non-violence. There should be desire to secure a culture of peace, tolerance,
understanding and non-violence.
The question that “why is there violence, violence rather than non-violence?” is something
the human race has been unable to answer. Gandhi was asked if non-violent resistance was a
form of direct action, he replied that it was not the only form and “it was the greatest
force..more positive than electricity and more powerful than even ether.” He believed that
nonviolence could be put into practice at even level of human experience. Non violence was
spirituality and a way of life and not just a political tactic which makes the principles and the
practice of non-violence even relevant today. We live in today’s world where spirituality has
ceased to exist in the social, political and cultural spheres but the idea of non-violence has
given us something that may uphold. Gandhi remains the voice of the weak in the 21 st century
and his idea of non-violence compels us to fight for what we believe is just and right. Non-
violence is way to achieve the groundwork of a new cosmopolitics specially when there are
conflicts related to national interest, religious fundamentalisms, racial prejudices etc. Many
have argued that non-violence is an ineffective tool against dictatorships and genocides but
many democratic states have built non-violent militancy and created affirmation of human
rights and global civil society on the foundation of neo-Gandhian quest for peace and justice.
It is contended that history has been based on choices, at the end the choice of non-violence is
ours. We are at a stage where non-violence is the most crucial weapon as the fate out cultures
is heavily intertwined. Further, we no longer live in a world where there are closed
communities and where religious traditions represent the sole layer of historical legitimacy.
The most barbaric and despotic regimes has thwarted their subjects to practice non-violence.
Based on the international application of the principles of democracy, non-violence has
evolved from tactic of resistance to a cosmopolitical aim and a way of life. Over the past few
decades, global terrorism, violation of human rights have been on the upscale which has
directly resulted in questioning the veracity of the principles of non-violence. Global politics
of non violence is structurally more complexed as there are various stake holders which are
responsible. International community is also responsible to intervene when a particular state
moves into lawlessness and there is constant degradation of human rights. There cannot be a
situation where violence influences majority of the society and the onus is on non-violence to
reap through. It’s always the responsibility of the society as a whole to reap the benefits of
non-violence by practicing the same to begin with.
It can be said that for the success of politics, morality has to be achieved, thus the political is
dependent on the over-political. Politics and ethical views go hand in hand, it can be said that
without ethical views politics would be left with just power. Public virtue can only be
achieved when politics and ethics go hand in hand. By merely imposing moral behaviour true
politics can not be achieved and can lead to terrible crimes. “Politics is the morally
conscientious and socially responsible exercise of civic roles. Non-violence is key to this.”
Violence is usually seen as a mean to end however, in non-violent politics no violence is the
means to an end. We can say that we live in a world with no wisdom given the politics and
technology of violence. We need to fall back to our commitment to the wisdom of non-
violence.
Gandhianism starts with ‘Simple living and high thinking.’ This is reflective of the real world
where it gandhianism seems simple to everyone but requires a lot of practice and tolerance to
actually achieve non-violence. People usually say non-violence is a weapon of weak but it
requires a great degree of commitment, patience and courage to actually achieve it. On the
onset of Russian invasion of Ukraine, there’s all the more need of Gandhian idea of non-
violence.
We can conclude by saying that principle of non-violence is very must relevant in fact
important in today’s world because of the growing terrorism and other major conflicts. In
such times the values espoused by Gandhi can guide our planet towards a better future. Even
though Gandhi practiced in India, his principles and values are resonated throughout the
world. Gandhi was the inspiration for our largely non-violent, inclusive and democratic
freedom struggle which makes him the ethical benchmark for the struggles around the world
even today. The world needs to start incorporating his ideas in the building of a 21 st century
that is marked by justice and equality.
“Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the
mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”