The Birth of Khadi

I do not remember to have seen a handloom or a spinning wheel when in 1908 I described it in “Hind Swaraj” as the panacea for the growing pauperism of India. In that book I took it as understood that anything that helped India to get rid of the grinding poverty of her masses would in the same process also establish Swaraj. Even in 1915, when I returned to India from South Africa, I had not actually seen a spinning wheel. When the Satyagraha Ashram was founded at Sabarmati, we introduced a few handlooms there. But no sooner had we done this than we found ourselves up against a difficulty. All of us belonged either to the liberal professions or to business; not one of us was an artisan. We needed a weaving expert to teach us to weave before we could work the looms. One was at last procured from Palanpur, but Maganlal Gandhi was not to be easily baffled. Possessed of a natural talent for mechanics, he was able fully to master the art before long, and one after another several new weavers were trained up in the Ashram.

The object that we set before ourselves was to be able to clothe ourselves entirely in cloth manufactured by our own hands. We therefore forthwith discarded the use of mill-woven cloth, and all the members of the Ashram resolved to wear hand-woven cloth made from Indian yarn only. The adoption of this practice brought us a world of experience. It enabled us to know, from direct contact, the conditions of life among the weavers, the extent of their production, the handicaps in the way of their obtaining their yarn supply, the way in which they were being made victims of fraud, and, lastly, their ever growing indebtedness. We were not in a position immediately to manufacture all the cloth for our needs. The alternative therefore was to get our cloth supply from handloom weavers. But ready-made cloth from Indian mill-yarn was not easily obtainable either from the cloth- dealers or from the weavers themselves. All the fine cloth woven by the weavers was from foreign yarn, since Indian mills did not spin fine counts. Even today the outturn of higher counts by Indian mills is very limited, whilst highest counts they cannot spin at all. It was after the greatest effort that we were at last able to find some weavers who condescended to weave Swadeshi yarn for us, and only on condition that the Ashram would take up all the cloth that they might produce. By thus adopting cloth woven from mill-yarn as our wear, and propagating it among our friends, we made ourselves voluntary agents of the Indian spinning mills. This in its turn brought us into contact with the mills, and enabled us to know something about their management and their handicaps. We saw that the aim of the mills was more and more to weave the yarn spun by them: their co-operation with the handloom weaver was not willing, but unavoidable and temporary. We became impatient to be able to spin our own yarn. It was clear that, until we could do this ourselves, dependence on the mills would remain. We did not feel that we could render any service to the country by continuing as agents of Indian spinning mills.

K.L. Kamat/Kamat’s Potpourri

Swadeshi Memorabilia
Woman weaves cloth under Gandhi’s bust
From a picture postcard from 1940s

No end of difficulties again faced us. We could get neither spinning wheel nor a spinner to teach us how to spin. We were employing some wheel for filling pearns and bobbins for weaving in the Ashram. But we had no idea that these could be used as spinning wheels. Once Kalidas Jhaveri discovered a woman who, he said, would demonstrate to us how spinning was done. We sent to her a member of the Ashram who was known for his great versatility in learning new things. But even he returned without wresting the secret of the art.

So the time passed on, and my impatience grew with the time. I plied every chance visitor to the Ashram who was likely to possess some information about hand-spinning with questions about the art. But the art being confined to women and having been all but exterminated, if there was some stray spinner still surviving in some obscure corner, only a member of that sex was likely to find out her whereabouts.

In the year 1917 I was taken by my Gujarati friends to preside at the Broach Educational Conference. It was here that I discovered that remarkable lady Gangabehn Majmundar. She was a widow, but her enterprising spirit knew no bounds. Her education, in the accepted sense of the term, was not much. But in courage and commonsense she easily surpassed the general run of our educated women. She had already got rid of the curse of untouchability, and fearlessly moved among and served the suppressed classes. She had means of her own, and her needs were few. She had a well seasoned constitution, and went about everywhere without an escort. She felt quite at home on horseback. I came to know her more intimately at the Godhra Conference. To her I poured out my grief about the charkha, and she lightened my burden by a promise to prosecute an earnest and incessant search for the spinning wheel.

Story of Non Cooperation

I must not devote any more chapters here to a description of the further progress of Khadi. It would be outside the scope of these chapters to give a history of my various activities after they came before the public eye, and I must not attempt it, if only because to do so would require a treatise on the subject. My object in writing these chapters is simply to describe how certain things, as it were spontaneously, presented themselves to me in the course of my experiments with truth.

To resume, then, the story of the non-co-operation movement. Whilst the powerful Khilafat agitation set up by the Ali Brothers was in full progress, I had long discussions on the subject with the late Maulana Abdul Bari and the other Ulema, especially, with regard to the extent to which a Musalman could observe the rule of non-violence. In the end they all agreed that Islam did not forbid its followers from following non-violence as a policy, and further, that, while they were pledged to that policy, they were bound faithfully to carry it out. At last the non-co-operation resolution was moved in the Khilafat conference, and carried after prolonged deliberations. I have a vivid recollection how once at Allahabad a committee sat all night deliberating upon the subject. In the beginning the late Hakim Saheb was skeptical as to the practicability of non-violent non-co- operation. But after his skepticism was overcome he threw himself into it heart and soul, and his help proved invaluable to the movement.

Next, the non-co-operation resolution was moved by me at the Gujarat political conference that was held shortly afterwards. The preliminary contention raised by the opposition was that it was not competent to a provincial conference to adopt a resolution in advance of the Congress. As against this, I suggested that the restriction could apply only to a backward movement; but as for going forward, the subordinate organizations were not only fully competent, but were in duty bound to do so, if they had in them the necessary girt and confidence. No permission, I argued was needed to try to enhance the prestige of the parent institution, provided one did it at one’s own risk. The proposition was then discussed on its merits, the debate being marked by its keenness no less than the atmosphere of ‘sweet reasonableness’ in which it was conducted. On the ballot being taken the resolution was declared carried by an overwhelming majority. The successful passage of the resolution was due not a little to the personality of Sjt. Vallabhbhai and Abbas Tyabji. The latter was the president, and his leanings were all in favor of the non-co-operation resolution.

The All-India Congress Committee resolved to hold a special session of the Congress in September 1920 at Calcutta to deliberate on this question Preparations were made for it on a large scale. Lala Lajpat Rai was elected President . Congress and Khilafat specials were run to Calcutta from Bombay. At Calcutta there was a mammoth gathering of delegates and visitors. At the request of Maulana Shaukat Ali, I prepared a draft of the non-cooperation resolution in the train. Up to this time I had more or less avoided the use of the word non-violent in my drafts. I invariably made use of this word in my speeches. My vocabulary on the subject was still in process of formation. I found that I could not bring home of the Samskrit equivalent for non-violent. I therefore asked Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad to give me some other equivalent for it. He suggested the word ba-aman; similarly for non-co-operation he suggested the phrase tark-i-mavalat.

Thus, while I was still busy devising suitable Hindi, Gujarati and Urdu phraseology for non-cooperation, I was called upon to frame the non-cooperation resolution for that eventful Congress. In the original draft the word ‘non-violent’ had been left out by me. I had handed over the draft to Maulana Shaukat Ali who was traveling in the same compartment, without noticing the omission. During the night I discovered the error. In the morning I sent Mahadev with the message that the omission should be made good before the draft was sent to the press. But I have an impression that the draft was printed before the insertion could be made. The Subjects Committee was to have met the same evening. I had therefore to make the necessary correction in the printed copies of the draft. I afterwards saw that there would have been great difficulty, had I not been ready with my draft. None the less my plight was pitiable indeed. I was absolutely at sea as to who would support the resolution and who would oppose it. Nor had I any idea as to the attitude that Lalaji would adopt. I only saw an imposing phalanx of veteran warriors assembled for the fray at Calcutta, Dr. Besant, Pandit Malaviyaji, Sjt. Vijayaraghavachari, Pandit Motilalji and Deshabandhu being some of them. In my resolution non-co-operation was postulated only with a view to obtaining redress of the Punjab and the Khilafat wrongs. That, however, did not appeal to Sjt. Vijayaraghavachari. ‘If non-co- operation was to be declared, why should it be with reference to particular wrongs? The absence of Swaraj was the biggest wrong that the non-co-operation should be directed,’ he argued. Pandit Motilalji also wanted the demand for Swaraj to be included in the resolution. I readily accepted the suggestion and incorporated the demand for Swaraj in my resolution, which was passed after an exhaustive, serious and somewhat stormy discussion.

Motilalji was the first to join the movement. I still remember the sweet discussion that I had with him on the resolution. He suggested some changes in its phraseology which I adopted. He undertook to win Deshabandhu for the movement. The he felt skeptical as to the capacity of the people to carry out the program. It was only at the Nagpur Congress that he and Lalaji accepted it whole heartedly. I felt the loss of the late Lokamanya very deeply at the special session. It has been my firm faith to this day that, had the Lokamanya been then alive, he would have given his benedictions to me on that occasion. But even if it had been otherwise, and he had opposed the movement, I should still have esteemed his opposition as a privilege and an education for myself. We had our differences of opinion always, but they never led to bitterness. He always allowed me to believe that the ties between us were of the closest. Even as I write these lines, the circumstances of his death stand forth vividly before my mind’s eye. It was about the hour of midnight, when Patwardhan, who was then working with me, conveyed over the telephone the news of his death. I was at that time surrounded by me companions. Spontaneously the exclamation escaped my lips, ‘My strongest bulwark is gone.’ The non- co-operation movement was then in full swing, and I was eagerly looking forward to encouragement and inspiration from him. What his attitude would have been with regard to the final phase of non-cooperation will always be a matter of speculation, and an idle one at that. But this much is certain that the deep void left by his death weighed heavily upon everybody present at Calcutta. Everyone felt the absence of his counsels in that hour of crisis in the nation’s history.

Mahatma Revisited

Sir Michael O’Dwyer held me responsible for all that had happened in the Punjab, and some irate young Punjabis held me responsible for the martial law. They asserted that, if only I had not suspended civil disobedience, there would have been no Jalianwala Bagh massacre. Some of them even went the length of threatening me with assassination if I went to the Punjab.

But I felt that my position was so correct and above question that no intelligent person could misunderstand it.

I was impatient to go to the Punjab. I had never been there before, and that made me all the more anxious to see things for myself. Dr. Satyapal, Dr. Kitchly and Pandit Rambhaj Dutt Chowdhari, who had invited me to the Punjab, were at this time in jail. But I felt sure that the Government could not dare to keep them and the other prisoners in prison for long. A large number of Punjabis used to come and see me whenever I was in Bombay. I ministered to them a word of cheer on these occasions, and that would comfort them. My self- confidence of that time was infectious.

But my going to the Punjab had to be postponed again and again. The Viceroy would say, ‘not yet,’ every time I asked for permission to go there, and so the thing dragged on.

In the meantime the Hunter Committee was announced to hold an inquiry in connection with the Punjab Government’s doings under the martial law. Mr. C.F. Andrews had now reached the Punjab. His letters gave a heart-rending description that the martial law atrocities were in fact even worse than the press reports had showed. He pressed me urgently to come and join him. At the same time Malaviyaji sent telegrams asking me to proceed to the Punjab at once. I once more telegraphed to the Viceroy asking whether I could now go to the Punjab. He wired back in reply that I could go there after a certain date. I cannot exactly recollect now, but I think it was 17th of October.

The scene that I witnessed on my arrival at Lahore can never be effaced from my memory. The railway station was from end to end one seething mass of humanity. The entire populace had turned out of doors in eager expectation, as if to meet a dear relation after a long separation, and was delirious with joy. I was put up at the late Pandit Rambhaj Dutt’s bungalow, and the burden of entertining me fell on the shoulders of Shrimati Sarala Devi. A burden it truly was, for even then, as now, the place where I was accommodated became a veritable caravanserai.

Owing to the principal Punjab leaders being in jail, their place, I found, had been properly taken up by Pandit Malaviyaji, Pandit Motilalji and the late Swami Sharddhanandji. Malaviyaji and Shraddhanandji I had known intimately before, but this was the first occasion on which I came in close personal contact with Motilalji. All these leaders, as also such local leaders as had escaped the privilege of going to jail, at once made me feel perfectly at home amongst them, so that I never felt like a stranger in their midst.

How we unanimously decided not to lead evidence before the Hunter Committee is now a matter of history. The reasons for that decision were published at that time, and need not be recapitulated here. Suffice it to say that, looking back upon these events from this distance of time, I still feel that our decision to boycott the Committee was absolutely correct and proper.

As a logical consequence of the boycott of the Hunter Committee, it was decided to appoint a non-official Inquiry Committee, to hold almost a parallel inquiry on behalf of the Congress. Pandit Motilal Nehru, the late Deshbandhu C.R. Das, Sjt. Abbas Tyabji, Sjt. M.R.Jayakar and myself were appointed to this Committee, virtually by Pandit Malaviyaji. We distributed ourselves over various places for purposes of inquiry. The responsibility for organizing the work of the Committee devolved on me, and as the privilege of conducting the inquiry in the largest number of places fell to my lot, I got a rare opportunity of observing at close quarters the people of the Punjab and the Punjab villages.

In the course of my inquiry I made acquaintance with the women of the Punjab also. It was as if we had known one another for ages. Wherever I went they came flocking, and laid before me their heaps of yarn. My work in connection with the inquiry brought home to me the fact that the Punjab could become a great field for Khadi work.

As I proceeded further and further with my inquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I came across tales of Government’s tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of its officers such as I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and what still continues to fill me with surprise, was the fact that a province that had furnished the largest number of soldiers to the British Government during the war, should have taken all these brutal excesses lying down.

The task of drafting the report of this Committee was also entrusted to me. I would recommend a perusal of this report to any one who wants to have an idea of the kind of atrocities that were perpetrated on the Punjab people. All that I wish to say here about it is that there is not a single conscious exaggeration in it anywhere, and every statement made in it is substantiated by evidence. Moreover, the evidence published was only a fraction of what was in the Committee’s possession. Not a single statement, regarding the validity of which there was the report. This report, prepared as it was solely with a view to bringing out the truth and nothing but the truth, will enable the reader to see to what lengths the British Government is capable of going, and what inhumanities and barbarities it is capable of perpetrating in order to maintain its power. So far as I am aware, not a single statement made in this report has ever been disproved.

The Conversation

From its very inception the Khadi movement, Swadeshi movement as it was then called, evoked much criticism from the mill-owners. The late Umar Sobani, a capable mill-owner himself, not only gave me the benefit of his own knowledge and experience, but kept me in touch with the opinion of the other mill-owners as well. The argument advanced by one of these deeply impressed him. He pressed me to meet him. I agreed. Mr. Sobani arranged the interview. The mill-owner opened the conversation.

‘You know that there has been Swadeshi agitation before now ?’

‘Yes, I do,’ I replied.

‘You are also aware that in the days of the Partition we, the mill- owners, fully exploited the Swadeshi movement. When it was at its height, we raised the prices of cloth, and did even worse things.’

‘You, I have heard something about it, and it has grieved me.’

‘I can understand your grief, but I can see no ground for it. We are not conducting our business out of philanthropy. We do it for profit, we have got to satisfy the shareholders. The price of an article is governed by the demand for it. Who can check the law of demand and supply ? The bengalis should have known that their agitation was bound to send up the price of Swadeshi cloth by stimulating the demand for it.’

I interrupted: ‘The Bengalis like me were trustful in their nature. They believed, in the fulness of their faith, that the mill-owners would not be so utterly selfish and unpatriotic as to betray their country in the hour of its need, and even to go the length, as they did, of fraudulently passing off foreign cloth as Swadeshi.’

‘I knew your believing nature,’ he rejoined; ‘that is why I purt you to the trouble of coming to me, so that I might warn you against falling into the same error as these simple-hearted Bengalis.’

With these words the mill-owner beckoned to his clerk who wa standing by to produce samples of the stuff that was being manufactured in his mill. Pointing to it he said: ‘Look at this stuff. This is the latest variety turned out by our mill. It is meeting with a widespread demand. We manufacture it from the waste. Naturally, therefore, it is cheap. We send it as far North as the valleys of the Himalayas. We have agencies all over the country, even in places where your voice or your agents can never reach. You can thus see that we do not stand in need of more agents. Besides, you ought to know that India’s production of cloth falls far short of its requirements. The question of Swadeshi, therefore, largely resolves itself into one of production. The moment we can increase our production sufficiently, and improve its quality to the necessary extent, the import of foreign cloth will automatically cease. extent, the import of foreign cloth will automatically cease. My advice to you, therefore, is not to carry on your agitation on its present lines, but to turn your attention to the erection of fresh mills. What we need is not propaganda to inflate demand for our goods, but greater production.’

‘Then, surely, you will bless my effort, if I am laready engaged in that very thing,’ I asked.

‘How can that be ?’ he exclaimed, a bit puzzled, ‘but may be, you are thinking of promoting the establishment of new mills, in which case you certainly deserve to be congratulated.’

‘ I am not doing exactly that,’ I explained, ‘but I am engaged in the revival of the spinning wheel.’

‘What is that ?’ he asked, feeling still more at sea. I told him all about the spinning wheel, and the story of my long quest after it, and added, ‘I am entirely of your opinion; it is no use my becoming virtually an agent for the mils. That would do more harm than good to the country. Our mills will not be in want of custom for a long time to come. My work should be, and therefore is, to organize the production of handspun cloth, and to find means for the disposal of the Khadi thus produced. I am, therefore, concentrating my attention on the production of Khadi. I swear by this form of Swadeshi, because through it I can provide work to the semi-starved, semi-employed women of India. My idea is to get these women to spin yarn, and to clothe the people of India with Khadi woven out of it. I do not know how far this movement is going to succeed, at present it is only in the incipient stage. But i have full faith in it. At any rate it can do no harm. On the contrary to the extent that it can add to the cloth production of the country, he it ever so small, it will represent so much solid gain. You will thus perceive that my movement is free from the evils mentioned by you.’

He replied, ‘If you have additional production in view in organizing your movement, I have nothing to say against it. Whether the spinning wheel can make headway in this age of power machinery is another question. But I for one wish you every success.

A Farewell

The time has now come to bring these chapters to a close.

My life from this point onward has been so public that there is hardly anything about it that people do not know. Moreover, since 1921 I have worked in such close association with the Congress leaders that I can hardly describe any episode in my life since then without referring to my relations with them. For though Shraddhanandji, the Deshabandhu, Hakim Saheb and Lalaji are no more with us today, we have the good luck to have a host of other veteran Congress leaders still living and working in our midst. The history of the Congress, since the great changes in it that I have described above, is still in the making. And my principal experiments during the past seven years have all been made through the Congress. A reference to my relations with the leaders would therefore be unavoidable, if I set about describing my experiments further. And this I may not do, at any rate for the present, if only from a sense of propriety. Lastly, my conclusions from my current experiments can hardly as yet be regarded as decisive. It therefore seems to me to be my plain duty to close this narrative here. In fact my pen instinctively refuses to proceed further.
It is not without a wrench that I have to take leave of the reader. I set a high value on my experiments. I do not know whether I have been able to do justice to them. I can only say that I have spared no pains to give a faithful narrative. To describe truth, as it has appeared to me, and in the exact manner in which I have arrived at it, has been my ceaseless effort. The exercise has given me ineffable mental peace, because, it has been my fond hope that it might bring faith in Truth and Ahimsa to waverers.

My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth. And if every page of these chapters does not proclaim to the reader that the only means for the realization of Truth is Ahimsa, I shall deem all my labor in writing these chapters to have been in vain. And, even though my efforts in this behalf may prove fruitless, let the readers know that the vehicle, not the great principle, is at fault. After all, however sincere my strivings after Ahimsa may have been, they have still been imperfect and inadequate. The little fleeting glimpses, therefore, that I have been able to have of Truth can hardly convey an idea of the indescribable luster of Truth, a million times more intense than that of the sun we daily see with our eyes. In fact what I have caught is only the faintest glimmer of that mighty effulgence. But this much I can say with assurance, as a result of all my experiments, that a perfect vision of Truth can only follow a complete realization of Ahimsa.

To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means.

Identification with everything that lives is impossible without self- purification; without self-purification the observance of the law of Ahimsa must remain an empty dream; God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart. Self-purification therefore must mean purification in all the walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to the purification of one’s surroundings.
But the path of self-purification is hard and steep. To attain to perfect purity one has to become absolutely passion-free in thought, speech and action; to rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment and repulsion. I know that I have not in me as yet that triple purity, in spite of constant ceaseless striving for it. That is why the world’s praise fails to move me, indeed it very often stings me. To conquer the subtle passions to me to be harder far than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms. Ever since my return to India I have had experience of the dormant passions lying hidden with in me. The knowledge of them has made me feel humiliated though not defeated. The experiences and experiments have sustained me and given me great joy. But I know that I have still before me a difficult path to traverse. I must reduce muself to zero. So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures, there is no salvation for him. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility.

In bidding farewell to the reader, for the time being at any rate, I ask him to join with me in prayer to the God of Truth that He may grant me the boon of Ahimsa in mind, word and deed.

Satyagraha stands for ……

“The word Satya (Truth), is derived from Sat, which means being. And nothing is or exists in reality except Truth.”
M.K. Gandhi, Young India, July 30 1931

“Truth (Satya) implies love, and firmness (Agraha) engenders and therefore serve 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”.
M.K. Gandhi, Satyagraha in South Africa

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 “satayagraha movements”. Informed, responsible, and concerned 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. – – – 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.

Recent Indian history provides hundreds of satyagraha movements within many environments.
Code of Discipline

The following points were laid down by Gandhi as a code for volunteers in the 1930 movement:
1 Harbour no anger but suffer the anger of the opponent. Refuse to return the assault of the opponent.
2 Do not submit to any order given in anger, even though severe punishment is threatened for disobeying.
3 Refrain from insults and swearing.
4 Protect opponents from insult or attack, even at the risk of life.
5 Do not resist arrest nor the attachment of property, unless holding property as a trustee.
6 Refuse to surrender any property held in trust at the risk of life.
7 If taken prisoner, behave in an exemplary manner.
8 As a member of a satyagraha unit, obey the orders of satyagraha leaders, and resign from the unit in the event of serious disagreement.
9 Do not expect guarantees for maintenance of dependents.
Steps in a Satyagraha campaign

(a similar set of progressive steps have been listed in Krishnalal Shridharani’s classic work War Without Violence, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1939, pp. 5-42)

The outline below is applicable to a movement growing out of grievances against an established political order.

These steps could be adapted to other conflict situations.

1 Negotiation and arbitration
2 Preparation of the group for direct action
3 Agitation
4 Issuing of an ultimatum
5 Economic boycott and forms of strike
6 Non-cooperation
7 Civil disobedience
8 Usurping of the functions of government
9 Parallel government

Gandhi and other Indian leaders accepted all who would join their campaigns. They developed tactics and rules as they moved to meet well-advanced situations of conflict. Had they been able to select their crusaders and to train them for their respective roles in the satyagraha operation, the movements might well have been even more dramatic.
http://www.gandhitoday.com

Basic Concepts of Satyagraha: Gandhian Nonviolence:
from the APT Nonviolence Trainer’s Manual.
from http://dfong.com/nonviol/basicsat.html

I. “Sat” — which implies openness, honesty, and fairness: Truth.

A) Each person’s opinions and beliefs represent part of the truth.
B) In order to see more of the truth we must share our truths cooperatively.
C) This implies a desire to communicate and a determination to do so, which in turn requires developing and refining relevant skills of communication.
D) Commitment to seeing as much of the truth as possible means that we can not afford to categorize ourselves or others.

II. “Ahimsa” — refusal to inflict injury on others.

A) Ahimsa is dictated by our commitment to communication and to sharing of our pieces of the truth. Violence shuts off channels of communication.
B) The concept of ahimsa appears in most major religions, which suggests that while it may not be practiced by most people, it is respected as an ideal.
C) Ahimsa is an expression of our concern that our own and other’s humanity be manifested and respected.
D) We must learn to genuinely love our opponents in order to practice ahimsa.
III. “Tapasya” — willingness for self-sacrifice.
A) A satyagrahi (one who practices satyagraha) must be willing to shoulder any sacrifice which is occasioned by the struggle which they have initiated, rather than pushing such sacrifice or suffering onto their opponent, lest the opponent become alienated and access to their portion of the truth become lost.
B) The satyagrahi must always provide a face-saving “way out” for the opponents. The goal is to discover a wider vista of truth and justice, not to achieve victory over the opponent.
Satyagraha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha

Mohandas Gandhi’s policy of non-violent resistance is called satyagraha. It has been translated as civil disobedience, passive resistance, “truth force”, or “The willingness to endure great personal suffering in order to do what’s right”. The Sanskrit word has been broken down as follows:

1. “Sat” – which implies openness, honesty, and fairness: Truth.
2. “Ahimsa” – refusal to inflict injury on others.
3. “Tapasya” – willingness for self-sacrifice.

Gandhi said:
In the application of Satyagraha, I discovered, in the earliest stages, that pursuit of Truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent, but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. For, what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of Truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but one’s own self.
Satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering.

With satya combined with ahimsa, you can bring the world to your feet. Satyagraha in its essence is nothing but the introduction of truth and gentleness in the political, i.e., the national life.

Satyagraha is utter self-effacement, greatest humiliation, greatest patience and brightest faith. It is its own reward.

Satyagraha is a relentless search for truth and a determination to reach truth.
It is a force that works silently and apparently slowly. In reality, there is no force in the world that is so direct or so swift in working.

Satyagraha literally means insistence on truth. This insistence arms the votary with matchless power. This power or force is connoted by the word satyagraha. Satyagraha, to be genuine, may be offered against parents, against one’s wife or one’s children, against rulers, against fellow-citizens, even against the whole world.

Such a universal force necessarily makes no distinction between kinsmen and strangers, young and old, man and woman, friend and foe. The force to be so applied can never be physical. There is in it no room for violence. The only force of universal application can, therefore, be that of ahimsa or love. In other words, it is soul-force.

Love does not burn others, it burns itself. Therefore, a satyagrahi, i.e., a civil resister, will joyfully suffer even unto death.

It follows, therefore, that a civil resister, whilst he will strain every nerve to compass the end of the existing rule, will do no intentional injury in thought, word or deed to the person of a single Englishman. (emphasis added– he then gave rules for civil resisters, which can be found in the civil disobedience article)

Gandhi repeatedly pointed out the differences between his ideas and the western ideas of passive resistance: I have drawn the distinction between passive resistance as understood and practiced in the West and satyagraha before I had evolved the doctrine of the latter to its full logical and spiritual extent. I often used ‘passive resistance’ and ‘satyagraha’ as synonymous terms: but as the doctrine of satyagraha developed, the expression ‘passive resistance’ ceases even to be synonymous, as passive resistance has admitted of violence as in the case of suffragettes and has been universally acknowledged to be a weapon of the weak. Moreover passive resistance does not necessarily involve complete adherence to truth under every circumstance. Therefore it is different from satyagraha in three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it ever insists upon truth. I think I have now made the distinction perfectly clear.

Also: The movement of non-violent non-co-operation has nothing in common with the historical struggles for freedom in the West. It is not based on brute force or hatred. It does not aim at destroying the tyrant. It is a movement of self-purification. it therefore seeks to convert the tyrant. It may fail because India was not ready for mass non-violence. But it would be wrong to judge the movement by false standards. My own opinion is that the movement has in no ways failed. It has found an abiding place in India’s struggle for freedom. Although non-co-operation is one of the main weapons in the armoury of Satyagraha, it should not be forgotten that it is after all only a means to secure the co-operation of the opponent consistently with truth and justice. The essence of non-violent technique is that it seeks to liquidate antagonisms but not the antagonists themselves. In non-violent fight you have, to a certain measures, to conform to the tradition and conventions of the system you are pitted against. Avoidance of all relationship with the opposing power, therefore, can never be a Satyagrahi’s object but transformation or purification of that relationship. Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen. He dare not give it up without ceasing to be a man. Civil disobedience is never followed by anarchy. Criminal disobedience can lead to it. Every state puts down criminal disobedience by force. It perishes if it does not. A Satyagrahi obeys the laws of society intelligently and of his own free will, because he considers it to be his sacred duty to do so. It is only when a person has thus obeyed the laws of society scrupulously that he is in a position to judge as to which particular laws are good and just and which unjust and iniquitous. Only then does the right accrue to him of civil disobedience of certain laws in well-defined circumstances. Fasting is a potent weapon in the Satyagraha armory. It cannot be taken by every one. Mere physical capacity to take it is no qualification for it. It is of no use without a living faith in God. It should never be a mechanical effort or a mere imitation. It must come from the depth of one’s soul. It is, therefore, always rare. I believe that every man and woman should learn the art of self-defense in this age. This is done through arms in the West. Every adult man is conscripted for army training for a definite period. The training for Satyagraha is meant for all, irrespective of age or sex. The more important part of the training here is mental, not physical. There can be no compulsion in mental training.

Tools for Consensus

---

• Meeting Procedure:
  • Before meeting:
    • Choose a facilitator.
    • Gather agenda items.
    • Delegate responsibilty for each item.
    • Divide into reports/decisions/anouncements.
    • Bring materials/supplies needed.
  • At meeting:
    • Connect (game, song, ritual, etc.).
    • Check-in/excitement sharing.
    • Review agenda items.
      • prioritize.
      • set times.
    • Choose roles (if not already).
      • facilitator.
      • vibeswatcher (or caretaker).
      • notetaker.
      • timekeeper.
    • Go through agenda.
      • easy items first (reports, then decisions).
  • Facilitation techniques:
    • decision-making process.
    • discussion, problem solving tools.
    • conflict, stress resolution techniques.
  • Announcements.
  • Set next meeting.
  • Evaluation.
  • Closing.
• Role of Facilitator:
  • Watches content of meeting.
  • May formulate agenda (beforehand).
  • Calls on speakers.
  • Helps group to:
    • clarify issues.
    • focus discussion.
    • prioritize.
    • bring out all viewpoints.
    • look for underlying agreement.
    • synthesize differences.
  • Restates proposals.
  • Formalizes decisions.
  • Equalize participation.
    • draws out quiet people.
    • limit talkers.
  • Uses facilitation techniques.
  • Stays neutral while facilitating.
• Role of Vibeswatcher:
  • Watches the process of meeting.
  • Senses underlying feelings.
    • check body language and tone of voice.
  • Stops bad process.
    • prevent domineering, guilt trips, interrupting, space-outs, insults.
  • Helps resolve conflict.
  • Helps work out negative emotions.
  • Suggests tools to improve meeting.
  • Sets an accepting tone.
  • Deals with distractions.
• Problem Solving Tools:
  • Brainstorms
  • Go-rounds
  • Small group discussions
  • Pairs/triads
  • Feeling sharing
  • Fishbolws
  • Roleplays
  • Participation equalizers
  • Evaluations (during and end)
  • Visual aids
  • Prioritization techniques
  • Strategy development
• Conflict Resolution Tools:
  • Matching and pacing
  • Active listening exercises
  • Fishbowls
  • Modelling of opposite viewpoints
  • Gripes session
  • Resentment sharing
  • Criticism/self criticism
• Stress Reduction Techniques:
  • Feeling sharing
  • Singing
  • Humor
  • Affirmation
  • Calm voice
  • Deep breathing
  • Silence
  • Back rubs
  • Eye contact
  • Breaks, games
• Brainstorm Principles:
  In a brainstorm, the group thinks together, like one collective brain. In and of itself, therefore, it is a good way to appreciate our neural inter-connectedness and synergy.
  • Say whatever occurs to you that is relevant to the question.
  • Don’t explain or defend your ideas.
  • Don’t judge or discuss the ideas of others.

Basic Principles of Nonviolence

Four basic principles:

1) Define your objectives. Injustice and violence are everywhere around us. A single campaign or action will not remove it all. One must begin by focusing on a specific injustice; it should be possible to discuss it in fairly simple and clear-cut terms. Decision-making and negotiations during a campaign will be helped immensely if you have defined clearly your short-range objective and your long-range goal. 2) Be honest and listen well. Part of your goal is to win your opponent’s respect. Conduct yourself in a way which encourages that respect by showing your scrupulous care for truth and justice. A crucial part of nonviolent direct action is the understanding that no one knows the complete truth about the issues at hand. Listening with openness to what your opponents have to say about your campaign is very important in your pursuit of the whole truth. Similarly, listening carefully to those who are struggling at your side helps ensure that the oppression which you are fighting is not replaced by another oppression. 3) Love your enemies. No matter how deeply involved in unjust and violent systems some people are, your goal is to break down those systems, not to punish others for wrong-doing. Real justice is established when people refuse to maintain oppressive systems, not when the people in those systems are destroyed. Nonviolence requires a steadfast and conscious willingness to mentally separate respect for all people from disrespect for what some people are doing in a given situation. 4) Give your opponents a way out. By using nonviolence, you are showing a kind of strength that overcomes injustice. Avoid self-righteousness with opponents. Recognize their weaknesses, embarrassments and fears. In specific confrontations, as well as in the larger campaign, find a way to let them participate in finding a solution. Give them options to respond to, not non-negotiable demands.

Six strategic steps:

1) Investigate. Get the facts. Clear up any possible misunderstanding right at the start. If an injustice clearly has been done, be equally certain exactly who or what is to blame for it. The complexity of society today requires patient investigation to accurately determine responsibility for a particular injustice. The ability to explain facts rather than just relying on rhetoric will win support and prevent misunderstandings. 2) Negotiate. Meet with opponents and put the case to them. A solution may be worked out at this point. It is possible that your opponents have a grievance which you didn’t know about. Now is the time to find out. If no solution is possible, let your opponenets know that you intend to stand firm to establish justice. Let them know, however, that you are always ready to negotiate further. 3) Educate. Keep campaign participants and supporters well-informed about the issues, and spread the word to the public. This may involve issuing simple but carefully prepared leaflets. It may also call for street theater, informal street speaking, door-to-door personal visits, phone calls and press releases. Talk to the editors of local newspapers and to government officials. Always stick to the facts, avoid exaggeration, be brief and show good will. Remember that the attitudes of local people about your campaign can ahve an important effect on its outcome. 4) Demonstrate. Picketing, vigiling, mass rallies, and leafletting are the next steps. All of these make more impact on your opponent, the public, the press, and law enforcement officials, if conducted in a well organized manner. Those who are demonstrating should be well informed, cool headed, able to endure heckling and to withstand possible violence without panic and without resorting to violence in return. It is most important to maintain discipline at this stage, and to “keep cool under fire”. 5) Resist. Nonviolent resistance is the final step, to be added to the first four as a last resort. This may mean a boycott, a fast, a strike, tax resistance, a nonviolent blockade or other forms of civil disobedience. Planning must be carefully done, and nonviolence training is essential. Discipline must be firm to avoid making your resistance vulnerable to violent provocation. Every provocation must be answered calmly and without retaliation. The general public as well as the direct action participants themselves can be moved more favorably by a well organized, orderly expression of resistance. A crucial part of nonviolent resistance is the willingness to suffer the consequences. You are saying, in effect: “I am so determined to right this injustice that I am willing to suffer to bring about change,” instead of the more common and less effective reasoning: “I am so determined to right this injustice that I’m going to make my opponent suffer for it.” The willingness to accept and absorb violence and suffering can often be the cutting edge for change. When properly carried out, actions of resistance build a position of moral clarity which will strengthen your own courage and create widespread respect for your campaign. 6) Be patient. Meaningful change can not be accomplished overnight. Like the building of a cathedral, it requires years of work. To deepen one’s analysis of injustice and oppression means to become aware of how deeply entrenched are the structures which produce them. These structures can be eliminated, but this requires a long-term commitment and strategy. Individual actions are much more effective if they are integrated in a nonviolent campaign which may have to continue not only for months but for years. Along the way, there will be many experiences of failure and temptations to give up. No action should be perceived as a “do-or-die” situation for your campaign.

These principles were first developed in the context of the struggle for civil rights in the U.S. for which it was written and published by the American FOR at the request of Dr. Martin Luther King. The present version has been slightly revised for international use by the International FOR, which is a transnational and interreligious movement committed to nonviolence as a principle of life and liberation.

---

Non Violence

1. A Working Definition:Nonviolence was described by Gandhi as “satyagraha” which means “truth force.” Nonviolence is a creative, planned, positive active force which, because it does not use violence as a means of resolving conflict, is a truly revolutionary approach for those who seek social or political change. 2. Philosophy:When practicing nonviolence the means must be consistent with the ends. If we are working toward a nonviolent world, a world based on social justice, we must renounce the use of violence, terrorism and murder.
“Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.”….M.L.King

Nonviolence requires us to respect humanity and to value life. As we seek change nonviolently we approach our opponent with respect, openness and love. We know that each of us has a part of the truth and will benefit from our shared wisdom — opponent and nonviolent actionist alike. To make this world “work” for all of us we must all be able to work together. We each have a piece of the puzzle and through nonviolence we may finally make the earth whole. Nonviolence seeks ultimately to transform our opponents even as we transform ourselves.

“A nonviolent revolution is not a program of seizure of power. It is a program of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power.”….M.K.Gandhi

Nonviolence may be used as a tactic for a particular action or it may be an all encompassing way of life. Nonviolence can be and is effective in both cases. Using nonviolent means can be very demanding as it requires us to behave and believe in ways which are not traditional or easy for us and which often have implications beyond their tactical usefulness. 3. Anger:We must acknowledge our anger and realize that it is a valid part of ourselves and use it in a constructive way. It is a mistake to think that because we are nonviolent we have no anger. It is violence to ourselves if we don’t constructively express our anger. Barbara Deming defines two kinds of anger. One is a concentration of one’s whole self into the belief that things must change. This kind of anger brings about confrontation and shows respect for oneself and for the other. It says “I must change for I have been playing the part of the oppressed and you must change for you have been the oppressor.” Change is possible for both sides. This is healthy anger. The second kind of anger, according to Deming, is a kind of affliction. It says, “You must change, you can change, but your very existence is a threat to my own.” This anger is harmful and results in fear and violence.