Erőszakmentesség mint politika?

When one wishes to define what non-violence means he/she is most likely to turn to M.K. Gandhi for explanation. „It is non-violence if we merely love those who hate us.” (All Man Are brothers, Ahmedabad, 1960. p.111.) „Violence is needed for the protection of things external while non-violence is needed for the protection of Atma, one’s honour.” These, and other, even better known quotes are no doubt convincing with their sheer beauty. However, we shall not forget that they are deeply rooted in Hinduism, the religion that one of the best minds of contemporary India, Amartya Sen described as one of the most agnostic and atheistic one of all religions. I emphasize this aspect since the Hinduism of Gandhi’s time interwoven the everydays of a human life and in this respect it was markedly different from what we have understood under the expression “religion” in the past 200 years in the so called Western World.  

The aim of my essay is to demonstrate that the non-violence movement led by M.K. Gandhi in India was a political movement. This does not imply that is was unclean or that it was based solely on pure calculation, rather it means that non-violence was a fully realistic adventure and not it’s success was not the work of supernatural or irrational factors.  

Indian nationalism and the Indian nationalist movement underwent its big transformation in the years of the crisis of the partition of Bengal. In the years 1905-1908 moderarates lost their dominance in nationalist politics. In my view there were two main components of the change. Inside the nationalist movement the role of single leaders was on the rise. Most importantly, Gandhi’s appearance on stage transformed the Indian National Congress from a non-hierarchical, pluralist structure into a Gandhi-dominated one. It can be debated how well-known Gandhi was at his arrival in 1915. David Fisher and Philip Mason – authors of widely read monographs on Modern India tend to describe him as an already well-known and respected politician who acquired a number of admirers in India by his anti-discrimination campaign in South Africa. Bipan Chandra has a different opinion: he sees Gandhi as largely unknown in 1915. 

In any case, it is clear that Gandhi did not find a common voice with any of the Congress leaders in the 1910s. Although he was western educated like the others, his personal aura and philosophy was nothing comparable to Tilak, Gokhale, Mehta, Naoroji or Jinnah. As revealed by the many subaltern studies conducted in recent decades, Gandhi became extremely popular with villagers in the years between 1915 and 1919.  

M.K. Gandhi was undoubtedly the single most important figure of the nationalist movement in India in the period 1919-1944. He was the one who shaped the policies of the Indian National Congress and the figure who was able to rally masses. His most significant contribution was the introduction of a new method into the nationalist movement. This was the satyagraha as he called it. This basically meant non violent civil disobedience by which the British administration of India would be made impotent. Although it is true that satyagraha was more than passive resistance since the participants gave up violence out of principal and not out of necessity, the method proved to be the most practical and effective method in the years when Gandhi was involved with movements in South-Africa. He mastered this method and by bringing it to India, he once again made the Congress into a mass organisation that attracted all sections of Indian society. Thus, the nationalist movement moved forward from fruitless terrorism that marginalised it and also overcame its traditional elitism.  

The second important change that occurred in the 1910s was the growing sense of disappointment with British politics. Somewhat surprisingly the Indians remained loyal to Britain during the First World War apart from the isolated Ghadr-rising in the Punjab. Although, the British probably admitted that it was mainly due to exhaustion, they promised liberal reforms and dominium status in the Montagu Declaration in 1915. Even if some of the Congress leaders like Gandhi himself suspected that it was not a genuine promise. Still, the crudeleity of the acts in 1917 was a shock to everyone.  

The appearance of Gandhi, his popularity in the lower classes left no room for other leaders in the Indian National Congress that was the single most important institution of the nationalist movement. Gandhi also created a bridge towards masses of all class and religion and in this sense initiated a type of (re)integration of the people of India. On the other hand, the arrogant attitude of post-war British administration helped to bring Gandhi’s theories into practice and thus put nationalism on to the next stage.   

There were three major campaigns launched and lead by Gandhi in the first half of the 20th century: Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920-22, Civil Disobedience in 1930-31 and the Quit India Movement 1942-44.   

The Non-Cooperation Movement was launched as an answer to the oppressive British politics introduced after the First World War . These measures were embodied in the extreme Rowlatt Act and the Jailanwala Bagh massacre where an unarmed crowd of protestors were brutally gunned down in the city of Amritsar. Gandhi has an exceptional ability in choosing symbols for his message. The symbol of non-cooperation became the “chakra” that enabled everyone to make their own loom. Not only in this, but also in many other aspects (burning of foreign goods, non-payment of taxes and refusal of jobs, strikes and protests) the non-cooperation movement was a revival of the Swadeshi of the first years of the 20th century. As it was expected, the carefully designed actions were followed by severe retaliation from the side of the police. When the originally non-violent protestors responded by violence at Chauri Chaura in early 1922, Gandhi made the most ambiguus decision of his political career. He called off the movement. Earlier, as in the Swadeshi movement provoked by the partition of Bengal, large-scale action ceased because of exhaustion, loss of impetus on the side of the masses. In 1922 there was no sign of exhaustion, many tens of thousands regularly showed up for rallies and marches. Why then Gandhi decided to end the campaign? Did he risk this step and disappointed perhaps millions purely because the principal that all satyagrahi must remain fedel to non-violence at any cost was neglected on that bloody night at the police station?  

As the myth of M.K. Gandhi began to fade in the 1990s, some historians came up with an alternative explanation: perhaps the main motive was that Gandhi did not want the leadership to slip out of his hands. He was afraid that the movement he started would loose credibility and power if terrorist actions were to be restarted as it happened after the decline of the Swadeshi movement. This argument is supported by the fact that Gandhi did not call for the end of Moplah-rebellion in Kerala ( the south-western area of India) while it costed many thousand lives on both sides.  

Nonetheless, Gandhi was arrested. By the time he left his jail in 1927, the Montagu-Chemsfold Reforms were already in power. The reforms established a diarchic system of government where certain ministries were under the control of an elected Indian body, while the key positions and institutions remained in British hands. The reforms, however, also introduced an institution that the Congress and Gandhi himself has firmly resisted for long. Elections would be held on the basis of separate communal (Hindu and Muslim) electorates.

Still in 1927, a commission was set up with the aim to find new ways to improve the reforms. The fact, that Indians were not involved in the work of the commission upset the congress leaders as well as the functioning public opinion. The immediate response was the Nehru Report that claimed a constitution for India based on dominium status. The report was rejected by the British Government and 26 January 1930 Gandhi – a bit uneasily – decided to launch a new campaign, named Civil Disobedience. This time he promised that would not call of the movement until complete success. Yet, learning from his previous experience he tried to restrict the number of participants. He only wished to “employ” trained and devoted satyagrahi.

The new movement needed a new and powerful symbol and this was as simple as salt. Thanks to the Dandi salt-march and the brutal police measures it provoked, echoes of the movement was strongly heard abroad. Some critiques say that under these favourable circumstances it was a mistake not to let the movement escalate when violence was present anyway.  

In my opinion if Gandhi had let violence spread and this would have given a perfect chance to the British administration to end resistance since they were overwhelmingly better armed and trained for military actions. Therefore, in the 1930s true stayagraha was the only way to survive, even if it sounds a bot contradictory given the number of causalities.  

In this essay I did not attempt to analyse the written works of Gandhi and his opinion on certain issues, however I hope I sufficiently showed that the practice of non-violence was specifically designed to and developed in a very specific historical and Indian context. The main designer of these practices was not only a great soul and a powerful thinker, but also a pre-eminent and able politician. Profound philosophy alone, without efficient political action would not have produced the results that the non-violence movement in India did.