{"id":32,"date":"2016-05-20T19:52:16","date_gmt":"2016-05-20T23:52:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/?page_id=32"},"modified":"2018-03-05T14:37:07","modified_gmt":"2018-03-05T19:37:07","slug":"5-13","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/5-13\/","title":{"rendered":"5\/13 | Satyagraha"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 style=\"text-align: center; padding-left: 30px;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/q2iXFcOkskc\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"autoplay; encrypted-media\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/h1>\n<h1 style=\"text-align: center; padding-left: 30px;\">Banu Bargu (<a href=\"https:\/\/histcon.ucsc.edu\/faculty\/singleton.php?&amp;singleton=true&amp;cruz_id=bbargu\">UC Santa Cruz<\/a>)<\/h1>\n<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\">Karuna Mantena (<a href=\"https:\/\/politicalscience.yale.edu\/people\/karuna-mantena\">Yale University<\/a>)<\/h1>\n<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\">Uday Mehta (<a href=\"https:\/\/politicalscience.commons.gc.cuny.edu\/faculty\/uday-singh-mehta\/\">CUNY Graduate Center<\/a>)<\/h1>\n<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\">Moderated by\u00a0Akeel Bilgrami (<a href=\"https:\/\/philosophy.columbia.edu\/directories\/faculty\/akeel-bilgrami\">Columbia University<\/a>) and <a href=\"https:\/\/cgt.columbia.edu\/about\/people\/committee-faculty\/bernard-e-harcourt\/\">Bernard E. Harcourt<\/a><\/h1>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>November 30, 2017 from 6:15 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. <\/strong><\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.maisonfrancaise.org\/contact-and-directions\"><strong>Columbia University&#8217;s Maison Fran\u00e7aise<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\">Columbia University<\/h2>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/www.tikkun.org\/nextgen\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/09\/salt.jpg\" width=\"598\" height=\"476\" \/><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cFor my ambition is no less than to convert the British people through non-violence, and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Mahatma Gandhi, <em>Letter to the Viceroy<\/em>, March 2, 1930 (#100, p.227).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>An anti-colonial independence movement in India founded on non-violent resistance that brought about national independence from the British Commonwealth. A nationwide civil rights movement founded on non-violent action, radiating from Montgomery, Alabama, that contributed to fundamental civil and political rights\u2014including voting, education, and housing\u2014in the United States. Non-violent action has a storied history. And still today, principles of non-violence infuse broad national movements in the West (Velvet Revolution, #BlackLivesMatter, Occupy Wall Street, Nuits Debout, Orange Revolution), in the East (Tiananmen Square, Umbrella Movement, Impeachment of Park Geun-hye), and in the South (Jasmine Revolution, Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace, Tahrir Square, Taksim Square).<\/p>\n<p>Non-violent action has been a potent modality of uprising throughout history, and it remains so today. In sharp contrast to the <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/1-13\/\">modern conception of revolution<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/2-13\/\">Maoist forms of insurrection<\/a>, but delicately woven into the fabric of the <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/3-13\/\">Arab uprisings<\/a> and the <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/4-13\/\">movement for Black lives<\/a>, non-violence is a unique form of revolt that aspires to a deep self-transformation of the militant actor and a conversion of the opponents through the witnessing of self-suffering. In this Uprising 5\/13 seminar, we will focus on one strand of the theory and practice of non-violent action, namely the writings and practices of Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) on <em>Satyagraha<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The neologism <em>satyagraha<\/em> that Gandhi coined\u2014the literal meaning of which is \u201cto hold on to truth\u201d or \u201cto cling to truth\u201d or \u201ca tenacity in the pursuit of truth\u201d (Gandhi #3, p. 6; Editor\u2019s Notice, p. iii; <a href=\"https:\/\/aeon.co\/essays\/nonviolence-has-returned-from-obscurity-to-become-a-new-force\">Karuna Mantena<\/a>; Bilgrami, \u201cGhandi, the Philosopher,\u201d p.7)\u2014refers to a personal ethic and self-transformation through which an individual remains true to his or her ideals of justice, and seeks to convince or convert others by working on him or herself and taking on the burden of the sufferings of injustice. The term is often simplified, in translation, to mean \u201cnon-violent resistance,\u201d and at a practical level it is narrowly associated with the imperative of non-violence. But the concept has to be understood through the larger framework of an ethic or a faith that gives someone the strength to turn the suffering of injustice onto themselves. The resulting non-violence is not so much a practical maxim or a political strategy\u2014although it is always political and strategic\u2014so much as it is the necessary product of steadfastly staying true to one\u2019s ethical or spiritual beliefs and the ethical imperative not to hurt others.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of <em>satyagraha<\/em> contains, at its core, three central elements: truth, self-care, and suffering.<\/p>\n<p>1\/\u00a0 <em>Truth, or faith<\/em>: It is true belief or faith\u2014holding onto a personal truth\u2014that empowers and lends force to <em>satyagraha<\/em>. Gandhi defined <em>satyagraha<\/em> as \u201cTruth-force\u201d (<em>satya <\/em>means \u201ctruth\u201d)\u2014though in other places he also referred to \u201cSoul-force\u201d or \u201cLove-force\u201d (#3, p. 6). It is only when the believer is entirely committed to \u201cthe truth of his cause,\u201d Gandhi emphasized, that he or she will have the force to succeed in non-violence (#88, p. 202). It is that faith in the truth of one\u2019s cause that ensures that the reformer will not lash out at an opponent, but instead work harder on him or herself, and be prepared to sacrifice him or herself. In this sense, <em>satyagraha<\/em> does not give rise to an instrumental form of non-violence, but instead to an unconditional, entirely committed faith, like a spiritual belief or a moral commitment.<\/p>\n<p>The exact nature of that moral belief or faith is intricate. Akeel Bilgrami unpacks Gandhi\u2019s notion carefully in his chapter \u201cGandhi, the Philosopher,\u201d where he argues that, for Gandhi, it is the link between <em>moral judgment<\/em> and <em>moral criticism<\/em> that is severed: the <em>satyagrahi <\/em>can form binding moral judgments that ground her practice, but at the same time must refrain from making moral criticisms of others\u2014despite the fact that she believes those moral judgments to be entirely right and universalizable. As Bilgrami argues, \u201cThere is no other way to understand [Gandhi\u2019s] insistence that the satyagrahi has not eschewed violence until he has removed criticism from his lips and heart and mind\u201d (\u201cGhandi, the Philosopher,\u201d p.15).<\/p>\n<p>This severing of criticism from judgment goes hand in hand with the <em>satyagrahi<\/em> serving as an exemplar for others, rather than criticizing them. Exemplarity replaces criticism\u2014in Bilgrami\u2019s words, it \u201cis intended to provide a wholesale alternative to the concept of principle in moral philosophy\u201d (<em>ibid<\/em>., p.20). The importance of exemplary action resonates with what Uday Mehta refers to as \u201cGandhi\u2019s anchoring moral acts in the most mundane aspects of everyday social and individual existence\u201d (Mehta, p.370).<\/p>\n<p>2\/\u00a0 <em>Work on the self<\/em>:\u00a0 Non-violent resistance requires self-transformation. It involves work by and on the individual him or herself. It cannot be achieved from outside the person. It is deeply subjective. Gandhi explained this in discussing the case of protest at temples, where he opposed for instance blocking the way of those who refused to admit the untouchable. \u201cThe movement for the removal of untouchability is one of self-purification,\u201d Gandhi wrote. \u201cNo man can be purified against his will.\u201d (#88, p. 201). Gandhi explained that any and all steps, even in drastic situations, \u201chave to be taken against ourselves\u201d (#88, p. 202). These are, as <a href=\"https:\/\/aeon.co\/essays\/nonviolence-has-returned-from-obscurity-to-become-a-new-force\">Mantena<\/a> explains, \u201cpractices of ascetic self-mastery.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Practices of self-mastery and care of self permeate non-violent resistance: \u201cSatyagraha presupposes self-discipline, self-control, self-purification,\u201d Gandhi wrote (#25, p. 77). Notice the omnipresence of the self. It is care of self that comes first. As Gandhi explained: \u201cthe doctrine came to mean vindication of truth not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but on one\u2019s self\u201d (#3, p. 6).<\/p>\n<p>3\/\u00a0 <em>Suffering<\/em>:\u00a0 The willingness to bear the suffering of injustice, to take that suffering onto oneself, is at the very heart of remaining true to oneself and converting one\u2019s opponents. It is by suffering that one truly demonstrates the sincerity of one\u2019s beliefs and the stakes of justice. It is also the most powerful way to convince others to change themselves. It shows that the <em>satyagrahi <\/em>is not there to hurt, but rather to impress upon others the justice of their position.<\/p>\n<p>Suffering\u2014or the broader concept for Gandhi of \u201cthe law of suffering\u201d\u2014is what converts others. This law of suffering represents, for Gandhi, the historical fact that no country achieved independence without going through hell\u2014in his words, \u201cwithout being purified through the fire of suffering\u201d (#47, p.112). Conversion is the operative term: \u201cI have deliberately used the word <em>conversion<\/em>,\u201d Gandhi wrote. \u201cFor my ambition is no less than to convert the British people through non-violence, and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India\u201d (#100, p.227). And it operates through the emotions and affect of the opponent. The goal is to \u201cdraw out and exhibit the force of the soul within us for a period long enough to appeal to the sympathetic chord in the governors or the law-makers\u201d (#7, p. 35).<\/p>\n<p>Withstanding suffering is thus at the heart of <em>satyagraha<\/em>. \u201cHe who has not the capacity of suffering cannot non-co-operate,\u201d Gandhi wrote. \u201cHe who has not learnt to sacrifice his property and even his family when necessary can never non-co-operate [\u2026] He who is not ready to undergo the fiery ordeal cannot non-co-operate\u201d (#19, p.67). Suffering is, naturally, extremely challenging; however, the fact that <em>satyagraha <\/em>is not presented as merely instrumental or strategic, but rather the product of truthful belief or faith, means that the actor is not constantly engaged in a reevaluation of their actions, and can remain single-mindedly focused on assuming the burden of suffering.<\/p>\n<p>In sum, truth, self-care, and suffering are central elements of <em>satyagraha <\/em>and come together to form the heart of the practice: \u201cin the struggle of life,\u201d Gandhi writes, \u201c[one] can easily conquer hate by love, untruth by truth, violence by self-suffering\u201d (#7, p. 36). Notice: truth, self, and suffering. Non-violence can only succeed through the combined force of these three: \u201cNon-co-operation as a voluntary movement can only succeed, if the feeling is genuine and strong enough to make people suffer to the utmost\u201d (#48, p.117).<\/p>\n<p>In terms of practice, several forms of non-violent action fall within <em>satyagraha<\/em>, including non-co-operation and civil disobedience (#1, p.4). Civil resistance was another subsidiary term, used alongside civil disobedience (#99, p.223). <em>Satyagraha<\/em> excluded, in Gandhi\u2019s words, \u201cevery form of violence, direct or indirect, veiled or unveiled, and whether in thought, word or deed\u201d (#88, p. 201). It even ruled out bad thoughts toward others. The <em>satyagrahi<\/em>, Gandhi maintained, \u201cmust not harbor ill-will or bitterness against the [evil-doer]. He may not even employ needlessly offensive language against the evil person, however unrelieved his evil might be\u201d (#25, p. 77).<\/p>\n<p>In this sense, for Gandhi, non-violence had to extend to thought as well as action. It meant avoiding anger, it excluded even swearing and cursing (#26, p. 79). It implied, in the anti-colonial context, scrupulously avoiding \u201cintentional injury in thought, word or deed to the person of a single Englishman\u201d (#26, p.78). It even involved being courteous and polite toward the police that are arresting you and the prison officials who are detaining you (#26, p.79). Gandhi wrote:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It is a breach of Satyagraha to wish ill to an opponent or to say a harsh word to him or of him with the intention of harming him. And often the evil thought or the evil word may, in terms of Satyagraha, be more dangerous than actual violence used in the heat of the moment and perhaps repented and forgotten the next moment. Satyagraha is gentle, it never wounds. It must not be the result of anger or malice. It is never fussy, never impatient, never vociferous. It is the direct opposite of compulsion. It was conceived as a complete substitute for violence. (#88, pp. 201-202)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Gandhi\u2019s practices of fasting\u2014which, as Banu Bargu discusses in <em>Starve and Immolate<\/em> (2016, p. 14) \u201cwere formative for the constitution of modern India\u201d\u2014represent the kind of work on the self and the suffering that characterizes and defines <em>satyagraha. <\/em>Sometimes, but not always. Gandhi\u2019s views on direct action were extremely nuanced and contextual. Civil disobedience was not always appropriate and had to be judged based, for instance, on whether individuals were doing it because they expect some personal gain (#72, p.171). Fasting, as well, could be used for good or ill depending on the context.\u00a0 \u201cEven fasts may take the form of coercion,\u201d Gandhi wrote (#88, p. 202), \u201cthere is nothing in the world that in human hands does not lend itself to abuse.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Gandhi denied being a politician or partaking in politics (#46, p.109), but he did self-identify as \u201ca practical idealist\u201d (#55, p.133). He also displayed a rare pragmatic streak at times. In fact, he even justified violence under certain extremely limited circumstances of domination and weakness\u2014in cases of extreme self-defense or helplessness\u2014not as a form of <em>satyagraha <\/em>but as a form of vulnerable self-defense. \u201cI do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,\u201d he writes, and adds, \u201cI took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War\u201d (#55, p.132). In situations of helplessness, of utter weakness, violence may be appropriate. But he then added that \u201cI do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature\u201d (#55, p.133).<\/p>\n<p>It is this complex ambivalence toward practical reason and pragmatism that makes Gandhi someone Uday Mehta calls a \u201cdeeply anti-political thinker,\u201d at least along the traditional lines of modern political theory (Mehta, p.363). As Mehta writes, \u201cHis commitment to non-violence can only be understood by acknowledging that he did not view the world solely or even primarily in political terms\u201d (Mehta, p.364).<\/p>\n<p>So it is to Gandhi&#8217;s rich and nuanced view of non-violence that we turn next.<\/p>\n<p>Welcome to Uprising 5\/13!<\/p>\n<p>[Read full post <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/bernard-e-harcourt-introduction-to-satyagraha\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">here<\/a>. \u00a9 Bernard E. Harcourt]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Banu Bargu (UC Santa Cruz) Karuna Mantena (Yale University) Uday Mehta (CUNY Graduate Center) Moderated by\u00a0Akeel Bilgrami (Columbia University) and Bernard E. Harcourt November 30, 2017 from 6:15 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. Columbia University&#8217;s Maison Fran\u00e7aise Columbia University \u201cFor my&hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/5-13\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue Reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1603,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-32","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/32","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1603"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/32\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/uprising1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}