It is easy to train an army of
violence; even a year's drill may be good enough for that. But it takes a lot
more time to train and prepare men to attain enough maturity and strength for a
non-violent struggle."-Gurudev Tagore
Conflict Resolution is an activity
practised by people throughout the world. The need for evolving peaceful ways
of resolving conflicts has become more urgent than ever with the expansion in
the number and variety of conflicts. Hence, Conflict Resolution is verily a
very dynamic and vast field especially in the context of conflicts in every
walk of life.
Basic concepts
:
Conflicts have been described as
existing whenever incompatible activities occur, when there is a state of
tension between two actors irrespective of how it has originated or how it is
terminated. Conflicts can occur between many varying combinations of parties
and for great many reasons. Conflicts" may arise from differences in
information or belief, may reflect differences in interests, desires or values,
may occur as a result of a scarcity of some resource or may reflect a rivalry
in which one person tries to out do or undo the other."1 Hence it may be
defined as "it emerges whenever two or more persons or groups seek to
possess the same object, occupy the same space or the same exclusive position,
and play incompatible roles or goals or undertake mutually incompatible means
for achieving their purposes."2 In all relationships, whether
interpersonal or otherwise, there occasionally occurs some form of behaviours,
which annoys, causes tension to or engenders resentment in one of the parties
involved. A conflict can be said to be resolved when both parties have given up
any hope of changing or amending the situation. In the Gandhian dialectic,
however, conflicts can only be said to have been resolved when all parties are
satisfied with the outcome, that is, when some mutually consistent setof
actions is worked out. Such solutions obviously greatly reduce the fragility of
resolutions.
It was Mr. William James who in the 27th publication of the American Association for International Conciliation in February 1910 coined the expression "The Moral Equivalent of War". "So far war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community", wrote Mr. William James, "and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some such other just as
effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time of skillful propagandism and of opinion making men seizing historic opportunities".3 Perhaps this was anticipating Gandhi, who was already meticulously pursuing Satyagraha far more as a way of life than merely as a technique of Conflict Resolution in South Africa. It is this similarity between Gandhi's non-violent resistance and the permanent institution of war, along with a few other characteristics common to both modes of settling disputes, that demands our attention with its promise of social practicability. However Satyagraha has also been characterized as "War without Violence" or "Conquest of Violence" Apart from Satyagraha, conflicts are solved in a variety of ways including coercion, "lumping it", (i.e. ignoring the issues that give rise to the conflict or avoidance such as by terminating a relationship) mediation, adjudication, arbitration, negotiation. It is true that Satyagraha is in many ways all-comprehensive in its application and it includes some of the above-mentioned methods such as mediation, arbitration, and negotiation. It is proposed to deal with Satyagraha in terms of:
It was Mr. William James who in the 27th publication of the American Association for International Conciliation in February 1910 coined the expression "The Moral Equivalent of War". "So far war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community", wrote Mr. William James, "and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some such other just as
effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time of skillful propagandism and of opinion making men seizing historic opportunities".3 Perhaps this was anticipating Gandhi, who was already meticulously pursuing Satyagraha far more as a way of life than merely as a technique of Conflict Resolution in South Africa. It is this similarity between Gandhi's non-violent resistance and the permanent institution of war, along with a few other characteristics common to both modes of settling disputes, that demands our attention with its promise of social practicability. However Satyagraha has also been characterized as "War without Violence" or "Conquest of Violence" Apart from Satyagraha, conflicts are solved in a variety of ways including coercion, "lumping it", (i.e. ignoring the issues that give rise to the conflict or avoidance such as by terminating a relationship) mediation, adjudication, arbitration, negotiation. It is true that Satyagraha is in many ways all-comprehensive in its application and it includes some of the above-mentioned methods such as mediation, arbitration, and negotiation. It is proposed to deal with Satyagraha in terms of:
Fundamental Concepts or Precepts.
Types of Non-violent action.
The dialectics of Satyagraha
The Process of Satyagraha
Truth :
Gandhi derived his theory of
Satyagraha from his doctrine of truth. Satyagraha literally means Holding on to
Truth. His Satyagraha was not an abstract philosophy but a philosophy of
action. Hence, Gandhi's famous aphorism was "Action is my domain".
Gandhi aptly called Satyagraha as power of Truth or Soul-force because it pits
against the material or brute force of the opponent, the power of the spirit.
Gandhi explained his belief in the need for absolutes by which to orient one's
life: " A mere mechanical adherence to truth and nonviolence is likely to
breakdown at the critical moment. Hence I have said that Truth is God.4 . .
"Truth is that which you believe to be true at this moment and that is
your God."5 In fact Gandhi came "to the conclusion that for myself,
God is truth. But two years ago, I went a step further and said that Truth is
God. You see the fine distinction between the two statements."6 It should
be noted that Gandhi also makes a distinction between "Truth", that
is Absolute Truth, "truth", being relative truth. Gandhi was not a
monotheist, he did not believe in personal God. Gandhi was in essence a monist,
as for him God was an impersonal all-pervading reality. Gandhi had discovered,
early in his application of Satyagraha; "that pursuit of truth did not
admit of violence being inflicted on one's opponent but that it must be weaned
from error by patience and sympathy, for what appears to be truth to one may
appear to be error to the other."7 The final arbiter in times of
"conflict" of how is one to decide whose truth is nearer to Truth,
must remain "The still small voice within". This call of the
"Voice of Conscience" is the highest call of all , and it must be
obeyed at all costs as this "obedience is the law of our Being."8 As
Gandhi pursued his experiments with truth, the concept settled solidly into the
sphere of ethical consideration. The emphasis became increasingly centered upon
the problem of means. Again Gandhi unequivocally declared "They say,
"Means are after all means". I would say, "means are after all
every thing." As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation
between means and ends."9 Hence, for Gandhi means and ends are convertible
terms. Aldous Huxley asserted that, "Good ends can only be achieved by the
employment of appropriate means. The end can not justify the means for the
simple reason that the means employed there in determined the nature of the
ends produced."10
The law of reaping what you sow applied
as much in this life as it affected future in socio-economic-politico millieu.
Gandhi prophetically observed: "There is a law of nature that a thing can
be retained by the same means by which it has been acquired. A thing acquired
by violence can be retained by violence alone.11
Gandhi made it clear that he believed
his energies had to be devoted to looking after the purity of the means rather
than to seeing if they would be most expedient way of achieving the immediate
goal. "I feel that our progress towards the goal will be in exact
proportion to the purity of means. The method may appear to be long, perhaps
too long, but I am convinced that it is the shortest."12 Means can be
chosen merely by deciding to live by certain rules.
Non-violence :
Violence arises from ignorance or
untruth, truth conversely arises out of non-violence. "Non-violence and
Truth are so intertwined that it is practically impossible to disentangle and
separate them. They are like two sides of the same coin or rather a smooth unstamped
metallic disc. Nevertheless, non-violence is the means, Truth is the end. Means
to be means must always be with in our reach, and so Non-violence is our
supreme duty."13
The discovery of truth is not
dependent upon violence; it is in fact obscured by violence. The need for
violence is often a sign of insecurity and incomplete conviction and that
through it victory becomes more important than Truth. It is self evident that
if violence is used in a conflict situation, the sin and the sinner can no longer
be separated.
The arguments against violence,
revolve round certain assumptions which can be summarized as follows: (1)
Continuity, i.e. once you resort to violence, you cannot escape it; (2)
Reciprocity: that is violence creates, begets and procreates violence. (3)
sameness: i.e. it is impossible to distinguish between justified and
unjustified violence. No matter how high the goal, violence reduces all
practitioners to the same level; (4) Violence begets only further violence,
that is the ends grow out of the means used; (5) Violence needs to be
justified, but such justification is hypocritical; there is no pure violence -
violence and hatred are always linked together.
For Gandhi non-violence means far more
than what is implied by the apparent negative terminology. Gandhi firmly
believed that such non-violence must be lived day by day. "It is not like
a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart and it must be
an inseparable part of our very being. 14
At the same time practising non-violence
as a policy, however, may be useful in that there is always a hope of the
policy developing into a creed.
Gandhi was deeply influenced by
Tolstoy's writing on non-violence. Tolstoy fervently believed in the Christian
injunction: "Resist not evil"; and by ordering one's life in a
completely moral way, one should allow the Evil of violence to die like the
dead leaves in autumn.
However much Gandhi may have admired
Tolstoy, it was at this point that Gandhi showed a remarkable departure. Gandhi
believed in institutions; Gandhi also held that he could not wait until a
sufficiently large number of men and women had started re-ordering their lives.
Gandhi fervently believed and practised that men had to begin to resist evil of
violence individually and collectively by means of progressive non-cooperation.
Gandhi added that the war against violence must be carried into the enemy's
camp. But all this should be by non-violent means alone. Hence Gandhi's
prophetic observation "Organization is the test of non-violence." In
this context, it is very significant to remember that Gandhi's alchemic-genius
was to turn the given "situation" of forcibly disarmed people both in
South
Africa India
Africa
Creative
self-suffering :
Gandhi prophetically observed
"The conviction has been growing upon me that things of Fundamental
importance to the people are not secured by reason alone, but have to be
purchased with their suffering. If you want something really important to be
done, you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also. The
penetration of the heart comes from suffering. It opens the finer understanding
in man."15
Tolstoy encapsulates one of the
reasons that self-suffering is so important for Satyagraha. The role of self
suffering is to break the dead-lock, to cut through the rationalized defenses
of the opponent. However Gandhi warned that the self suffering undertaken had
to be functional; Gandhi was not in favour of martyrs of suffering not caused
by acts conducive to the solution of the present or future conflicts. The
opponent must be not encouraged to act against the Satyagrahi to invite self
suffering because brutalizing the adversary can but make his conversion the
more difficult. The secret of Satyagraha lies in not tempting the wrong-doer to
do the wrong.
Even where self suffering does not
touch the conscience of the opponent it can have objective benefits in a
conflict situation especially in social conflicts. The opponent may be
converted indirectly, if the endured suffering moves public opinion to the side
of the satyagrahis. Gandhi has claimed that the method of reaching the heart is
to awaken public opinion. Hence care must be taken to ensure that self
abnegation becomes self-affirmation and a tool of truth rather than a weapon of
revenge. It should be remembered that self-suffering is the price paid for
maintaining resistance in a non-violent way. Finally the resort to
self-suffering and voluntary submission to injury is a positive creed and is
not merely a matter of last resort.
Faith in human
goodness :
The entire rationale of Satyagraha,
which sees conversion of the opponent as its aim must rest upon the assumption
that the opponent is open to reasons, that they have a conscience, that human
nature is such that it is bound or at least likely, to respond to any noble and
friendly action. Gandhi firmly states that "Every one of us is a mixture
of good and evil. The difference that there is between human beings is a
difference of degree."16 This belief must be remembered in times of
conflict and applied to the opponent in such a way that their dignity as a
person and the respect it commands is not infringed, that the opponent is given
the same credit in this matter that the Satyagrahi would demand for himself.
Gandhi further emphasized: "Not to believe in this possibility of
permanent peace is to disbelieve in the goodness of human nature . . Every man
may know and most of them do know what is a just and an unjust act."17
This however, need not imply that large areas of non-rationality do not occur
in human motivations or behaviour. A belief in this combination of reason and
goodness allows for a faith in the possibility of conversion and although this
process may take considerable time.
In a study looking at the social
interactions of competitors and cooperators, it has been concluded that,
although competitive people are often faced with social relationships where
cooperation rather than competition is more effective. Satyagraha rests on the
belief that opponents can in fact be influenced to alter their dispositions and
their world views.
Fearlessness:
A certain amount of courage is
obviously necessary to endure self-suffering and to Gandhi it was an axiom that
"non-violence and cowardice are contradictory terms. The path of true
non-violence requires much more courage than violence." However, Gandhi
firmly believed that it was possible for a violent person to some day become
non-violent, there being no such hope for cowards.
Along with his famous dictum that
violence was preferable to cowardice, Gandhi explained that "although
violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self defense, it is an act of
bravery far better than cowardly submission."
An atmosphere for fear and impotence
makes people helpless even to accomplish the simplest of things. Without
fearlessness the growth of other qualities becomes next to impossible. The courage
that Satyagraha calls for is not dependent on physical strength. The toughest
muscle has been known to tremble before an imaginary fear. Finally fearlessness
can and must come from determined and constant endeavour, by cultivating
self-confidence and from an indomitable will.
We may now turn to the types of
non-violent action.
In conflict situations, success
through non-violent action can be achieved in three separate ways:
Accommodation: Where
the opponent does not believe in the changes made nevertheless believes that it
is best to give in some or all points to gain peace or to cut losses.
Non-violent
Coercion: Where the opponent wants to continue the
struggle but cannot because they have lost sources of power and means of
control.
Conversion: Where the opponents have changed inwardly
to the degree that they want to make the changes desired by non-violent
activist or indeed the non-violent activist himself has so changed.
The first two modes of non-violent
conflict resolution are based on power that the respective parties can exert on
each other. Conversion on the other hand, operates outside the framework of the
interplay between power and powerlessness the touching of the conscience
involves a totally different dynamic.
The Gandhian technique of Satyagraha
rests on the belief that the striving for conversion is the most effective
method of conducting a struggle on a pragmatic assessment of the outcome, but
more than that it is the morally correct way to conduct conflict because only
through a dialectical process can truth be arrived at.
The Dialectics
of Satyagraha :
Violence to persons and properties has
more often the effect of clouding the real issues involved in the original
conflict, while non-coercive, non-violent action invites the parties to a
dialogue about the issues themselves. Gandhi therefore, warns that we must hate
the sin and not the sinner. Bondurant states that Gandhi "fashioned a
method of conflict in the exercise of which a man could come to know what he is
and what it means to evolve.In Satyagraha the dogma gives way to an open
exploration of context. The objective is not to assert propositions, but to
create possibilities. The Satyagrahi involves himself in acts of ethical
existence. This process forces a continuing examination of one's own
motives, examination undertaken within the context of relationships as they change towards a new restructured and reintegrated pattern.18
motives, examination undertaken within the context of relationships as they change towards a new restructured and reintegrated pattern.18
The dialectical process is essentially
creative and inherently constructive. Hence while satyagrahis try to convert,
they must themselves also remain open to persuasion.The essential nature of
moral appeals in Satyagraha are such that they call for response that can be
either given or withheld by those towards whom they are directed. Therefore
Satyagraha goes beyond redressing merely the immediate grievance that has
surfaced as conflict, but aims to resolve the distrust and friction that are
underlying the sources of conflict.
Process of
Satyagraha:
The success of a Satyagraha campaign
to resolve any conflict rests on three basic assumptions.
They are :
That there can always be found some
elements of common interest to all the contending parties;
That the parties are or at least might
be amenable to an appeal to the heart and mind;
That those in a position to commence
Satyagraha are also in a position to carry it through to the end.
If these prerequisites are fulfilled,
the scene is set for the process aimed at the required conversion to be
initiated. This can involve several steps, reasoning with the opponent, then
persuasion through self suffering wherein the Satyagrahi attempts to dramatize
the issues at stake and to get through to the opponent's unprejudiced judgement
so that he may willingly come again onto a level where he may be persuaded
through natural argument. This is the process of moral appeal through self
suffering in lieu of coercion. Gandhi himself summarizes this process:
"I seek entirely to blunt the
edge of the tyrant's sword, not by putting up against a sharper edged weapon,
but by disappointing his expectation that I would be offering physical
resistance".19
Hence if the attempts at conversion
through these measures fail, the tools of non-cooperation or civil disobedience
may be brought into play.
Given this presentation of moral
Equivalent of War or Satyagraha as a background paper, it is now left open to
examine and test the efficacy of Satyagraha by referring to certain recurring
points of debate or controversy.
The role of the individual especially
the charismatic personality in Satyagraha.
Pacifism and Satyagraha
Satyagraha as a way of life and as a
process or weapon of conflict resolution.
Satyagraha against incorrigible
violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please share your views