Satyagraha: What Is It?, "The Philosophy and Practice of Satyagraha: Gandhian Nonviolence in Action"

 

Satyagraha: What Is It? Gandhiji did not coin the term "satyagraha." The concept of satyagraha was present in holy texts like as the Upanishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita, Quran, and several others even before he did. Both Indians and Westerners, including Prahlad, Raja Harishchandra, Socrates, Plato, Jesus, King Ashoka, and several more, practiced it. The first individual Satyagrahi, Prahlad, advocated for Satyagraha in opposition to his father's oppressive rule. The meaning of Satyagraha was unknown at the time. Gandhiji asserts that "the concept known as Satyagraha existed before that name was coined." In fact, I was unable to identify it when it first appeared.Some Westerners think that Gandhiji took the concept of satyagraha from the Sermon on the Mount and other parts of Christ's New Testament. Others think he received this idea from Tolstoy's writings, even though Tolstoy himself inferred it from the New Testament. Gandhi's conception of satyagraha actually came from his own Vaishnavite beliefs rather than from Christ or Tolstoy.Sanskrit is where the word "Satyagraha" originated. The words "Satya," which means "truth," and "Agraha," which means "clinging, holding fast, adherence, insistence," combine to make this compound term. To put it another way, satyagraha refers to firmly adhering to the truth, clinging to it, or insisting on it no matter what. In Indian view, satyagraha is defined by Gandhiji as "firmness in a good cause." He noted that Satyagraha was only a new term for "the law of self-suffering" in Young India.Additionally, he asserted in Hind Swaraj that "self-sacrifice is infinitely superior to sacrifice of others" and that a self-sufferer does not cause others to suffer because of his errors. When it comes to fighting the most powerful and formidable force, satyagraha is an unmatched weapon. Gandhi effectively employed and exemplified satyagraha to free India from the oppression of British empire. It was a revolution without blood.Gandhi referred to his general strategy of nonviolent protest as satyagraha. This basically translates to "Truth-force." However, a more comprehensive expression would be "the force that is generated through adherence to Truth." These days, it's commonly referred to as non-violence. Gandhi, however, saw non-violence as the term for a more expansive idea—"a way of life based on love and compassion." According to Gandhi, nonviolence gave rise to satyagraha, or "truth force." It might also be helpful to remember that, despite the fact that they are sometimes used interchangeably, satyagraha and peaceful action are not synonymous.

Satyagraha is actually a unique kind of Gandhi's own interpretation of peaceful action. A large portion of so-called non-violent action would not be considered satyagraha. However, we will return to that later. Gandhi used two different forms of satyagraha during his large-scale campaigns. Civil disobedience, which involved disobeying the law and threatening to be arrested, was the first. The word "disobedience" is often the first thing that comes to mind when we hear it today. Gandhi, however, valued "civil" equally. His usage of the word "civil" here refers to both "relating to citizenship and government" and "civilized" or "polite." And Gandhi aimed for precisely that.Additionally, we tend to emphasize the stages of civil disobedience in a different way than Gandhi did. We often assume that the essence of it is breaching the law. Gandhi, however, believed that going to prison was the essence of it. For the most part, breaking the law was only a means to an end. Why was that, then? Was Gandhi attempting to pack the prisons? overpower and humiliate his captors? Use the power of numbers to get them to "give in"? Absolutely not. All he wanted to do was make a point. "I'm willing to accept the legal penalties, to sit in this prison cell, to give up my freedom, to demonstrate to you how much I care about this matter," he wanted to convey. Because once you see how deeply I care and how 'civil' I am in approaching this, you will undoubtedly reconsider me, give up your inflexible, unfair stance, and allow me to assist you in seeing the reality of my cause." To put it another way, Gandhi's strategy sought to win by converting his opponent—or, as Gandhians do, by causing a "change of heart." Now, that sounds rather naive to a lot of people. I'll tell you a secret, though. It was gullible. Gandhi himself believed the illusion that the opponent was converted as a result of civil disobedience. And the majority of his fans agree, believing him without question.

To put it another way, Gandhi's strategy sought to win by converting his opponent—or, as Gandhians do, by causing a "change of heart." Now, that sounds rather naive to a lot of people. I'll tell you a secret, though. It was gullible. Gandhi himself believed the illusion that the opponent was converted as a result of civil disobedience. And the majority of his fans agree with him, taking his word for it without trying to look it up. To the best of my knowledge, Gandhi's civil disobedience campaigns have never been successful, primarily due to his opponents' eventual change of heart.To the best of my knowledge, Gandhi's civil disobedience campaigns have never been successful, primarily due to his opponents' eventual change of heart. However, this does not imply that civil disobedience was ineffective. In actuality, it was successful. Gandhi's explanation of how and why it worked was the one thing that wasn't quite right. Let me briefly outline what appears to have actually transpired when Gandhi and his supporters engaged in civil disobedience: Politically, Gandhi and his supporters violate the law. A public figure has them detained, prosecuted, and imprisoned. Gandhi and his supporters gladly take it all in stride.The demonstration is well received by the public, who develop empathy with the demonstrators and their cause. The public pressured the public leader to engage in talks with Gandhi. Public pressure increases as civil disobedience cycles continue. Ultimately, a major figure concedes to pressure from his supporters and engages in negotiations with Gandhi. That is a broad outline. Although there is a "change of heart," the public is more affected than the opponent. Additionally, take note of the fact that there is some coercion—albeit indirect—coming from the general population as opposed to Gandhi's group.It's the broad outline. As you can see, there has been a "change of heart," but it has affected the public more than the opponent. Additionally, observe that there is some coercion, albeit indirect, coming from the general public rather than Gandhi's camp. Gandhi used a variation of this strategy in some of his campaigns.

Gandhi's opponents occasionally had superiors who ultimately put pressure on them or even gave them orders to engage in negotiations with Gandhi. When British citizens pressed British government leaders to get involved in the activities of their colonial administration in India, for example, these superiors may have been swayed by Gandhi's campaign or by pressure from their own populace.However, the fundamental idea remained the same: Gandhi's greatest impact on his opponents came more indirectly than directly. Gandhi outlined certain guidelines for the use of civil disobedience. His detractors frequently find these restrictions perplexing, and even his supporters frequently dismiss them as unnecessary. However, it's simple to understand them once you realize that Gandhi believed that the purpose of civil disobedience was to influence people, whether they were the public or the opponent, to change their minds. One of the rules was to break only those laws that were unfair. Being civilly disobedient did not entail breaking every law. Gandhi actually claimed that civil disobedience was only appropriate for those who held a strong respect for the law. Gandhi also prohibited direct coercion, which includes attempting to physically impede someone. Words that were hostile were prohibited. Property destruction was prohibited. Even concealment was forbidden. All of them were disqualified because they would undermine the trust and empathy Gandhi was attempting to establish and prevent that "change of heart." Noncooperation was the second type of mass satyagraha. It sounds just like this. Refusing to cooperate with the adversary and to accept the injustice being fought was known as non-cooperation. Strikes, business boycotts, and tax evasion were some of its manifestations.Naturally, there were overlaps between civil disobedience and non-cooperation. Additionally, non-cooperation had to be conducted in a "civil" way. Gandhi's supporters also had to gladly endure beatings, incarceration, and property confiscation in this situation; it was anticipated that this voluntary suffering would result in a "change of heart." However, non-cooperation also had a momentum of its own, one that was independent of changing the opponent's mind or even influencing public opinion. It was a dynamic founded on the strength of the people themselves rather than on appeals. Gandhi saw that a tyrant's ability to rule depended solely on the willingness of the populace to submit. By placing guns to their heads or threatening to put them in jail, the tyrant can persuade people to comply. 

However, we will no longer submit to your authority." It's really easy. The despot is powerless. He may yell, rant, injure, and destroy, but if the people believe him, he is done. Gandhi stated, "I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their co-operation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill." Gandhi's idea of power—the one he is accused of lacking—was that. For people who are accustomed to seeing strength in a rifle barrel, it can be difficult to understand. It is not filtered by their filters. Gandhi is hence referred to as idealistic and impractical.Satyagraha is actually the most effective and long-lasting tool for resolving religious, social, political, and economic issues. It is still effective today in our democratic system against any wrong that is committed. Gandhi introduced the idea through his general dedication to satyagraha, nonviolence, and the dignity of labor. Gandhi asserted that there will be no economic exploitation, political oppression, or moral decay in the Sarvodaya social system. People have been using satyahraha to fight against different regimes all over the world lately. They have been successful in organizing the masses and getting the government to agree to their reasonable and fair requests.