Contextualizing Gandhi in Twenty-First Century World
© Anup Mukherjee (June, 2003)
This essay was part of World History Association (WHA) Conference at Atlanta (June 2003). Detailed commentary by Prof. Marc Jason Gilbert, the Panel Chairperson of Gandhi and World History Panel of the WHA Conferance can be found on HNN website and H-Asia website. - Anup Mukherjee
ABSTRACT
Read Essay
We often think of relevance of Gandhi in various ways. Often these involves issues that relate to issues of Peace in the context generally of Hindu-Muslim relation, though not exclusive to it. We also speak of Gandhi in the social context of caste and improvement of depressed castes, though that aspect is generally being taken over by the newer assertion of dailt identity that generally draws its inspiration from traditions that are not Gandhian.
However what relevance does Gandhi has if he is taken out of the context of India. In what ways is Gandhi relevant when nations have become independent and when these independent nations have acquired so much power to themselves that it seems quite difficult to understand that a ‘naked fakir’ or his ideas hold any relevance.
The paper explores the situations in which the ideas of Gandhi on issues of Satyagraha, or in terms of indigenous technology, and in the context of environmentalism, and indigenous people, what exactly does Gandhian thought provides for? The paper would deal with aspects of these issues.
Movements have taken place regarding indigenous people, regarding safeguard of environment against big projects and similar themes. Such movements have taken place thoughout the world in various different contexts, some of which would draw its inspiration from Gandhian thought, while others would have their own indigenous inspiration.
In such situation, to what extent is the issue of Swaraj relevant in terms of Swaraj for the people. Can such Swaraj go beyond the nation and really reach the people at the community levels? This also derives from the question Gandhi posed in Hind Swaraj- “Who is the nation?” and would speak in terms of “I bear no enemity towards the English but I do towards their civilization". So the elements that Gandhi found not palatable in the European civilisation, has perhaps been adapted by all the nations that have emerged in opposition to the imperialism. However much of the elements of these states seem to stand in direct opposition to the people, to whom it supposedly belongs.
Consequently, are ideas of Gandhi still valid in such struggles, where the state itself stands as an imperial power in relation to its people and local communities? Can the ideas of Gandhi hold in such struggle of people? Is such struggle of people valid? Where do we draw the lines of collective, at what level- the community level or the national level? Is progress of nation in terms of development an abstraction? Is progress of nation exclusive to the people and communities? The paper explores these themes and attempts to show that ideas of Gandhi continue to be valid and relevant.
© Anup Mukherjee (June, 2003)
Gandhi symbolized many things during his lifetime - a politician, a leader, a freedom fighter, a philosopher, a social reformer etc. However the most popular perception of Gandhi that is remembered by posterity, is his symbolization as an epitome of Peace and Non-Violence. For a world beset with perpetual violence, this is quite natural. The world has always chased peace as an ultimate value, but has never quite reached it. The fact of different societies and polities has been violence, not peace. Violence has continued to torment the human civilization in myriad forms, and seems to be the enduring reality - Peace remains the perennial goal that remains to be achieved.
The world continues to be beset with religious fundamentalism that brings forth a diabolic mix of politics, violence and religious identity. International terrorism with increasing threats of chemical and biological weapons is an ever-looming threat. Civil wars, and violent sub-nationalism threaten to rip apart the nation-states. Nuclear anxieties continue, particularly in the context of terrorism. Once considered to have been a settled issue under UN auspices, foreign invasions continue to torment international politics. Oppressive regimes that suppress its own people are found by dozen. In extreme we also have ‘rogue regimes’ that are a cause of trepidation not only to their own people, but also to the international community. These issues invariably form the world headlines in some form or other.
At a more mundane level, for the individual, the ’state’ itself has emerged as an institution of oppression through the various instruments of state machinery. Human Rights violation seems to be the order of the day. This is particularly true for states that are either totalitarian rule or where the legal institutions are weak or corrupt.
But violence for the individual is also in subtle forms of oppression. The marginalized sections of the society are used as the rationale for much of the governmental actions in form of development projects - however the benefits rarely reach such sections - or even if they reach, they are few and far between. The poor, the weak, the dispossessed, the ethnic minorities, the tribals etc, continue in many cases to be in situation where in reality, they have less than the citizen rights, or they are unable to make their rights enforceable.
Such oppression is not just a phenomena deriving from governments and its institutions, but is a generalized phenomena where power of technology tend to protect the interests of the powerful, and ignore those of the weak. This gets reflected in form of various denials that gets mediated via the medium of technology - potable water, sanitary facilities, cooking fuel, walkable roads, electricity, education facilities, medical care etc. Absence of these facilities tends to brutalize the society.
Moreover, even the rich transnational corporations have joined governments in having hegemonic ambitions over the individuals. Whether it is control over mass communication or whether it be the question of patent rights over various natural resources, the ordinary mortals always lose out. Also, ‘development’ itself has become a matter of torment for the powerless. Large industrial projects have uprooted people and communities from their ancestral places. But more unfortunately, these industrial projects have left out these communities from its scope of benefits.
The society itself continues to be part of a patriarchal hierarchy that is oppressive. The values of freedom and liberty - even if it has reached the civil society, it has not been embraced by the traditional society in which the bulk of the population resides - whether they are educated or not is really immaterial. This gets manifested particularly in form of a glaring gender-gap that gets reflected in the variance in different variables like nutrition, educational opportunities, medical care, stereotyped social roles etc. This fundamental gender disparity vertically cuts across the different sections of the society.
Concomitant to the gender disparity, the human society is itself hierarchised and a few people tend to control the socio-political structures, while much of humanity continues to live at the bottom of such hierarchies. This gives rise to concentration of resources in fewer hands. This is a sure-shot recipe for social and economic subjugation leading to the widening gap between the rich and poor. This also impacts the issues of Equality, leading to situations of general discontent in the society.
Despite the seemingly rapid seminal changes in the recent times, the world even with its apparent euphoria, did not change for the ordinary mortals- the humble, rule-abiding, powerless individuals and communities. Their own governments were tyrannical and tried to subjugate them by use of the force of the state, even if their issues and demands were genuine and related to survival. Whether it be tyrants or whether it be the liberating forces, the individual is not the concern of any - whether democratic, autocratic, socialist, rightist, puppet, plutocratic, oligarchic or of any dispensation, regimes have tended to take their people and communities for granted - just a resource, perhaps less than that.
All these in totality, as part of the socio-political-economic dynamics of various societies determine the nature of ‘peace’. Gandhi would be at home in dealing such issues and it is very apt to say that his relevance continues even in the twenty-first century. After all, he once said that he had nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills. This paper would attempt to analyse the relation of the individuals and communities with their governments, and try to find whether Gandhi continues to be relevant. Issues of relevance would be examined for the new century, in the context of applicability of Gandhian techniques. At the same time, attempts would also be made to find situations and variables that limit Gandhian techniques.
I would suggest that peace is not a given static value. This means that when we say that there is peace in a given society or a nation, it really conveys nothing. The criteria of peace may be different for different societies and nations. Peace is rather determined by the balance of the various forces - from community to societal to national and international - that actually determines the nature of this balance. For each individual to each society this balance is different. When the balance approximates peace, it is beneficial for the people; when the balance of these factors exists at point opposite to that of peace, then it is perilous for the people. Moreover even when peace exists, the nature of peace might be different. The peace experienced by an Arab refugee in Germany might be totally different to the peace experienced by a Turkish immigrant to USA. The peace experienced by an upper class Black in his native Nigeria would be totally different to that of working class Black of USA. Thus, the kind of peace experienced by certain sections of people within a given environ might be different from what is experienced by the particular society as an aggregate.
| Balance of these variables and how they interact determine the nature of peace |
|
| Anarchy —-Order—-Hegemony—-Oppression
<——————————————–> People and Societies <——————————————–> Liberty—Civil Society—Legitimacy—Rule of Law |
Influencing Factors Social Values Traditional Values Political System Leadership Events (National & International) Economic Condition Legal System (and its effectiveness) Access to Resources |
Peace comes in various shades, and the approaches to it are variegated. Thus, we generally have approaches to peace from direction of social reform, from the side of charity inspired by religion, from the direction of civil rights, from the angle of freedom struggle etc. Gandhi’s approach to peace was a mix of these - from political rights to civil rights to social reforms to freedom struggle. Gandhi’s approach is characterized by mass mobilization, Satyagraha, fasting, dharna (sit in protest), picketing, non-cooperation, civil disobedience, courting mass arrests, and all these concomitant with continuous political education of masses through speeches, pamphlets etc and thereby heightening their political awareness. This is along with trying to bring reforms in the social institutions.
Many countries of Asia and Africa that have come out of colonization, after their independence have faced political situations that has resulted in their being led by dictators. Such dictatorships are not just military rule, but also one party dictatorship that exists in some of the countries. To some extent this has been a colonial heritage that did not let the democratic institutions develop, and instead relied on the elites and the sub-elites as support structures in carrying out the imperial administration that was fundamentally bureaucratic and driven by civil servants. The consequence in these countries has been emergence of governments whether military or otherwise, that are mostly oligarchic and aristocratic. They rule by the potential fear of inflicting violence on its citizens that makes everyone accept such regimes.
Gandhi would speak about the government of his time “…Government is cowardly…[it] takes advantage of our fear of gaols.” [1] In our times, one such country is Burma [2], where in the political arena Gandhian non-violent struggle is being waged for the objective of attaining democracy under the charismatic leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi against a military junta that rules by brute force.
Suu Kyi’s recognition of Gandhi is based on the premises of moral action with roots in non-violence (ahimsa), fearlessness (abhaya) and autonomy of traditional village structures as greatly relevant to Myanmar. Suu Kyi’s fearless struggle is rooted in an unshakable faith in non-violence; as she says, “Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more precious is the courage …of refusing to let fear dictate one’s actions, courage that could be described as ‘grace under pressure’…even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man” [3] Here two things are important - one that Myanmar is a Buddhist country, and that the struggle for democracy is being led by a woman. In South Asia, being a woman adds an added dimension of importance because people tend to trust and perceive women in public offices as more responsible and sensitive. Also, being a Buddhist country, the tradition of non-violence is inbuilt in the peoples mind, meaning that legitimacy for violence and coercion is anyway low. The image of suffering by a (woman) leader who is fighting a military rule is a live source of inspiration and mass mobilization.
In such situation, the Gandhian techniques are very relevant - particularly those of Satyagraha that entails non-cooperation and civil disobedience. But these techniques do not work wonders instantly. Instead, the leaders have to build up the courage of sacrifice among the people. Even in Gandhi’s India, there was a decadal gap before launching of Gandhian movements. These time gaps were used for political education and for political bargaining with the authorities. The Gandhian movements in India entailed an S-T-S strategy (Struggle- Truce-Struggle) [4]. And the move towards freedom was slow, based on building up of democratic structures and institutions through gradual progression. In Burma’s case, freedom exists in democracy. As Suu Kyi writes - “The people of Burma view democracy not merely as a form of government but as an integrated social and ideological system based on respect for the individual.” [5] In some ways, in this context, it’s tiring out the opponent first strategy - the one with more patience would emerge the winner. This would also depend on the organizational ability of the leaders who are fighting for democracy in Burma. This also means that in this political struggle, where patience and forbearance are the hallmark of non-violence, the casualty would be far lower, and the dips in confidence would be minimized. But from such patience and fearlessness, a more enduring democratic nation would emerge.
This non-violence struggle for freedom is significant even for the Islamic regions. Generally, Islam and non-violence does not seem to match. However, during the struggle against the British, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan - the Frontier Gandhi and his Khudai Khidmatgars, had shown that it is possible to incorporate non-violence in a successful political struggle. Anyone aspiring to be member of the Khudai Khidmatgar (Servants of God movement) - more commonly the Red Shirt Organization, had to take a set of Oath comprising seven statements, of which one was - “I promise to refrain from violence and from taking revenge. I promise to forgive those who oppress me or treat me with cruelty” [6] The motive was - “…to awaken in the Pathans the idea of service and the desire to serve their country…” [7] “The movement spread to all parts of the province [the present NWFP of Pakistan], even among the tribes, and soon it became so popular that jirgas (assembly of elders) and Khudai Khidmatgars were established in every village we visited” [8] This amply shows that the stereotypes regarding certain ethnic groups are flawed, and when given a proper leadership and organization, then peace becomes an enduring value. Pathans who are considered a warring community had been influenced by such ideas so early in the twentieth century (Khudai Khidmatgars were formed in 1928). To re-emphasize, for peace and non-violence to succeed, requires a leadership that has patience and is able to inspire and educate people through charisma as well as organization.
In this context, non-violence pops up interesting examples. In the case of the recent invasion of Iraq by the US and allied troops, in the town of Najaf, when the invading troops tried to go towards a holy Shiite mosque, large numbers of unarmed people gathered on the street that went upto that mosque. These people protested against the army troops going to that mosque. Faced with such large number of spontaneous unarmed civilian protest, these troops had to retreat and decide not to go to that mosque. Here it is important to understand the uniqueness of Gandhian technique. His Satyagraha was in the shape of large number of civilian participation. When so many people had the ‘weapon’ of truth-force, no gun dare confront this truth force. People would rather sacrifice themselves defending this truth peacefully, rather than take up any weapons to counter violence. The truth-force was one of peaceful persuasion, and it continues to remain relevant in any situation of violence or potential violence or threat of violence. The example of Najaf shows that even if such an event is not even remotely Gandhian inspired, the technique works. However, this may be an example of momentary mobilization. From perspective of History, the more valid question that might be asked is - was it possible for people of Iraq to put up a peace resistance in front of the ruthless Iraqi dictator? Similar analogies might be put up regarding societies that have seen ruthless dictators, and a valid question asked whether even Gandhi would be successful in such a situation. My understanding is that Gandhian Peace caters to a particular set of condition. It might not be a panacea to all violence. These conditions would entail:
# Charismatic leadership
# Presence of a political space where leaders are able to mobilize masses
# A political organization that can mobilize masses in different parts of the territory
# Mechanism whereby communication of leaders actually reaches the masses
# Presence of politically aware masses willing to participate and sacrifice
In societies where these are not present, it would be difficult to go ahead with the Gandhian means. This was also reflected in some of the movements launched by Gandhi in the Princely States of India (as in Rajkot), and later on withdrawn by him, as movements in such places did not indicate political space for the Gandhian Peace.
Politically where the situations are not conducive to Gandhian strategy, it is often the case that revolutionary movements gain upper hand. Even though violent revolutionary movements do indicate a fleeting romanticism, it entails huge toll for the common people, and more often than not creates a society where legitimate power is derived from force. This is harmful in the long run - socially, politically, and economically. Whether it is the revolution in Russia, or in China or in Cuba or in other countries, the results have generally been disaster for the people. It also seems strange that all these (violent) revolutions had leftist ideological mooring. The other set of violent revolutions included those led by military people in form of coup d’etat - whether it be in South America or in Africa or in Asia - again interestingly, the military rulers who came in power would call themselves socialist - the ‘fascist’ being a long hated term - yet the autarkic controls of such regimes are unmistakable. However, as these examples of revolutions and dictatorships show - countering state repression with violence might seem to provide short-term succour, but is hardly useful in the long term. Moreover such violent revolutions are not able to create sustainable and stable peace. Violent revolutions only replace one form of repression with other set of repression.
In many ways, Gandhian struggle can be termed as a struggle between institutions. His views and ideas transcend the individual and the personality. The struggle is of peace against violence, of weak against the powerful, of the cause of just against injustice, of choosing democracy and cooperation over force and coercion. An interesting example in this respect is mass non-violent demonstration in Moscow during the 1991 coup attempt, when under the call of Boris Yeltsin thousands of people gathered to demonstrate peacefully against the coup. As Yeltsin spoke from the balcony of Moscow’s White House, “I am convinced that here, in democratic Moscow, aggression of the conservative forces will not win - democracy will". This struggle for democracy is a theme that is bound to gain greater momentum in the future. Not all such demonstrations have worked. A glaring example is the Tiannenmien Square massacre in Beijing in 1989. However, such struggles even by Gandhian standards are not one-shot affair. Such struggles are mostly long drawn, particularly where the society and the institutions have been insular and have tended to repress its people over decades that the people themselves have been bereft of leadership that can organize such movements. Moreover political repression is physical and psychological. It is necessary to break the cycle of fear.
An example of mix of inspiration of Christian religion and Gandhian techniques was the Civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. As he spoke in his Nobel lecture (1964) - “…unarmed gallant men and women of the United States have given living testimony to the moral power and efficacy of non-violence… They have taken our whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence". It is this spirit of firm conviction that one is upholding the truth, and is ready to face any difficulties in pursuing that right path with fearless courage, that leads to success of this method.
Gandhian method has been successfully applied in different situations of contemporary relevance in different parts of the world. In Italy Danilo Dolci, the Gandhi of Sicily, has used Gandhian methods of hunger strikes as a means to draw the attention of governments to the plight of the people - the most famous being of November, 1955 when he undertook a marathon fast for a week to promote building of a dam over Jato River so that the entire valley could be irrigated throughout the year. He also protested against the mafias through his non-violent methods.
In Philippines, in the struggle against the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino used a non-violent strategy to overthrow the dictator by use of rallies and marches, mobilizing people that saw many government officials disowning allegiance to Marcos, and defecting to the democracy movement - all these leading to a legitimate civil disobedience that undermined the dictator- it was the triumph of the “people power". In 1980s, dictatorships were overthrown in the Latin American countries mostly through mobilization of the people without the guns - the truth force being ultimately triumphant over the ‘barrel of the gun’. The lesson being that power did not always flow from the brute force of guns. A similar non-violent strategy was successful in Indonesia, where people fed up with corruption and coercion of the dictator, brought forth democracy that ultimately led to Megawati Soekarnoputri coming to power through democratic means.
On the other side of the coin, it is difficult to assert whether the demise of Soviet and its East European Empire and the events leading to peaceful breach of the Berlin Wall - if that could really be put in the Gandhian framework. Perhaps the demise of Soviet and its East European Empire requires a completely separate frame of analysis, and to suggest that it was a consequence of mere indigenous efforts of the people does not seem satisfactory. While in Poland Solidarity (Lech Walesa) had made headway, and in Czechoslovakia, leader like Vaclav Havel had become influential - yet the political situation doesn’t seem to have become mature enough that the people could have braved another occurrence like that of 1956 or 1968. The whole event was hastened because of Mikhail Gorbachev’s sentiments of Perestroika and his unwillingness to intervene in such situations (’Sinatra’ Doctrine). The Power of the Powerless written by Vaclav Havel does indicate that the peaceful struggle was in the making in East Europe. Even if the Gorbachev phenomena had not occurred, it would have only been matter of time when East Europe would have erupted against their dictators. As the underground political awareness was an ongoing process, its fair to assert that future political mobilisation of the people would have been peaceful.
An example of non-violent struggle that is being waged in the current times, that doesn’t seem to have hopes of success [9] is that of Tibet under auspices of Dalai Lama. But this is not due to any issues of effectiveness of the non-violent strategy perse, but due to various factors- particularly that of the low population of the Tibetans, the unwillingness of foreign nations to take issue with China on this, and also because China is aggressively pushing in development and settlement of non-Tibetans in that region. The situation bears similarity to the middle east - however in the middle east, while the issue of Israel is a settled reality (and backed by USA), while that of Arabs is alive because of the large number of Arabs of different countries supporting the cause, and also because these many Arab countries have an important control over oil resources. The Intifada did contain elements of non-violence (non-payment of tax, strikes etc.), but it did not become the prominent part of the movement. What comes out is that for Gandhian strategy to be successful, it requires large mobilization of people, without which peaceful movements are bound to be suppressed sooner or later. This is also brought forth by the Tienanmen Square events of 1989, which did reflect a repressed want of people - but unfortunately has not been able to translate into a sustained mass movement within the country. Since the “mass” element was absent (throughout that huge country), it was easy to crush the Tienanmen movement.
In this context, it is equally important to know that there are other competing non-violent strategies towards peace, civil-political-human rights, and democracy. These techniques have their own indigenous sources of inspiration. An example of such a movement can be the one in Guatemala where rights of indigenous people, of the Mayas and a movement for democracy and human rights under Rigoberta Menchú Tum is quite separate from the Gandhian ways, though it also aims at similar objectives. Also, in issues of Apartheid in South Africa, Gandhi did have some initial influence, the movement against apartheid took its own path and cannot be put under the Gandhian analytical frame. But what is important in this context is the post-Apartheid event of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). This involved a full disclosure of Truth with the objective of reconciliation, amnesty and national unity. This is quite similar to what Gandhi had preferred regarding British in relation to India. India shook off the British imperialism, but it did not mean that India bore any enmity to the British. India continued to have good relations with Britain as a nation and also remained in the Commonwealth. A similar sentiment he had regarding the Hindu-Muslim relations in India that saw him ‘combating’ violence alone in the riot torn areas of Bengal, when India was awakening to ‘life and freedom’. He had similarly wished for reconciliation with Pakistan - that ultimately led to his assassination. Such a process of reconciliation is an inseparable part to heal the wounds in a non-violent manner. South Africa has done it successfully. Such process of reconciliation is also pertinent to various countries that are torn by ethnic violence.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to another case where Gandhian Strategy doesn’t seem to have worked. Interestingly it happens in a democratic country like India - where both government and the society both imbibe the democratic spirit. Just that a nation has a constitution and a democratic framework does not mean that the people enjoy the basic civil and human rights. The existence of institutional laws are no guarantee to their effectiveness - and despite of democracy, where there is rampant corruption, where there are kleptocracies, where plutocratic feudal structures functioning outside the civil society exerts its unhealthy influence, and where there are traditional institutions sanctioned by religions that have become part of the conscience of the people, - in such situation to organize a mass non-violent struggle is definitely a difficult task. The basic reason is that technically and legally, in such situations the conflict resolution mechanisms are in place - except that such mechanisms are not functional. Similarly the force of tradition is very difficult to break. Gandhi during his time and situation used the idioms of Hindu tradition in India as he had to work his way through a large mass of illiterate people. In his setting, traditional idioms worked well. But it is not necessary that such idiom would be available in different societies around the world or that given a particular situation such idioms would really work. It is not without reason that when in independent India the religious idiom has shifted to the priorities of religious extremism, its usage in a non-violent mass struggle becomes difficult and ineffective.
Such a thing is exemplified by issues of conflicts that are found in the struggle of indigenous and tribal people with regard to development projects. Invariably, though not always, the indigenous and the tribal people lose out in such struggle. In such struggles, only a particular model of development that involves a lot of public expenditure from single political centres, are considered as the only viable viewpoint. Other competing models of development are simply wished off. Moreover media being under the control of the moneyed and powerful generally take the side of such neoliberal policies. In such situation, to have a self-sustaining struggle for survival of such communities becomes tenuous. An example of such a process is the campaign of Narmada Bachao Andolan that has been led by Medha Patkar and Arundhati Roy, the writer-activist. Just putting a synoptic view of this Narmada issue- it involves creation of thousands of dams on Narmada River that winds its way through central India and drains in the Gujarat coast. The biggest of these dams is the Sardar Sarovar. Now, development of this dam meant water for Gujarat - mostly for city areas and regeneration of dry rivers like the Sabarmati in Gujarat. At the same time it involved submergence of large tracts of tribal lands and ousting of these indigenous people from their age-old land. The government figures put the number of oustees to be very low - the 1960s figure. In reality the number was much higher. Even the World Bank withdrew its loan for this project after it found the project to be faulty on grounds of resettlement and rehabilitation of the oustees. In such model of development through big dam, what has happened in this case is that one set of people who are powerless have lost out on their rights to the set of people who are powerful. These people waged a long non-violent struggle that was quite akin to Gandhian Satyagraha to get across their point. However the conflict resolution mechanisms in the constitutional democracy like India worked against their interests - even the highest court of the land did not find anything wrong with the project. The issue largely melts down to two - 1) can a project that benefits a large number of people - would that be development, if that deprives another set of large number of people from their ancestral lands and homes, making much of them homeless and landless labourers? 2) the model of development that we pursue should be by consent not requiring use of state coercion. It was perhaps on such things that Gandhi would oppose the Western Technology. However what was Western during his times, are now local knowhow, and the national centres themselves treat its peripheries (the backward regions) as colonies by use of such technologies. In such situations Gandhian strategy becomes quite difficult. The policy makers would not let people live in their ancestral land, the police would not let the protestors give up their lives by immersing themselves in the river, and the institutions would uphold the skewed policies of development. That is perhaps a big pitfall of Gandhian strategy when interests of the powerless clashes with the policies of government that has been technically elected by the very people of the land.
Conclusions:
Gandhian thought in various areas, are greatly relevant for the twenty-first century. These issues emanate from issues of empowerment of people and communities, decentralization of power to the people, issues related to technology and sustainable development, issues of religious tolerance vis-à-vis religious fundamentalism, and also of war and pacifism etc. This paper has not dealt with these issues and focussed only on the dimension of non-violence in relation to power centres in different societies and countries. The paper has shown that the non-violent strategy continues to remain relevant and effective. The paper has also indicated that peace comes in various forms, of which Gandhian strategy is one of them. The paper has also attempted to analyse and outline the situations and variables that limit the Gandhian strategy to peace
Notes:
[1] Gandhi, Young India, (Aug 4, 1921)
[2] The term Burma is being used here instead of Myanmar, because democracy movement prefers Burma instead of Myanmar. The name Burma was chosen by the people since the country’s independence, while it was renamed Myanmar without a referendum by the military.
[3] Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom From Fear, p. 184 (Penguin)
[4] Bipin Chandra, India’s Sturggle for Independence, p. 313 (Penguin India, 1989)
[5] Suu Kyi, ibid, p. 173
[6] Autobiography of Badshah Khan as narrated to K.B. Narang, My Life And Struggle, p. 97 (Hind Pocket Books)
[7] ibid, p. 96
[8] ibid, p. 101
[9] I say this as a matter of analysis, but do hope in my heart that Tibetans get their land back. Just think- that if Tibet becomes free - a large area would come under the peaceful auspices of the Dalai Lama - something similar to the Vatican - and it would be safe to assume that if it happens it would be a land devoid of war or oppression - something that invariably characterizes the warring nation-states, even if they are democracies.