October is the month we remember Mahatma Gandhi as his birth anniversary is on October 2nd. The UN also observes the day as the day as the International Day of Non-Violence While I have a lot of admiration for Mahatma Gandhi, there is a man I respect possibly even more.
He is popularly known as the Frontier Gandhi, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, orBadshah Khan, and he was one of the foremost Muslim followers of Gandhiji.
Why do I admire him so much? There are reasons. Gandhiji’s key weapon of Satyagraha was not so unfamiliar in what is today India, because of its long association with Jainism and Buddhism in particular. But for Badshah Khan to preach non-violence and Ahimsa to his Pashtoon people who are well known as much as for their hospitality as for their quick temper and penchant for violence, and build a mass movement around them was an almost unbelievable feat. The Khudai Khidmatgars, or the Red Shirts as his volunteers were popularly called, preached and practiced nonviolence throughout the length and breadth of what was then the North West Frontier Province (Khyber Pakhtoonwa today).
When we look at the events unfolding in the same area where the Khudai Khidmatgars once marched sans guns or any violent intent, we may well wonder if nonviolence has any relevance or place today, at least in our part of the world. The last of the nonviolent warriors that I knew of, Sunder Lal Bahuguna of the Chipko movement fame, died a few months ago. Any few remaining heroes are likely to be nonagenarians. There are no younger heroes espousing satyagraha who are in the public space. So, does nonviolence have a future?
Even as we search for leaders and role models, it must be said that nonviolent action – including methods such as rallies, strikes, boycotts and yatras as a method for registering dissent and promoting social change have become all-pervasive. Nonviolent action has been adopted by many social movements and its character has evolved. Today it may no longer need a larger-than-life
charismatic leader whose passing we lament; they have been replaced by numerous local leaders as witnessed in the Kisan agitation, which may be the largest and longest-lasting the world has ever seen, and has been ongoing since 2020 with no predominant or even visible leader. After all, civil disobedience is aimed at an entity like a government, a State or an imposed law, from which there seems to be no institutional or politically acceptable mechanism for redress. Free and fair elections don’t guarantee accountability in between those elections, though an independent judiciary and an independent press could be important tools ensuring accountability.
Gandhi gave a new political meaning to the idea of civil disobedience during India’s freedom movement. The word preferred by the Mahatma was Satyagraha –– the quest for truth. The difference between the two is of course more than semantics though non-violence is a common theme. There was a distinctly spiritual element in the Mahatma’s interpretation of non-violence.
This included an inner transformation of one’s own self so that the satyagrahi himself does not entertain any violent thoughts towards the aggressor.
The Anna Hazare led movement against corruption in 2011 and the protests after the Nirbhaya attack of 2012 show up the difference. Both were nonviolent movements in the sense that no guns or arms were used, but the aggression in the air was very palpable. Gandhiji may have accepted it as civil
disobedience, but never as Satyagraha. In fact, the Anna movement teetered on the edge of violence when some of his volunteers attacked media personnel covering his fast, forcing Anna Hazare, a Gandhian by conviction to wonder if he should call off his agitation.
According to a blog in Washington Post, 2019 saw possibly the largest wave of mass, nonviolent anti-government movements globally. Social media played a huge role in the spread and influence of mass movements. Governments have fallen to popular protest movements in places as diverse as Iraq, Lebanon, Bolivia, Sudan and Algeria. In Hong Kong, a leaderless movement that emerged to resist a pro-Beijing extradition law, bolstered its numbers and escalated its demands following a mismanaged and brutal crackdown, propelling pro-democracy parties to victory in November 2019 local-government elections. But the global wave started earlier; the 2010 Arab Spring which began in Tunisia was non-violent.
But the euphoria of 2019 was over in a few months. The global coronavirus pandemic—and the lockdowns that followed —forced people in early 2020 to abandon mass demonstrations. In India, the movement against the Citizenship Amendment Act collapsed and did not resume even when the
lockdowns eased up. The Farmers agitation had continued in a more subdued fashion and as I write has again begun picking up momentum, particularly in Haryana.
In spite of all the setbacks, nonviolent struggle seems to have a future. At the turn of the century, peoples’ movements were de facto armed revolutions. The century was kicked off by the October revolution in Russia, possibly the mother of all revolutions. Then, in fairly regular succession, came the Chinese, Korean, Cuban, Vietnamese, Laotian and the Cambodian revolutions. The Islamic revolution of 1979 in Iran seems to have been the last of the lot, though it was not entirely violent. Of course, there have been numerous civil wars, ethnic conflicts, coups and regime changes all this time,
but they cannot be called mass movements.
Non-violent social movements, like other social movements, will change and develop. They may no longer have the inner spiritual moorings that they once had. Martin Luther King Jr and Archbishop Tutu in their struggles were guided by their Christian beliefs. Mahatma Gandhi by his Hindu and possibly Jain influence (arguably Hinduism is not all about non-violence). These movments will also not always have an explicit political agenda. Medha Patkar’s Narmada agitation was about the displacement of people due to the increase in the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada. Sunder Lal Bahuguna’s Chipko movement was similar in the context of the Tehri dam. On the other hand, Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption agitation and the ongoing Kisan agitation do have one.
One lesson to be learnt from modern peoples’ movements is that successful non-violent movements require a lot more than just the mobilization of protest. They require an increasing mass base, a plan, and the ability to quickly organise when the fight is won. That’s hard to do without leadership and without an organisational machinery. And therein lies the tension in the modern avatars of non-violent peoples’ movements.
