Though Mohandas Gandhi valued simplicity, he would undoubtedly be delighted that the rampant spread of technology has made Gandhian non-violence more effective. Indeed, the digital age — when every phone is a camera and a telegraph — makes Gandhism far more potent than it was when he was alive.
Truth is, Gandhi’s approach was not well suited to his time. He relied on widespread dissemination of information about atrocities through mass media at a moment when mass media reach was (relatively) limited. Suffering must be witnessed to cause moral alarm in the outside world or shame on the inside. But governments were good at brutalizing in private even back then, and they’ve only gotten better at controlling sources of information.
Gandhi’s approach was not just about the non-violent action, it was about eliciting an unjust, violent re-action – not about avoiding suffering of the people but welcoming it.
“Things of fundamental importance to people are not secured by reason alone, but have to be purchased with their suffering,” he said. “Suffering is infinitely more powerful than the law of the jungle for converting the opponent and opening his ears which are otherwise shut to the voice of reason.”
The dynamic in Iran has fit Gandhi’s understanding of human psychology. When millions peacefully protested in Iran, the government fell directly into the Gandhian trap, brutally murdering some protesters. By drawing the government into violent — and public — misbehavior, the protesters drew the state into a downward spiral in which the leaders progressively eroded their own authority through their own actions.
In Iran, the regime that started with one crisis of legitimacy (the election) now has a second one (around the killing of citizens). This will draw more to the streets, which will probably draw more violent reaction, further undercutting their standing.
It is excruciatingly difficult to maintain a non-violent posture in the face of state violence. In truth, not all the protesters have taken this approach. Throwing rocks, chanting “Death to the Dictator,” hunting basijs — these do little damage to the state but run the risk of eroding the moral authority of the protesters.
America’s practitioner of the technique, Rev. Martin Luther King, was deeply influenced by the Hindu Gandhi who was, in turn, influenced by Jesus (see this brilliant essay by King confidant and Gandhi scholar Harris Wofford) but it’s an open question whether Islam has within its traditions the spiritual foundation for a Muslim style of non-violent civil disobedience.
Significantly, Mir Hossein Moussavi, reportedly moved close to Gandhian rhetoric in cautioning Iranian protesters to resist the temptation toward violence:
“I, as a mourner, invite the people to self-restraint. The country belongs to you. The revolution and the government are your inheritances. Objecting to lies and cheating is your right.
Be hopeful in exercising your rights and do not allow those, who try to instill fear in you to dissuade you, to make you angry. Continue to avoid violence in your protests and treat the disproportionate actions of the security forces as broken hearted parents would their children.”
The reason Neda Agha Soltan has become the symbol of injustice is not just because she’s young and a woman, it’s because she was standing passively. She becomes a martyr in a way a rock-thrower wouldn’t. Her death therefore will hurt the regime infinitely more.
That’s why the most important idea in President Obama’s statement yesterday may have been the most Gandhian: “right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.”
It is witness that gives the non-violent approach its power, by making private suffering public. The protesters will be severely tested; restraint will be nearly impossible. But if the Iranians pull it off, it will provide an inspiring epilogue to Gandhi’s story. He went to his death feeling he’d failed in part because he had been unable to convince enough Indian Muslims to embrace his approach. Nothing would make him happier than if it turned out to be millions of Muslims who gave birth to 21st century Gandhism.
Cross-posted with Wall Street Journal Online.
posted June 22, 2009 at 5:51 pm
It truly would be an inspiration if non-violent action brought down the Iranian regime. It would also show a skeptical West that Muslims too can be inspired to non-violent action. (Even though many Americans forget that many Muslims joined Gandhi in his non-violent struggle.) Let us hope and pray that the protesters succeed!
posted June 22, 2009 at 8:49 pm
In truth it seems to be less learning the lesson of Ghandi than the government ignoring the lesson of Stalin. By killing one person at a time, they created the image of a martyr. If they had mowed the crowds down with heavy weapons fire, there would have only been numbers.
In truth, I cannot see non-violent action succeeding against the Mullahs. They honestly do not care what the rest of the world thinks.
posted June 23, 2009 at 12:51 am
Charles,
But the world also that non-violent action would never overthrow Marcos in the Phillipines, the communist dictators of Poland and East Germany, the apartheid South African government, etc. I have great hopes for the people of Iran. Collective non-violent action is stronger than the strongest army.
posted June 23, 2009 at 10:12 am
If it were only non-violent street protests against the police, the militia goons and the Revolutionary guards, I agree that the superior forces of Khameni and Ahamdinejad would win out.
But, the longer the protests continue, the more cracks are appearing across the entire society, including within the ranks of the ruling clerics and in the military. It is possible that continued pressure could lead to defections by military or even to refusal to attack the demonstrators. A successful general strike could do even more to change the status quo.
I’m hopeful.
posted June 23, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Richard, but it failed bloodily in China and Iran has an interesting history of dealing with the outside world. Amnesty International had to stop sponsoring arrestees under the Ayatollah because the moment the Iranians got one letter on someone’s behalf, the person was immediately executed. And of course there was the famous episode in Stalin’s gulags when a couple of prisoners decided to go on a hunger strike and discovered that their hunger strike was made permanent as the NKVD guards said, “Good, more food for us.”
The success of non-violence is linked more the weakness of the will of the government than the power of the demonstrators. Ghandi never faced Stalin or Hitler.
posted June 24, 2009 at 10:27 am
Charles, the points you make are, unfortunately, excellent. Non-violence works better against “oppressors” who are clearly violating their own values, such as the British in India, and America in the era of legal segregation.
On the other hand, the fact that the actions of Khameni and Ahmadinejad are against many of the stated values of the Iranian Revolution is made clear by the rather large number of clerics and mullahs who appear to be breaking ranks with the “Supreme Leader.”
I agree that peaceful means will not necessarily be effective against brutally repressive regimes, but do think there may be some real hope in Iran.
posted June 24, 2009 at 1:26 pm
And the naivete continues.
Ghandi succeeded because GB was a democracy subject to political pressure from its citizenry. Ditto the United States.
Nonviolent protests never did anything to overthrow a dictatorship. And, no, it didn’t overthrow communism. U.S. military pressure and the raw economic power produced by capitalism pushed the USSR into economic collapse.
This article becomes more and more irrelevant as time passes and all the predictions made by those of us who understand dictatorships happened one by one.
The current situation right now in Iran? No more street protests. Protest leaders rounded up and awaiting trial. No “cracks” among the Mullahs.
The prediction for next week? The re-assertion of the grip of dictatorship on the people of Iran.
posted June 24, 2009 at 2:54 pm
It does not matter how many mullahs break ranks. What matters is if the generals break ranks. The historic precedent being the 1991 Soviet coup which ended because the army did not go along with it including General Lebed’s remark that if the coup leaders did not give up he would drop his paratroopers on the Kremlin.
It all goes back to the wisdom of the Roman Emperor Septimus Severus who said, “Keep the soldiers rich and don’t worry about anything else.”
posted June 24, 2009 at 4:09 pm
It is so true that non-violent protesting and acts of selfless martyrdom work to show the opposition for what it is and illustrates just how far they will go.
posted June 25, 2009 at 1:03 pm
very nice to blogs tanks
posted July 6, 2009 at 3:20 pm
nice blogs
http://www.islamodasi.net/islamisohbet.php