Word For The Day: Satyagraha

I have alluded to the Gandhian concept of "satyagraha" both here and on other blogs, and felt that it was worth a little more discussion. It's probably useful to understand where it came from in the first place. In his autobiography, aptly subtitled "The Story of My Experiments with Truth", Gandhi wrote:

The principle called Satyagraha came into being before that name was invented. Indeed when it was born, I myself could not say what it was. In Gujarati also we used the English phrase 'passive resistance' to describe it. When in a meeting of Europeans I found that the term 'passive resistance' was too narrowly construed, that it was supposed to be a weapon of the weak, that it could be characterized by hatred, and that it could finally manifest itself as violence, I had to damur to all these statements and explain the real nature of the Indian movement. It was clear that a new word must be coined by the Indians to designate their struggle.

But I could not for the life of me find out a new name, and therefore offered a nominal prize through Indian Opinion to the reader who made the best suggestion on the subject. As a result Maganlal Gandhi coined the word 'Sadagraha' (Sat=truth, Agraha=firmness) and won the prize. But in order to make it clearer I changed the word to 'Satyagraha' which has since become current in Gujarati as a designation for the struggle.

(NB: the linked website mistakenly had replaced "Sadagraha" with another instance of "Satyagraha" which not only makes no sense in the context, but according to my copy of the autobiography it is also wrong! I have corrected that in the quoted text above.)

Most people focus on the non-violent aspect of Gandhi's methods. What's often missed is that it explicitly admits that nobody, not even the practitioners of NV, holds a monopoly on the truth. Thus, the "sat" aspect reflects that our actions must be part of a process to discover the truth which involves all parties to a conflict. Put simply:

# Each person's opinions and beliefs represent part of the truth.
# In order to see more of the truth we must share our truths cooperatively.
# This implies a desire to communicate and a determination to do so, which in turn requires developing and refining relevant skills of communication.
# Commitment to seeing as much of the truth as possible means that we can not afford to categorize ourselves or others.

Of course, being really nice doesn't affect change by itself. That's why I reject terms like "pacifist" and "passive resistance". Satyagraha is not a weapon of the weak, and requires active engagement. The book A Force More Powerful discusses this point:

"I do not believe in making appeals," [Gandhi] wrote, "when there is no force behind them, whether moral or material."

The potential of satyagraha to change an opponent's position, Gandhi believed, came from the dependence of rulers on the cooperation of those who had the choice to obey or resist. While he continued to argue that satyagraha could reveal the truth to opponents and win them over, he often spoke of it in military terms and planned actions that were intended not so much to convert adversaries but to jeopardize their interests if they did not yield. In this way he made satyagraha a realistic alternative for those more interested in what could produce change than in what conscience could justify.

Non-violence is not about just sitting around hoping good things will happen. It is not appeasement. It is about going about conflict in a different, more truthful way.

Taking a step back, I'd like to explore the truthfulness element a bit more. There have been discussions on other sites like DDF and Kos where people have expressed outrage about disinformation spread about Dean. Insults like "idiot" and far worse are used to describe biased reporters and pundits. I think that's cool in a forum like a blog because we do need a bit of catharsis now and then. However, I note the 3rd and 4th points about "sat": we must learn learn to communicate better and not label people. When writing a letter of complaint to someone, or debating someone on a blog, labeling them an idiot is not really a form of good communication (spoken as one who engages in such unhelpful practice).

We Dean supporters can win this thing because I think we do have a lot of truth on our side, but there are other viewpoints worth considering and we must also be completely above board when it comes to our own claims. From the political POV, we thus far haven't convinced a lot of independent voters of Dean's greatness, judging by recent polls. I think that means we still have some learning to do.

ntodd  ¶ 2:20 PM