The Concept of Nonviolence : Rizal vs. Gandhi by Brian Dexter M. Medija Oct 01, 1999
Table of Contents |
"I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and, if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill."-Mahatma Gandhi
Power has always been associated with violence, as though the latter necessarily engenders the former.
In the history of many of the world's nations, violence has always been a mainstay, either as a necessary factor for instituting peace, or as a vehicle for bringing about change. Conquests have always been tainted with blood, and in all too many instances peace is presented as a by-product of gore.
But in the course of human history, it was only relatively recently that the theory of nonviolence as an instrument for change and as a tool for peace, sprung forth. Although it must be noted that nonviolence as a concept dates back centuries prior to Gandhi's Satyagraha, it was Gandhi who elevated it into the popular, somewhat controversial issue it was a few generations past. And it remains so even up to this day.
It was Gandhi's popular "non-violent non-cooperation" (also known as "civil disobedience") in 1930 that thwarted British control of the Indian subcontinent, and consequently gave rise to the Indian nationhood in 1950, ending the glorious, century-old British East India Company.
Gandhi's Satyagraha, the principle behind "non-violent non-cooperation," is likened to the nonviolence of Philippine National Hero Jose Rizal, in that the Filipino used non-violent means in combating a tyrannical power. Interestingly, the nonviolent struggle of Dr. Jose Rizal, a compatriot of Gandhi, predates the Indian leader's. However, it is contested whether or not there is valid reason to compare, even associate, the two in their principles on nonviolence.
But what is Nonviolence, and how was this concept born? For what purpose is "non-violent non-cooperation" or "civil disobedience?" In what way is Gandhi's nonviolence different from or similar to Rizal's? This paper is an attempt to answer these and other queries. In the process, this paper assesses the many points brought up in the discussion of nonviolence.
Nonviolence is an often-confusing term, with the vagueness lying on the scope of its definition. The term violence, according to Webster (1998), simply means "physical force intended to cause injury or destruction." Thus, in pure etymology, the term nonviolence may be deduced to mean "the absence of physical force that may cause injury or destruction."
This rather simplistic definition of the term applies only to the first of two types of Nonviolent commitment according to Mark Shepard (1998).
First, is what he terms as tactical nonviolence, which involves the mere prohibition of physical violence, and in which its proponent "may hold antagonism toward the opponent, and seek to win their goals by coercion."
Thus, when Rizal penned the Noli and the Fili, he may be said to support tactical nonviolence, as he was encouraging animosity from among the readers of his novels towards the tyrannical friars and Spanish authorities. It is likewise clear that Rizal merely had his eyes on coercing the government in Spain to accept the terms of the reformists through the projected "public pressure" which is stirred by the people's reaction to his novels.
He never favored physical, hence violent, means to institute reforms, which also translates to his not favoring the so-called "Independence" of the Philippines.
Second, according to Shepard, is Satyagraha or the Gandhian nonviolence, which involves the prohibition of both physical and psychological violence, "active caring toward the opponent, and the intention to convert."
By convert (conversion), Shepard means to bring about a "change of heart" among the oppressors and "win them over to the other side."
Thus, when Gandhi and his followers broke British laws and courted arrests, Shepard says, it was for the purpose of getting jailed, not to "fill the jails" and embarrass his captors, but to air a statement: " 'I care so deeply about this matter that I'm willing to take on the legal penalties, to sit in this prison cell, to sacrifice my freedom, in order to show you how deeply I care. Because, when you see the depth of my concern, and how 'civil' I am in going about this, you're bound to change your mind about me, to abandon your rigid, unjust position, and to let me help you see the truth of my cause.'"
Gene Sharp (1973) in his book The Politics of Nonviolent Action, wrote a nine-point thesis on the concept of non-violence, which is echoed in Shepard's second type of nonviolent commitment.
1. Non-violence has
nothing to do with passivity, submissiveness and cowardice; just
as in violent action, these must be first rejected and overcome;
2. Non-violence does not use verbal or purely psychological
persuasion, although it may use action to induce psychological
pressure for attitude change, non-violent action, instead of
words, is a sanction and a technique of struggle involving the
use of social, economic and political power, and the matching of
forces in conflict;
3. Non-violence recognizes the potentialities of man for both
"good" and "evil," including the extremes of
cruelty and inhumanity;
4. Non-violence [proponents] do not have to be pacifists or
saints; it is practiced by ordinary people;
5. Non-violence does not require the same standard or principle (though
it may help.)
6. Non-violence uses strikes, non-cooperation and boycott as a
means of action rather than violence
7. Non-violence operates against violence when necessary, so to
refrain the opponent from using violence against nonviolent
activists;
8. There is nothing in non-violent action to prevent it from
being used for both "good" and "bad" causes,
although the social consequences of its use for "bad"
cause may differ considerably from the consequence of violence
used for the same cause.
9. Non-violence attacks or is used against dictatorial regimes,
foreign occupations and even against totalitarian systems.
There is striking resemblance between the reformist principles of these two compatriots. Gandhi demanded equal rights and privileges to Indian and British citizens in India, as Rizal aired the same appeal to equality among the Spaniards and Filipinos in the Philippines.
Not only this, but more importantly, both men favored nonviolent means to achieve their mission.
Nonviolence on the part of Gandhi was based on "passive resistance" (more appropriately referred to as Satyagraha or "non-violent non-cooperation" or "civil disobedience") . Gandhi contended that if the people accepted the oppressor's blows, the same oppressor would inevitably see his own injustice, and consequently undergo a "change of heart," and be awakened to the truth of their cause.
His principle of continuous truth-seeking, with the use of non-violence, inspired and intrigued leaders the world over, and sowed admiration especially from budding activists. Gandhi asserted that "the strongest physical force bends before moral force when used in the defense of truth."
To Rizal, nonviolence was based on the maxim "the pen is mightier than the sword," using his esteemed literary prowess to make the assault against the oppressors. Likewise, he disfavored the Philippine Revolution, arguing that the Filipino fighters were ill-equipped and ill-prepared for battle. His rhetorical ejaculations can be described as leaning to his greater cause, which was to seek assimilation to Mother Spain.
Unlike Gandhi, Rizal never directly took part in uniting the people, or of forwarding his cause. He may have advocated non-violence as the solution to the problems at bay during his time, but he did so only in rhetoric. And very unlike Gandhi, Rizal never took part actively in the revolt against Spain. He was a mere theorist who did not even support the drive towards a true Philippine independence, hence the weakness of the Filipino Revolution. The Katipuneros were obviously disappointed of their inspirer's nonconformity to their ultimate desire of severing the ties with Mother Spain.
Gandhi, being the active leader of the Indian revolt, served as a model for his throng of followers. He wove his own clothes, walked barefoot, and lived the principles he had built and taught his supporters. He made himself suffer, just as his members suffered.
The reason why Rizal's and Gandhi's modes of nonviolence are so different from each other is that they are using different types of nonviolent commitment (Mark Shepard, 1998).
Rizal's commitment falls under tactical nonviolence with its goal primarily on eschewing all kinds of physical violence, in his case shunning a bloody revolution, but allows a buildup of ill will for the oppressor/opponent. Likewise this type of nonviolence strives achieve their goals through coercion.
According to written history, Rizal disagreed on the Filipino Revolution, saying that the 'nation' is lacking in arms and is ill-prepared for war with Spain. This illustrates his avoidance-even dread-for bloodshed and violence.
With his writings, numerous published articles , speeches, novels (Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo), and others, the National Hero demonstrated his desire to inject antagonism for Spain, its friars and representatives.
With the following instances, it is clear that Rizal used tactical nonviolence in dealing with Spain, the "great oppressor."
Gandhi, on the other hand, used the Satyagraha (or the Gandhian) type of nonviolence, named after the very principle he started.
It was known that in Gandhian nonviolence, there is a prohibition of all physical and psychological violence, promotion of active caring to the opponent, with it's thrust on conversion.
And Gandhi's notion of conversion is well explained by the words : "let us accept their blows so they may see their injustice." By letting the oppressor see the injustices, and by reacting unusally to the injustice (such as, keep marching while a soldier keeps hitting you with his rifle instead of just rolling in the mud in pain and crying and begging him to stop), the oppressor will be baffled and in the end be directed into the realization of the noble cause that Gandhi and his supporters strove to attain.
To Gandhi, when the oppressor realizes the cause for the people's non-violent non-conformity, he is then converted, and sometimes even made to side with them.
But Gandhi's notion is flawed, as shown by Shepard (1998):
Let me give a general description of what seems really to have happened when Gandhi and his followers committed civil disobedience:
Gandhi and followers break a law -- politely. Public leader has them arrested, tried, put in prison. Gandhi and followers cheerfully accept it all. Members of the public are impressed by the protest, public sympathy is aroused for the protesters and their cause. Members of the public put pressure on public leader to negotiate with Gandhi. As cycles of civil disobedience recur, public pressure grows stronger. Finally, public leader gives in to pressure from his constituency, negotiates with Gandhi.
That's the general outline. Notice that there is a "change of heart," but it's more in the public than in the opponent. And notice too that there's an element of coercion, though it's indirect, coming from the public, rather than directly from Gandhi's camp.
Shepard's contention is agreeable. While it is true that Gandhi strove to stress on the element of 'conversion' in the success of Satyagraha, he failed to take into consideration the presence of indirect coercion coming from the public. And this coercion seems to be the force behind the success of the non-violent protest.
Or, it may also be logical to Gandhi, that his scheme of Satyagraha is made primarily to appeal to the masses-the public and the international community-in order to put pressure on the British colonial government and coerce it to give 'justice' to the oppressed Indians.
In fact, it appears that it is this public and international outcry that led to India's 'emancipation' from British control.
It may yet be one of the complex ideas coming from Gandhi's mind.
A Revolution is an essential part of world history. It is the element that causes change, the force that signals the rebirth of a town, or nation.
Revolutions are a gift to mankind. There is the French Revolution, though violent, which served as an inspiration to many national leaders, including our own, giving them the aspiration to strive for a free country.
Likewise, there is our very own 1986 EDSA Revolution, a scene repeated many times among new democracies wearied by corrupt dictatorships. And more important, it is a non-violent one-and definitely one for the books.
True, nonviolence is a complex notion, and a difficult commitment to pursue, but many of its "good" had unfolded in our lifetime.
Rizal may not have successfully led the country out the doors of Spanish control, but he sure had injected enough rancors inside our forefathers to desire emancipation from a tyrannical conquistador. Although Rizal did not favor freedom, it was through his writings that the fire for freedom burned. Somehow his non-violent means became the symbols of the Filipino's quest for nationhood.
And Gandhi, while he may not have seen the fruit of his mission in his lifetime, he had led India into the path of self-governance and self-identity, equipping his country with the confidence that has made it the bustling economy it is today. Mahatma's principles may not have worked perfectly in India but there they sure have made a difference.
As history continues to unfold, more revolutions await their time. And not merely a few of them will be non-violent.
----
Bibliog - to follow.