A Means to an End

Mohandas Gandhi was a great leader in India, with the central beliefs in truth and love. Due to his work in the Indian movement for independence from British rule, Gandhi was honored with being called “Mahatma” meaning “Great Soul”.1 His own father said, “This Manu [Mohuadus] will uphold my reputation. He will make the lineage a distinguished one.”2 Mahatma Gandhi’s great leadership of many social and political movements certainly did this. Before his great changes in India, when he was in South Africa, Gandhi found himself caught in a world of racist conflict and turmoil.3 For this, he tried to use the British conventions of inspiring change, such as writing into newspapers and drafting petitions.4 He describes his thought process by saying “I had then to choose between allying myself with violence or finding out some other method of meeting the crisis.”5 Gandhi went on to formulate his views of nonviolent opposition to laws and regulations that he saw as unjust, while still maintaining his view that India was still benefiting from British rule.

To understand Gandhi’s methods of nonviolent opposition, a look at why he believed in nonviolence over violence is needed. This first started with Gandhi’s view that truth is the most important thing of all and that this ultimate truth is equal to that of God.6 He stressed that if “life persists in the midst of destruction… there must be a higher law than that destruction”.7 Gandhi also said that to seek truth one must free the anger and brute in themselves to free the consciousness, and therefore be able to see the truth.8 The conscious decision to engage in nonviolence must also not be out of cowardice, assuming the ability to strike.9 Through these solid beliefs in nonviolence, Gandhi developed his weapon of nonviolence, the satyagraha.

Emerging from Sanskrit origins, satyagraha is a compound word coming from satya, which means “truth”, and graha, meaning “insistence”.10 Gandhi defines a satyagraha as the “truth force,” the powerful opposition to unjust actions, effective through the awakening of truth in one’s opponent.11 This action of active nonviolence is meant to appeal to the opponent through reason and suffering.12 Gandhi elaborates by saying:
Pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned form error by patience and sympathy.13

Gandhi had strict rules for the satyagrahi he chose. Along with patience and sympathy, satyagrahi, that is those who lead and participate in satyagrahas, must not convey anger and never retaliate.14 These principles, Gandhi believed, would lead all peoples to see the truth conveyed in satyagraha. He also believed that “complete independence will be complete only to the extent of our approach in practice to truth and nonviolence.”15 He said this to the Indian National Congress in order to convince them that through satyagraha and nonviolence they could achieve independence from Britain. However, later in this work, Hind Swaraj, he emphasizes communal unity as key to nonviolence as well, showing satyagraha’s diversity.16 The characteristics of satyagraha are diverse and can be applied to many situations.

Gandhi’s satyagrahas were used to conquer social, economic, and legal issues. These three genres of conflict are important to note because of the structure of society. A community cannot function without all three of these. The social aspect is what defines a community and is essential whenever dealing with human beings, rationality, and thought; it is implied in the very name of “society”. This social aspect also is what allows the community to form. Following, the economic aspect allows for the community to continue. Without an economy, a community would cease to have the necessities it requires and the ability to grow and adapt. Some form of a legal system, whether an unwritten code of conduct or a complex constitution, is essential for a community to function. Without this, the community would destroy itself though chaos, due to the nature of humans to think differently from each other. Therefore, it is through these three branches that three of Gandhi’s satyagrahas can be examined for their diversity and success.

The satyagraha in Kheda, or Kiara, focuses more on an economic problem in the area. This area of Gujarat had a distinct history of small yeoman farmers, called Patidars. 17 In 1918, these peasant farmers experienced a horrible harvest, resulting in wide spread famine in the area.18 The Government in this area decided to still require the land revenue from these farmers, even daring to raise it. Gandhi commented that:

Owing to a widespread failure of crops… the Patidars of Kheda were considering the question of getting the revenue assessment for the year suspended.19

He goes on to say that as the President of the Gujarat Sabha, he made sure the organization sent petitions and telegrams to the Government urging them to reconsider.20 The Government’s justification for having the land revenue stand is because:

Under the Land Revenue Rules, if the crop was four annas or under, the cultivators could claim full suspension of the revenue assessment for the year.21

However, the Government felt that the crops were valued over four annas and therefore, did not listen to the petitions and telegrams of the people. There is debate about where and whom the cause started with. Although Gandhi states that the farmers began the agitation themselves and it was merely his duty to help their cause22, Brown offers an alternative view that this disturbance could have been started by outsiders, meaning Gandhi and his followers, looking for a situation in which they could go against the Government to promote their message.23

However the conflict started, the Government refused to drop the tax. Therefore, Gandhi decided that he would have to instill a satyagraha. Gandhi did say that one must exhaust “all other means before he resorts to satyagraha.24 He felt that these alternatives were exhausted. Certain goals were implied for the process, such as raising awareness of Gandhi’s ideals of active nonviolent disobedience, keeping the satyagraha isolated in order to not cause mass chaos, and to obviously arbitrate for the temporary cancellation of the land revenue payments. The farmers refused to “pay to the Government the full or remaining revenue for the year”.25 Even those who had the money to pay the charge refused to in order to support the poorer farmers.26 With the pledged support of these farmers and financial support of the Gujaratis27, the educated rich in the region, the satyagraha was established, going against the unjust act of the Government of taxing these peoples when they had suffered a natural disaster.

Whether the satyagraha in Kheda was a success or failure is debatable on what one defines success as. For purposes of this study, success will be defined as the achievement of the implied goals of the satyagraha, usually applied as the repealing of the action in question. Accordingly, the satyagraha in Kheda must be deemed successful because Gandhi and his followers achieved their implied goals. The cause remained isolated to the area, allowing for the experiment of satyagraha to run smoothly and the message to not be marred by mass violence. The satyagraha was also successful in the goal of keeping this issue away from the fight for political freedom. The rights of the farmers were focused on instead, as was the plan by Gandhi. Also, the land revenue charges were taken back and even suspended for the next year.28 The satyagraha achieved the goal of spreading news about Gandhi and his cause in India. Many national media sources and people began to follow the actions of Gandhi and pay attention to what his message was. The goals of this event were met and even surpassed. Therefore, according to the earlier definition of success, this satyagraha should be deemed successful.

Gandhi’s satyagrahas were also successful on other levels besides economical. The satyagraha that he led in Ahmedabad was an example of this; it was a social and economical problem. In 1918, there was a conflict between mill workers and their employers.29 A bonus was established by the mill owners in order to get laborers to continue to come to work during the plague that was occurring in the region.30 This was important because the mill owners were already under strain due to the drop in their exports caused by the world war.31 However, this conflict had nothing to do with the Government, unlike the satyagrahas previous to this, showing the diversity of the concept. When the plague lifted, the employers took back the bonus that was offered. However, mill workers found this act unfair because during the time of the bonus, there was an inflation of the economy. The workers felt that they needed to be compensated.

There is a notable debate again on whether Gandhi got involved in the situation before or after the workers rallied in strike. Tidrick suggests that Gandhi was involved before the bonus was even lifted.32 However way the problem started, Gandhi first established a satyagraha and then a pledge for the workers to sign because a boycott does not work if it is broken by a few. Employers then retaliated to this act by establishing a lock out.33 Mill owners tried to get back workers that would take a 20% increase, however with the pledge of not taking less than a 35% increase, workers felt the pressure from others to stay the resolve of satyagraha.34 Mill workers still returned to the mills, breaking their pledge and taking a lower increase. Gandhi, therefore, had to give the movement a little inspiration. On March 15, he decided to take on a fast in order to rally the workers who had returned or were thinking of returning to work.35 This made employers worry about losing such an important leader whose reputation was established in Kheda and most caved into the pressure within a matter of days.36 His fast was seen as a theatrical device to save the failing satyagraha.37 However, one must keep in mind the source and its apparent bias against Gandhi, portraying him as a manipulator. The application of the fast did seem to bring about a solution quickly.

The goals of this satyagraha were also easily identifiable. Obviously, the workers’ goal was to get the bonus increase permanently upheld in order to compensate for inflation. Gandhi wanted this as well, but also wanted to test his method of fasting in order to rally the straying workers. This fast differed from later fasts as it was unannounced and seemed as the desperate attempt to ‘save a sinking ship’. Gandhi also wanted to show the diversity of the satyagraha as a device that could be used for other conflicts that were not against the government. Another goal was to further the reputation of Gandhi as a leader and promote his ideas of nonviolence.

Looking at these goals, overall one could say that the satyagraha was a success. It achieved its goal of securing compensation for the mill workers. Gandhi was able to test his new method of fasting, which created the reaction he wanted. Also, the method of satyagraha smoothly transitioned into one that can be used in a social conflict as well. However, the movement can also be seen as an almost failure because many felt that Gandhi’s fast was the situation’s “deus ex machina,” a literary term referring to some kind of powerful, unstoppable being fixing the ending of an otherwise hopeless story. This viewpoint smears the opinion of this satyagraha as a success and marks it more as a ‘close call’.

Gandhi’s concept of a satyagraha would be soon tested again on another plain of the community, the legal genre. In 1930, Gandhi decided to have a mass civil movement, which its climax would take place in Dandi. This satyagraha was focused on the tax on salt, a legislation called the India Salt Act of 1882.38 Gandhi saw the act as enforcing a monopoly and importation on a country that could produce salt itself.39 This was seen as basically stealing from the India people.

Leading up to this movement was another satyagraha that Gandhi advised in Bardoli, which was a huge victory for Gandhi’s cause of nonviolence40. Bardoli helped to inspire the possibilities of achievement through nonviolent resistance and scared the British into the reality of the power of this concept.41 The media around the world started being attentive to Gandhi and his philosophy, soon making him a house-hold name.42 Gandhi’s movement in Dandi was meant to take these actions a step further. He planned to have a twenty-four day march through villages in the same region as the previous satyagraha, hoping that this would give him the most support and exposure.43 This march would end in Dandi, where Gandhi would procure his own salt from the sea nearby; this would be the moment in which Gandhi would break the salt act, therefore, breaking the law and able to be arrested.

To understand how Gandhi achieved a mass involvement, the reason why salt was chosen as a rally point must be discussed. In order to gain nationwide protest, the rally point had to appeal to the majority of people, as well as most of the minorities. Salt was seen as “[n]ext to air and water, salt is perhaps the greatest necessity of life. It is the only condiment of the poor”.44 Salt was seen as a primary need that India could produce for itself, yet it was forced to import.45 This was an easy symbol to identify with and a conflict easy to point out, therefore being applicable to the uneducated poor. It was critical that Gandhi picked a topic in which everyone was included.

Gandhi’s campaign in Dandi reflected his ideas about inclusiveness. Satyagrahi were composed of young college students,46 women,47 and a variety of people from different religious groups. His followers had a great deal required of them; the emphasis was on the concepts of controlling anger and self discipline.48 For example, an English woman named Madeleine Slade, whom Gandhi called Mira Behn, found it easy to adhere to this strict code of conduct.49 However, most found it difficult to meet the rigorous standards, but they eventually succeeded in meeting them.50 He chose to have this climax of reaping his own salt on April 6, an important day in Indian history and the start of National Week.51 Gandhi had now covered the problems of who, what, when, and where; now what was left was how he was going to go about this march.

Gandhi laid out his plan in a letter written to the Viceroy, Lord Irwin. The two men had a civil and open correspondence previously, which Gandhi trusted.52 Gandhi spoke of his view that British India was no longer a blessing and he would wish to get rid of it, however, without causing any harm to any British person.53 He merely wanted to make “them see the wrong they have done to India”.54 Gandhi also gave the Viceroy all of the necessary information on what he would be doing and when, clarifying that he did not want to cause Irwin any unnecessary embarrassment.55 This openness followed Gandhi’s beliefs on how to treat one’s opponents. He believed that in order to get the British people to recognize their problem he would have to appeal to their hearts and the “recognition would not humiliate [them] but would uplift [them]”.56 This constant love that was so blatantly shown in this movement caused Gandhi’s publicity to soar.

Gandhi and Dandi received outstanding media coverage that was world-wide. The Mahatma was even named “Man of the Year” for the American based Time Magazine in 1930.57 Though use of symbolism and a bit of theatrical flair, the movement remained as a popular news subject in every part of the world. Gandhi saw that enacting this satyagraha on this large of a scale could lead to a campaign of civil disobedience centering on independence.58 He also saw that this movement must remain pure; he did this by carefully picking the time, place, and participants of the march. Gandhi also obviously wanted the salt tax to be repealed, all the while allowing his cause to get maximum exposure to the world. If his cause changed public opinion, India’s independence could be made possible.

This satyagraha could be argued to be the easiest to determine whether it was a success or not. Gandhi not only achieved all of his goals for the movement, but also attained more attention than he expected. A large part of this success was from the mass media. The publication of Gandhi’s actions helped change public opinion about the cause around the world. It also gave the movement more exposure in India, allowing for the mass population to understand the actions and soon participate in them. The hesitation of the British Government, due to their apprehension following the Bardoli crisis59, extended the time and momentum of the movement as well. The salt tax was repealed as well. There was only one problem in the entire movement. When in the town of Bhatgam, Gandhi felt that some of the participants of the march were taking advantage of the villagers on their journey and were indulging in “[e]xtravagance [which] ha[d] no room in this campaign”.60 Gandhi called for everyone to “turn the searchlight inward” and discover their wrongdoings.61 This constant ideal Gandhi held the people to, is what ultimately led to the success of the movement in creating India as an independent state.

Through judging satyagrahas in the light of success being defined as the accomplishment of goals and in the three functional necessities of a community, social, economic, and legal, one can understand that Gandhi’s movement was a constant search and exposure of truth. He truly believed that the means were just as important to the end and often said that, “means are after all everything”.62 Through nonviolence, he showed Indians and humanity the loving, truthful, and proper way to fight opposition and achieve one’s goals. Gandhi believed that his mission was to show the world the truth and that how one ‘reaps’ is just as important as what one ‘sows’.