I am endeavoring to show to my countrymen that violent non-cooperation only multiplies evil, and that as evil can only be sustai
ned by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires complete abstention from violence. Nonviolence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-cooperation with evil. I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. In at least 150 words, how is this excerpt a call to action for Gandhi's supporters? What is Gandhi encouraging his supporters to do?
Mahatma Gandhi, also known as Mohandas Karamchad Gandhi, was born in India in 1869 and died in 1948. Gandhi lived during the time when the British controlled India but Indians were starting to revolt against British rule. Because of this, Gandhi had to experience and see a lot of violence and he made it his mission in life to not only apply his ideals of non-violence, but also teach them to his people and encourage them to follow. In essence, Gandhi was not against control by the government and did not believe in the uselessness of force when this was needed. In fact, he believed that under the right circumstances, force could be used. But what he did preach was for people to seek a way to help a cause without hurting others and without resorting to unnecessary violence. In fact, in his own life, he made it his mission to help out but without resorting to any kind of violence. In this particular excerpt of the views of Gandhi, what he was doing was showing the people first his own example, and asking them to do the same. He insisted that there was more action in not giving in to the desire to act through violence to oppose English rule than in inflicting harm through violence. So he calls his people to act, not in opposing this rule violently, but instead, opposing it by not conforming to what the British wished, which was called civil disobedience.
Every leader who seeks to win a battle without violence and who presumes to precipitate a war against conventional attitudes and arrangements―however prejudiced they may be―would do well to probe the subtleties which distinguish satyagraha from other forms of action without overt violence. There are essential elements in Gandhian satyagraha which do not readily meet the eye. The readiness with which Gandhi’s name is invoked and the self-satisfaction with which leaders of movements throughout the world make reference to Gandhian methods are not always backed by an understanding of either the subtleties or the basic principles of satyagraha. It is important to pose a question and to state a challenge to those who believe that they know how a Gandhian movement is to be conducted. For nonviolence alone is weak, non-cooperation in itself could lead to defeat, and civil disobedience without creative action may end in alienation. How, then, does satyagraha differ from other approaches? This question can be explored by contrasting satyagraha with concepts of passive resistance defined by the Indian word, duragraha.
Duragraha means prejudegment. Perhaps better than any other single word, it connotes the attributes of passive resistance. Duragraha may be said to be stubborn resistance in a cause, or willfulness. The distinctions between duragraha and satyagraha as these words are used to designate concepts of direct social action are to be found in each of the major facets of such action.1 Let us examine (1) the character of the objective for which the action is undertaken, (2) the process through which the objective is expected to be secured, and (3) the styles which characterize the respective approaches. Satyagraha and duragraha are compared below in each of these three aspects by considering their relative treatment of first, pressure and persuasion, and second, guilt and responsibility. Finally, we shall have a look at the meaning and limitations of symbolic violence.
