I was just reading an interesting October 8, 2014 monogram by Mark and Paul Engler entitled "How did Gandhi win?" It was a fascinating article which prompted a follow-up article March 17th, 2017 entitled "Gandhi's strategy for success — use more than one strategy" The first thing one learns is the difference between "instrumental" and "symbolic" victories in the world of nonviolent protest and revolution. In short, instrumental is where you gain small practical victories, such as a change in a law. The symbolic victory is when you change the entire political environment so that it is ripe for significant change, such as a country's independence, getting rid of a dictator, or civil rights.
Gandhi's "salt march" was a 200 mile march to the ocean where "Gandhi waded into the edge of the ocean, approached an area on the mud flats where evaporating water left a thick layer of sediment, and scooped up a handful of salt. Gandhi's act defied a law of the British Raj mandating that Indians buy salt from the government …." (Engler & Engler, 2014) It was the beginning of the end of English rule in India.
As a student of history in the early 1960s, I remember that many scholars felt that, after the turmoil this nonviolent act of civil disobedience caused, Gandhi really screwed up the negotiations. It didn't seem that the English gave up anything. But that's just how it appeared. Subhas Chandra Bose, a skeptic and critique of Gandhi's agreement traveled with Gandhi after the pact. Gandhi biographer, Geoffrey Ashe, describes Bose's experience on that trip. He "saw ovations such as he had never witnessed before. The Mahatma had judged correctly. By all the rules of politics he had been checked. But in the people's eyes, the plain fact that the Englishman had been brought to negotiate instead of giving orders outweighed any number of details."
Winston Churchill reaction demonstrated the truth of Gandhi's victory. "In a now-infamous speech, Winston Churchill, a leading defender of the British Empire, proclaimed that it was 'alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal palace… to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.' The move, he claimed, had allowed Gandhi — a man he saw as a "fanatic" and a "fakir" — to step out of prison and '[emerge] on the scene a triumphant victor.'" Gandhi had risked his life and nonviolently gone after the ultimate prize . . . the English now had to deal with he and his people as equals! Now he could talk not just about salt but about national independence!
The authors point out that many scholars felt/feel that Martin Luther King, Jr gave away the store in the 1963 Birmingham Agreement, but the astute student realizes that anything they got in the Birmingham Agreement was a drop in the bucket compared to the big prize – the government was forced to deal with black people as equals. That set a precedence which would lead to greater victories.
I haven't finished their second article, but, as you can see from the title, it addresses the fact that to effect dramatic and permanent change you must use a combination of strategies. There is no doubt that the symbolic victory is exceptionally important but momentum is maintained by the instrumental victory, which generally gains its negotiating position via the symbolic. This is why we need young people, as well as the rest of us, participating in nonviolent civil disobedience providing moral, symbolic victories, while at the same time we need the highly skilled and motivated attorneys to provide the essential instrumental victories.
"Gandhi's victory in 1931 was not a final one, nor was King's in 1963. Social movements today continue to fight struggles against racism, discrimination, economic exploitation and imperial aggression. But, if they choose, they can do so aided by the powerful example of forebears who converted moral victory into lasting change."
Two articles well worth reading at Waging Nonviolence, Org.
#OldConservationist
No comments:
Post a Comment