GANDHI VS. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
Revolution is a change of social or political order by a sizable segment of a country’s population. Two ways in which a revolution occurs is through the use of violence, such as the French Revolution, and through nonviolence, which Gandhi used when struggling to gain India’s independence. The concept of revolution through nonviolence differs greatly from the concept of revolution through violence. Gandhi and the French Revolution are perhaps perfect examples of nonviolent and violent revolutions respectfully.
Gandhi: A Nonviolent Approach
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869 in Portdanbar. Gandhi was a very shy student throughout school and at age thirteen was married to a girl he had never before met as was custom. After high school, Gandhi went to London and was educated in the practice of law at a London university. Three years later, in 1891 Gandhi returned to India but was unsuccessful in establishing a law firm there.
In 1893, two years later Gandhi sailed to South Africa to become a legal advisor for a law firm in Durban. When Gandhi arrived in South Africa he was treated like he was a person of an inferior race. While in South Africa, Gandhi was imprisoned many times over the course of twenty years. After being attacked and beaten by white South Africans, Gandhi began his teachings of passive resistance to and noncooperation with the authorities in South Africa. (“Gandhi” Encarta) Gandhi thought the term Satyagraha (Sanskrit “pursuit of truth”) was a perfect word to describe his campaign. In 1914 Gandhi’s demands of the South African government were in part fulfilled including abolition of poll taxes for Indians and recognition of Indian marriages.
He then returned to India as a man with a cause - to gain India’s independence from Great Britain. Gandhi began his complex struggle for home rule in India. It sounded impossible. Here was a little man in a loin cloth, carrying a walking stick, going to do battle against the greatest empire that has ever existed and promising not to return [to Sabarmati] again until Britain backed down.” (Haskins 91-104) Gandhi proclaimed his movement of noncooperation in 1920, Indian children were withdrawn from government schools, Indians which held public offices resigned, and government agencies were boycotted. (“Gandhi” Encarta) Economic independence for India was made corollary with Gandhi’s swaraj (Sanskrit “self-ruling) involved the boycott of ALL British goods. “Against the power and weapons of Britain, Gandhi had only his ‘soul force’. He would not hate, but he would not obey. He would wear down resistance by his ability to take it. This nonviolent technique had been used before in history, but never before to free one-fifth of the human race.” (Haskins 91-104)
Gandhi became the international symbol of a free India. Throughout Gandhi’s life he was ascetic and spiritual with much meditation, prayer, and fasting. Indians thought Gandhi a saint for his brilliance and began calling him Mahatma (Sanskrit “great soul”) which was a title used only to describe the greatest sages. Gandhi’s ahimsa (Sanskrit “noninjury”) was an expression of a way of life for the Hindu religion. By Gandhi’s advocacy of nonviolence and India’s practice of nonviolence, Gandhi knew that Britain would eventually deem violence useless and would leave India for good. (“Gandhi” Encarta) In 1922 Gandhi was imprisoned and after two years of imprisonment Gandhi was released, fading in and out of Indian politics for a while.
By 1944 the Indian struggle for freedom was in its final stages. The British government agreed to grant India its independence if India would divide into two separate states, India for the Hindu and Pakistan for the Muslims. After seventeen years of struggle, Great Britain granted India its independence also forming the new state of Pakistan.
The partition of India was followed by riots among the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi tried to unite the Hindus and Muslims and pleaded for peace between the two religious groups. Gandhi during this time had a premonition of his assassination and said to his followers, ”If I must die by the bullet of a madman, I must do so smiling. There must be no anger within me. God must be in my heart and on my lips. And you must promise me one thing, should such a thing happen, you must not shed one tear.” Sadly enough Gandhi was indeed assassinated on January 30, 1948 by a Hindu fanatic, Nathuram Godse who did not want to live in peace with the Muslims. Gandhi was on his way to a prayer meeting.
Gandhi’s death was mourned internationally and Gandhi’s place in humanity can be placed not just in terms of the 20th century but in terms of history itself. (“Gandhi” Encarta) Religious violence between India and Pakistan waned and Gandhi’s teachings of nonviolence inspired many other nonviolent movements all around the globe. “Through Gandhi’s nonviolent way India won its freedom and its people united to form a new India.” (Haskins 91-104)
Satyagraha is Gandhi’s chosen word to describe his teachings. Two Sanskrit words, “Satya” meaning truth and “Agraha” meaning pursuit of. This is very different from the Western concept, “Possessing the Truth”, in fact, the Eastern and Western definitions of Satyagraha are opposite. Nonviolence, therefore, can be defined as an honest and diligent pursuit of truth. It can also be described as the search for the meaning of life or the purpose of life, questions that still plague mankind because of the lack of knowledge or lack of dominance over the unanswered questions. Nonviolence means moving away from greed, selfishness, possessiveness, and dominance to love, compassion, respect, and understanding. Just as grain nourishes the body, peace nourishes the soul and if one’s soul is nourished “the pursuit of truth” is an easier path to follow. (Gandhi, Arun “Nonviolence in the 21st Century: Challenges & Choices”)
Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence can be followed with eight essential principals. Four principles on a public level and four principles on a personal level. The four principles of the public level are Truth, Ahimsa, Trusteeship, and Constructive Action. The four principles on a personal level are Respect, Understanding, Acceptance, and Appreciation.
Truth can be defined as an ever-changing and many sided concept. Truth to us may not be truth to others. “We must develop the ability to look at everything from different perspectives and have the humility to understand the we could be wrong.” (Gandhi, Arun “Nonviolence in the 21st Century: Challenges & Choices”)
Ahimsa is a Sanskrit word meaning total nonviolence. Total nonviolence must be the exclusion of violence in thought, word, and deed.
Trusteeship is a unique concept stating that each person has the ability or talent to achieve their goals although one does not “own” their talent. Gandhi believed that we are “trustees” of God and should use our talent to help others. We must show compassion for the less fortunate than ourselves, not pity. Pity is oppressive and degrading while compassion is positive and uplifting for both the receiver and the bestower of.
Constructive action is naturally held hand in hand with trusteeship. Getting involved in finding constructive solutions for problems. Although we are usually too occupied with the SELF that we do not have time for anyone or anything making constructive action difficult when getting one to focus on the needs and problems of others with compassion and not impatience.
The first of Gandi’s principles on a personal level is that of Respect. Respect for ourselves, others, and our relationship to all creation. A myth, mainly of the West, is that we are independent individuals with no obligation to others. To achieve peace, harmony, and cohesiveness we must all, as individuals, accept the fact that we are inter-related, inter-dependent, and inter-woven working together to build and form our human society. We must respect each other if this is ever to occur. We can not simply respect individuals, we must respect different belief systems, different ways of life, and different cultures. Religion is the starting point of a spiritual journey. When we understand religion, we can understand spirituality or the acceptance and respect of different religions and their ways of worship. (Gandhi, Arun “Nonviolence in the 21st Century: Challenges & Choices”)
Understanding another key principle is achieved when we learn who we are and what our role in all creation is. Humans tend to believe that we, as a race, are exempt from nature, that we are here to conquer and defeat. That is not at all accurate. Humans are here to try and live in harmony and peace with all the rest of creation.
Acceptance is also needed when working to achieve a nonviolent lifestyle. When we accept our differences - philosophical and physical - between human beings, then we can truly accept one another. As these differences “melt away” or are seen through, we begin to accept each other as individuals without labels, classes, or judgement.
Lastly, Appreciation of our humanity is needed. An individual must appreciate their fellow humans, the life they have been given, and appreciation for all of creation that surrounds them throughout life.
Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence is based on this assumption - “We are not governed by logic and, therefore, some violence may be necessary in our lives. However, if we are progressing towards civilization we should be able to reduce violence to the bare minimum.” In our concept of civilization, it would seem that human relationships do not fit the equation. American society, for example, is built upon rugged individualism, which was fine when we first came to conquer and settle the land. After settling a society can not possibly thrive on that same rugged individualism. The nation must be as cohesive as the society and the society must be as cohesive as the family, therefore the nation must act as one large family. If a family did not work together and every member thought only of themselves, then the family would become simply a group of people competing with each other for survival. Understanding within the family is tried and worn thin, relationships lose hold and soon the “family” disintegrates. (Gandhi, Arun “Nonviolence & Us”)
To Gandhi an important principle in surviving life was: Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. If one can commit violence against those they are expected to honor, respect, and love, then why should they hesitate to violate those they do not even know? Salvation lies in changing the self before we attempt to change the society. As Gandhi said, “We must be the change we wish to see.” Gandhi felt that being liberated politically or society was not enough. One must be willing to lose EVERYTHING, their job, their possessions, even their life to achieve the level of spirituality needed for nonviolence to become relevant. “True liberation comes when we can liberate ourselves of the FEAR that controls our lives.” ( Gandhi, Arun “Nonviolence in the 21st Century: Challenges & Choices) Gandhi strongly believed and stood accept one another. As these differences “melt away” or are seen through, we begin to accept each other as individuals without labels, classes, or judgement.
Lastly, Appreciation of our humanity is needed. An individual must appreciate their fellow humans, the life they have been given, and appreciation for all of creation that surrounds them throughout life.
Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence is based on this assumption - “We are not governed by logic and, therefore, some violence may be necessary in our lives. However, if we are progressing towards civilization we should be able to reduce violence to the bare minimum.” In our concept of civilization, it would seem that human relationships do not fit the equation. American society, for example, is built upon rugged individualism, which was fine when we first came to conquer and settle the land. After settling a society can not possibly thrive on that same rugged individualism. The nation must be as cohesive as the society and the society must be as cohesive as the family, therefore the nation must act as one large family. If a family did not work together and every member thought only of themselves, then the family would become simply a group of people competing with each other for survival. Understanding within the family is tried and worn thin, relationships lose hold and soon the “family” disintegrates. (Gandhi, Arun “Nonviolence & Us”)
To Gandhi an important principle in surviving life was: Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. If one can commit violence against those they are expected to honor, respect, and love, then why should they hesitate to violate those they do not even know? Salvation lies in changing the self before we attempt to change the society. As Gandhi said, “We must be the change we wish to see.” Gandhi felt that being liberated politically or society was not enough. One must be willing to lose EVERYTHING, their job, their possessions, even their life to achieve the level of spirituality needed for nonviolence to become relevant. “True liberation comes when we can liberate ourselves of the FEAR that controls our lives.” ( Gandhi, Arun “Nonviolence in the 21st Century: Challenges & Choices) Gandhi strongly believed and stood effective and certainly not the only way to topple an empire. Gandhi’s message went beyond politics and into the realm of human nature, a universal concept.
The French Revolution: A Violent Approach
The French Revolution began in 1789 and finally ended 1799. It began with an absolute monarchy and ended in dictatorship with many failed government systems in between. On June 17, 1789, the leaders of the third Estate established the National Assembly. Just about a month later, the Parisian mob stormed the Bastille, the mob did this only because of the need for weaponry not any political statement of defiance. On August 4, 1789, the National Assembly votes to discredit ancient privileges that the clergy and nobility had had for centuries. Throughout the year of 1790 many radical clubs of citizens plan an overthrow of the monarchy, although do nothing in the way of action yet. In 1791, King Louis XVI realizes the true state in which France is in and feels that it is now unsafe for him to stay in France. Louis tries to flee but is found only miles before the French border and returned with his family to Paris under armed guard. On April 20, 1792, France declared war on Austria because they feel the Austrians are trying to help the Austrian princess, now queen, Marie Antionette and her husband, King Louis XVI. On August 10, 1792, Louis XVI is overthrown and imprisoned with Marie Antionette and his children. Then on September 21, 1792, the National Convention declares France to be named the French Republic. Then throughout 1793-1794 the Committee of Public Safety begins a reign of terror. During this reign of terror, the government sentences many people to death, including the King and Queen. After this government form fails, France establishes a new constitution. This constitution and new government form has 5 appointed men to a Directory, or the executive body of the government. Just four years later, the Directory falls and this point is considered to be the end of the French Revolution.
A revolution is when a country’s people or its majority brings about a change of political and/or social order, often through acts of violence. In countries where revolution is bred, the atmosphere is usually that of discontent and suffering. A group of people have many options to choose from when they want a change brought about within the country. Revolution is used usually as a last resort after all other options have failed or a tool to bring about a drastic yet effective change within the country. It takes many factors for the revolution to be a success. The three main ingredients to brew a successful revolution are the fostering of popular support for the revolutionary campaign, the nucleus of a new governmental organization, and the crucial timing of when to strike out at the present government. Usually for these three factors to be successful, careful planning is needed beforehand as far as a few months or maybe even years. The French Revolution helped to bring about many other revolutions in Europe and the Middle East. Sudden changes in the political or social forecast can sometimes rejuvenate a nation’s or a government system’s way or speed of progression. Cause or problems within a country’s governing system that bring about revolution are harsh class divisions, restrictive economic conditions, repressive or absolute government. The French Revolution went from being an absolute monarchy at the beginning of the revolution to a dictatorship at the end. This is not uncommon in the aspect of revolutions because, one condition of suffering usually is exchanged for another suffering condition, especially in violent revolutions.
Revolution is the driving force of drastic changes. Throughout the course of human history, there have always been revolutions, small or large, against a simple person or a great empire. A desired change within a country that is not met for various reasons will breed revolution if enough people feel very strongly about getting the desired change to come about. The end result of this situation could and will be revolution if the people of the country are not satisfied. The working class of a class system in a nation will attempt to reform or change the nation’s society to better fit their working class needs and these attempts can prove successes or failures sometime result in revolution.
The French Revolution is a particular example of capitalism gaining dominance over feudalism. Another major reason in which revolutions occur is the idea or concept in which a majority condescends over a minority - capitalism. Capitalism is an evil which brings out a society’s worst through racism, sexism, poverty, famine, unemployment, and even war. When individuals within a society realize the extent to which all of this injustice is occurring and then band together and publicize these realities, a revolution may be imminent for all of the key factors needed are present. But when individuals realize the extent of the injustices and do nothing, it is mainly because of fear ... fear of losing a job, possessions or life, and also fear of being looked down upon or ridiculed as idealistic or even unrealistic. This is often the case when an oppressed people want a revolution nothing is done until a courageous person steps up and takes the lead against the opposing force and injustice that that force carries with them. A key factor that can cause individuals to speak out against government or for a leader to emerge and lead a people against their country is a crisis that happens within a nation. This crisis or momentary instability of government provides revolutionaries the opportunity to reach up into the political scheme and destroy or overthrow a government. This instability on the other hand may be a signal for the revolutionists to begin riots and physical assaults on the controlling force of the government. In beginning attempts to weaken and destroy the government that is allowing or pressuring this injustice upon the people of the country.
The classes of a society must work together peacefully with no resentments or condescensions in either direction. Each class has a specified job to perform successfully. A class system within every country but the generalization of a typical class system would go as follows: the lowest class is made up of those in society that contribute nothing. The next class up would be the working class that is usually considered the base upon which a society is built. The labor of the working class provides products for export or sale and is largely the consumer within the society mainly because of sheer size. The other main class in society is the upper class, those that own many properties and businesses. This upper class in most cases is the employer or boss of the working class. Class systems are largely based on money and production. Generally the more money one has the higher in the class system scale they are, although this is not always true. Another generalization of class is that the upper class is the governing “majority” that acts as a controlling figure in the “minority” working class. In revolutions, a class, usually of the working class must stick together and work as a united group because individually a society can not be over thrown. The power of numbers is amazing. A class must be close-knit and trusting to ever be successful at accomplishing anything, just as the peasants in France were before and during the revolution. All revolutions are a struggle of class. The working class is oppressed by the upper class and the working class realizes this injustice and moves or fights to right this wrong being done to them and millions just like themselves across the nation. If class division were gone and the working class were allowed to manage over their production, eliminating the class division, then and only then would there be peace and no fear of revolution within a country.
Now to explain the unfairness of the class division within France post revolutionary time. The first Estate or first class was the clergy. This Estate was shown to have 130,000 members within the country. The clergy privileges were the registering of all births, deaths, and marriages, supervision of all education, and collecting of the church tax or tithe. The clergy also were allowed many exemptions including paying no taxes and they could not be tried in civil law courts.
The Second Estate or class was the nobility which contained 110,000 members. The nobles privileges were the ability to collect taxes or feudal dues and the ability to monopolize appointments in military and/or state service. Exemptions allowed to nobility was paying no taxes whatsoever.
The Third Estate which consisted of the Bourgeoisie (or middle class), professionals, workers, and peasants. The size of this class was a huge 24,750,000 members. This Estate had no privileges and no exemptions. This class was left to pay all of the taxes needed to finance the French monarchy.
As you can see, this class system is cause in itself for the lower class French to revolt. Here are specific causes for the French Revolution itself: restrictions on trade and commerce, unjust and heavy taxation, absolute government, intellectual influences, evident luxury and leisure, privileges of few, poverty of many, and lastly the growing wealth of the Bourgeoisie was making that group more important so they needed business freedom and participation in government. (www.d.umn.edu/~jhamlin1/political.html)
Gandhi’s nonviolent revolution was successful and got India directly to freedom. The French Revolution with its violence and disorganization went from one government type to the next and finally to a form of freedom they had been searching for. Both revolutions achieved the same result but nonviolence was the quickest and most direct way to independence. So in the question: violence or nonviolence? Non violence is truly the better choice.
|
|
