The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021 - The Prize Winners

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021

Out of Print is honoured and delighted to be publishing the prize-winning entries of the Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021. The published works include: 

• the shared first, second and third prizes in English

• the Creative Expression prize sponsored by Out of Print 

• the first and second prizes in Tamil

• the six honourable mentions

The prize winners, along with links to their prize-winning entries are listed at the end of this article. 

The Kodaikanal Gandhi prize was initiated and founded in 2019, the year of Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary, by Radha Kumar who is also the principal donor, and instituted jointly by the Gandhi Peace Foundation, the Kodaikanal Fellowship Library and the literary journal Out of Print. This year, the Kodai Chronicle joins hands with the organisers. The prize is open to students aged sixteen to eighteen, although submissions from younger applicants are also be considered. Students are asked to submit either a written or a multimedia presentation in English or Tamil in response to one of the following questions:

1. Gandhi viewed non-violence as an active form of resistance. Looking at contemporary injustices, does non-violence work. State your points with examples.

2. Gandhi labelled himself a ‘practical idealist’. What does that label mean to you? Describe another practical idealist you admire.

3. Gandhi once said, ‘Our salvation can only come through the farmer’. Does this idea hold through in India today? Why or why not?

4. Why did Gandhi consider cowardice and apathy even worse than violence? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

5. Gandhi’s philosophy of truth in practice led to India’s motto, ‘Satyameva Jayate’ – ‘Truth alone triumphs’. What meaning does it have in an era of fake news? How would you restore this ideal in public opinion?

It was profoundly heartening that submissions came from a wide range of schools, urban and rural, elite and under privileged. In all, there were close to two hundred and fifty registrations from forty-six schools and eleven states over a hundred of which resulted in submissions. That more than one hundred students in their final years of high school reflected deeply on Gandhi and his relevance today is extremely encouraging. It suggests that a number of India’s millennials are indeed engaged in thinking about political issues and questions of injustice. 

A report on the awards ceremony that took place in Kodaikanal on October 2nd, Gandhi Jayanti, was featured in the Out of Print blog. Satish deSa, children’s editor of the Kodai Chronicle, and the Chronicle staff also wrote about the evening, featuring excerpts from the prize-winning works. The prize-winners, with links to their published entries, are listed below.

The Prize Winners with Links to their Published Entries:

First prize (shared): 

• Jahnavi Desai

        Fravashi International Academy, Nashik

•       Nikhil Joseph (withdrawn)

        Hebron School, Ooty

Creative Expression prize:

sponsored by Out of Print

• Hania Rashid

        Delhi Public School Srinagar

Second prize (shared):

• Sara Daniel

        Delhi Public School Noida

• Noor Sabharwal

        The Neev Academy, Bangalore

Third prize (shared):

• Annapoorani Pandiyan

        The Gandhigram Rural Institute, Dindigul District

• Deeksha Pasupulati

        The Kodaikanal International School

First prize (Tamil):

• Abitha A

        The RC Higher Secondary School, Trichy

Second prize (Tamil):

• Shasswatha

        Fairlands A Foundation School, Puduppatti, Theni District

 

Honourable Mentions:

• Jasmine Beth Kurian

        Hebron School, Ooty

• Samuael Earnest Kantharaj

        The Kodaikanal International School

• Pranvi Khare

        Neev Academy, Bangalore

• Shatakshee Kar

        The Delhi Public School Noida

• Shourya Sharma

        The Delhi Public School Noida

• Shashmitha J

        Fairlands A Foundation School, Puduppatti, Theni District

Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021: Prize for Creative Expression - Hania Raashid

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021 

Prize for Creative Expression

Hania Raashid

Delhi Public School, Srinagar

Unfair as it can be

Not a moment goes by,

When I don’t think about them

I choose to think it’s all imaginary

But then I feel the verisimilitude,

Of their suffering

Of their cries

And then I think of Gandhi

Reminisce about his words

I say to myself  “oh how the times have changed” 

And how “salvation”has become suffering... 

Awarded by the literary journal, Out of Print

Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021, First Prize - Jahnavi Desai

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021

First Prize 

(shared)

Janhavi Desai

Fravashi International Academy, Nashik

Lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist, political ethicist, nonviolent protestor, hero, poster child for peace and love, and “Father of the Nation” once declared, “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”.

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary” –  these aren't just empty words, social activist and writer Mahatma Gandhi once expressed. These words weren't forgotten after they were conveyed. Gandhi ji's actions, his reactions to crises, his temperament, his being, his whole existence released the vital essence of nonviolence that most people associate him with even today. In situations where he could've lost his temper and caused a great deal of damage (to those around him irrespective of whether they were responsible or not), Bapu chose to stay calm. He used nonviolence, a powerful and just weapon that cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals, and, to some, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the wielder of this sword. 

Mr. Gandhi understood nonviolence from its Sanskrit root, “Ahimsa”. Ahimsa is just translated to mean nonviolence in English, but it implies more than just avoidance of physical violence. Ahimsa implies total nonviolence, no physical violence, no passive violence. Gandhi ji translates Ahimsa as love. But does it seem realistic to live in a world where only “Ahimsa” exists? Is it even possible? Can love and peace fix everything? Even the damage that has been done? Is it against Gandhi ji's principles to stand up for yourself? Is it a sin to want to stop discrimination? Is it violent to fight for your rights? Is it damaging to want to defend yourself against attack? What is violence? 

Even though Gandhi ji is almost always affiliated with the prevention of violence, he ironically never gives a concise definition of violence. Without an appropriate description, it is diffcult to ascertain which actions fall under the category of violence. Hence, to understand (and answer questions about) Gandhi ji's nonviolent approach to violence, I will refer to his theories and his writings (and of course, I will summarise and simplify - mainly because I am not an evil literature professor who forces students to read lengthy and bothersome texts). 

Questions about Gandhi ji's nonviolent approach to violence often pose the most significant challenges to Gandhi ji's theory of nonviolence. Because Gandhi ji frequently referred to nonviolence in terms of forms of violence, it is difficult to understand his theory of nonviolence without his theory on violence. This is an incredibly complex series of statements. But, allow me to break the argument down for you. As with much of Gandhi ji's thought, he did not present his views on violence systematically. My essay attempts to synthesize Gandhi ji's theory on violence (which is implicit and explicit in his various statements and his compositions) and tries to justify its feasibility in the 21st century.

So, what is violence? According to the World Report On Violence And Health (a credible report by the United Nations World Health Organisation), violence is “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.” (A relatively straightforward definition for such a complex and subjective word!)

Gandhi ji appears to have a contradictory view of violence. He asserts that violence exists within the social order, between individuals, and also results from external phenomena like floods or tornadoes. He believes that we cannot eradicate violence; it will always be a part of everyday life. Violence was, is, and will always be at the root of all acts of living and can never be eliminated. Gandhi ji stated that “None can be completely free from himsa while they are in the flesh” and that every seeker of truth must ... continue to work to decrease the circle of himsa (which means to injure or harm, the opposite of Ahimsa).

On the other hand, Gandhi ji often says, “I object to violence”, which seems to contradict his belief that violence is inevitable. It is easy to see that he uses violence in different ways, so the apparent contradiction between violence being a permanent fact and violence being a moral blight disappears. Understanding Gandhi ji's moral theory of nonviolence requires understanding his views on the causes of different types of violence and the reasons that he gives to object to specific classes. Gandhi ji does not condemn the type of violence that is inevitable. To determine the morality of a particular act of violence, he relies on the motivations and intentions of the actor. To analyze the violence of any action, it is essential to consider attachment, desire, and self-interest. Unavoidable violence is the first and most objectionable type of violence. Gandhi ji believes that violence is inherent in the physical body. The main difference between Gandhi's conception of unavoidable violence and the Jains” (as mentioned in his literature) is that the Jains claim that violence of any kind, even inevitable, is morally unacceptable. He claims that this definition of violence is only appropriate for monks and does not apply to ordinary citizens. It is okay to use minimal violence to meet the needs of necessity and prevent famine or death. Gandhi ji does not believe in the use of unnecessary violence. So the question is, what is the acceptable limit of unavoidable violence?

 

Gandhi ji acknowledges that it is difficult to set these limits, and they may not be the same for everyone. Over-accumulation is, in Gandhi ji's opinion, an act of violence that causes unavoidable violence to become avoidable. Understanding the motivations behind his views on the morality and justifiability of violence is key to understanding the categories. According to the Gita (which seems to be where Gandhi ji derived his most essential teachings), root causes of violence are psychological. Based on the Gita's emphasis upon psychology, Gandhi ji defines the rightfulness of violence by how attachment- and desire-motivated it is. He stated: Violence is when we cause suffering to others because of our selfishness, or for the sake of doing it [being violent]. Gandhi ji's moral theory holds that violence can only be excused if it is motivated by selflessness, if non-violent means are impossible under the circumstances and if avoiding violence leaves one with only the option of committing a greater evil. These are the criteria Gandhi ji uses to justify violence. If the violence is unpremeditated and spontaneous, or if there is no training or courage to use nonviolent means of defending oneself, it can be excused. It is clear that nonviolence is the best way to respond to injustice. Gandhi ji believes that nonviolence is the best option, but it's better to use violence to fight for a just cause rather than to avoid acting out of fear. Even though there are instances of exonerating violence, the principle that nonviolence is superior to violence still applies. Gandhi ji's main thrust is to defend [stand] against violence. 

So, now that we've looked at what violence is and Gandhi ji's implications and beliefs about it, let us ask: does Gandhi ji's active form of resistance work? Is nonviolence really effective?

A large number of some of the most potent protests that have changed the course of history are actually nonviolent protests! The George Floyd Protests, The Farmers Protest, Stop Asian Hate, the Berlin Wall Protests, the Me too movement, Fridays for Future and, last but never the least, The Dandi March are a few (out of the abundance) of nonviolent movements across the world that almost every single person has heard of. These serve as perfect examples for the fact that arms, ammunition, mass killings, and unleashing unrest does not mean power. Being loud isn't power. 

If this wasn't enough evidence, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan collected and analyzed data on over 300 violent and nonviolent major political campaigns in the last decade. Chenoweth's study suggested that between 2000 and 2006, 70% of nonviolent campaigns succeeded, five times the success rate for violent ones. Looking back over the 20th century, she found that nonviolent campaigns succeeded 53% of the time, compared with 26% for violent resistance. They found that nonviolent campaigns had been twice as effective as violent campaigns!! 

“Never assume that loud is strong and quiet is weak” were Buddha's indispensable words that are still very much relevant today. As beautiful as they may be, these words still make me contemplate whether nonviolence is REALLY effective in all situations... 

I thought long and hard about it. Just imagine, you're walking down the street, minding your own business, and a person suddenly punches you in the face for no reason at all, and it seems like his intention to keep doing so (if there isn't any help available), won't you punch him back? Or, at least try to defend yourself in some way. I don't think any sane person would just stand there and take the hits in the name of nonviolence. To me, it seems justified to try and respond to the physical violence with violence if you are being hurt. I mean ... there IS a difference between nonviolence and self-destruction, after all, right? 

To some, violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys communities and makes brotherhood impossible. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. Overall, violence is almost never the right answer because it brings in more violence, affects younger generations negatively, and always has alternative responses. Learning to act and respond in nonviolent ways can not only ease a conflict but even save lives. I agree with these beliefs, but isn't it better to be the flame and not the moth?

I believe that the most plausible justification of violence is when it is perpetrated in return for other violence. It is one's right to protect oneself. “The right of self-defence never ceases. It is the most sacred and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.” (James Monroe) 

Rama had killed Ravana. Krishna had killed Kansa. There was violence in the Mahabharata against atrocities. Those people tried to come to terms with that violence because it was for the greater good. Even in recent history, Shivaji had fought to oust Afzal Khan. Guru Gobind Singh, Rana Pratap, they all fought for something more than revenge. They wanted to protect and serve their motherland and its people. Unfortunately, for Gandhi ji, violence was a sin (For example, when Gandhi ji states that he objects to violence, he refers to specific categories of violence such as murder and war). Still, Gandhi ji mentions several times that violence is far more acceptable than cowardice. So does this mean that the ghosts of Shivaji Maharaj and Guru Gobind Singh ji can rest in peace? Absolutely! Does this mean that they can be forgiven (since it seems that they haven't sinned)? Without a doubt! They fought bravely till the very end! 

Violent acts are sometimes necessary to protect other people's human rights (Gandhi ji does not condemn the use of violence in situations where it is unavoidable. If lives are at stake, it is undoubtedly not avoidable). Examples throughout history illustrate how civil movements have brought about change and better access to people's human rights. 

Enough about history and the deceased, fast forward to the 21st century (let's pick up where we left of (apologies, but history isn't nearly as fascinating as the modern era)). Social justice issues like racial injustice, wage gap, voting rights, climate justice, refugee crisis and healthcare have successfully been combated by spreading awareness through extremely successful nonviolent protests (as mentioned earlier in paragraphs 11 and 12 ). Without the use of weapons and brute force, “Black Lives Matter” was a viral protest (An estimated 15 million to 26 million people participated in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, making it one of the most significant movements in the country's history.). Just imagine if it was an organized, armed movement instead of a peaceful protest, mass bloodshed, destruction, pain, and irreparable damage would've been caused. The protest would've turned into a civil war (an intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces). None of this would've changed anything at all. The massacre wouldn't bring back George Floyd; it wouldn't bring back Breonna Taylor, Daunte Wright, Andre Hill, Manuel Ellis, Rayshard Brooks, Daniel Prude, or Atatiana Jefferson. Instead, it would ruin everything else. You can't love someone back to life, and nonviolence didn't bring the victims of police brutality back to life either. But nonviolence didn't damage whatever we had left. It was nonviolence that was capable of making tremendous reforms in the flawed justice system of the United States of America. All in all, violence was not required to get the point across in this situation. 

But, today's situation in Afghanistan makes me indecisive about the effectiveness of nonviolence. In a country that is struggling and dying, its residents are fleeing with their families and children, fighting frantically for their lives, not caring about their money or their houses, violence seems justifiable. The Taliban cruelly reduce women and girls to poverty; they continue to worsen their health and deprive them of their right to an education, and many times the right to practice their religion. Their regime systematically represses all sectors of the population, not just women and children, and denies even the most fundamental individual rights. Is it violence when external forces from other countries send in their troops to eliminate the destructive Taliban? Women are imprisoned in their homes and are denied access to basic health care and education. Food sent to help starving people is stolen by their leaders. The religious monuments of other faiths are destroyed. Children are forbidden to fly kites or sing songs. Is it really violent to eliminate the culprits of such gross human rights violations who have ruined tens of thousands of lives? Nonviolence against insurgent groups is like wearing a bicycle helmet to protect yourself from an attack by a military tank. The only way to stop the attack of a military tank is to use a much larger, heavier tank to block it, drive over it or use more vital defence strategies (like more potent weapons). Hence, the only way to stop violence, in this case, is a threat from a brutal, much more intimidating force. 

In conclusion, like Gandhi ji says and countless historical events have proven, violence is unavoidable. Some situations escalate to the point where it seems only sensible to use violence to retaliate, or you risk losing everything. It seems like the best course of action to use brute force in situations like these (rather than submission or cowardly acts). Of course, in cases where violence is avoidable, matters should be sorted out peacefully (but never at the cost of sovereignty and integrity). We should avoid violence as much as possible because it always causes irreparable damage, keeping in mind that nonviolence can cause damage too (mostly self-destruction). We can use nonviolence and violence as the situation demands. They are both subjective and must be used wisely; only then will the maximum effectiveness be observed. One must keep in mind that anything in excess is poison, which could apply to both nonviolence and violence. 

Citations 

1. “Ahimsa v. Compassion” Navajivan, 31 March 1929. 

2. “The Fiery Ordeal” Navajivan, 30 September 1928.

3. Letter to Bhogilal, Sabarmati Sangrahalaya (SN), 11811.

4. “The Fiery Ordeal” Navajivan, 30 September 1928.

5. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore, eds., (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 259. 

6. "Religion v. No Religion," Harijan, 9 June 1946. 

7. Ibid. 

8. "Letter to a Friend," in Raghavan Iyer, The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 11 (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 266. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Ibid. 

11. "Religion v. No Religion," Harijan, 9 June 1946. 

12. Gandhi states: "An armed conflict between nations horrifies us. But the economic war is no better than an armed conflict... An economic war is prolonged torture. And its ravages are no less terrible than those depicted in the literature on war properly so called." "Non-violence - The Greatest Force," The Hindu, 8 November 1926.13. Gita, 2:62-64. 

14. "Problem of Nonviolence," Navajivan, 6 June 1926. 15. "Ethical religion," Indian Opinion, 5 January - 23 February, 1907. 

16. "What is Non-violence?" Harijan, 19 December 1936. 

17. "Force or Restraint?" Navajivan, 13 July 1924. 

18. Navajivan, 30 September 1928. 

19. Gandhi did not advocate euthanasia for human beings (or animals) unless the following conditions apply: "1. The disease from which the patient is suffering should be incurable. 2. All concerned have despaired of the life of the patient. 3. The case should be beyond all help or service. 4. It should be impossible for the patient in question to express his or its wish." "More about Ahimsa," Navajivan, 28 October 1928. 

20. "A Letter," The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 11, p. 286-287. 

21. Collected Works, (New Delhi, India: The Publications Division, Ministry of In formation and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1984), LXXXVI, p. 27. 

22. "Chaos v. Misrule," Young India, March 1928. 23. A good example is the statement: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." "On the verge of it," Young India, 21 May 1925. 

Edited by the Out of Print team

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize: First Prize - Nikhil Joseph

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021

First Prize 

(shared)

Nikhil Joseph

Hebron School, Ooty

(withdrawn)

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021: Second Prize - Sara Daniel

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021

Second Prize 

(shared)

Sara Daniel

Delhi Public School, Noida

A Response to: Gandhi viewed non-violence as an active form of resistance. 

Looking at contemporary injustices, does non-violence work?

There are some men and women who defy any labels and transcend any descriptions. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, known globally simply as the Mahatma and who is, for Indians, the beloved Father of the Nation, is one such person. Gandhi was the foremost leader of India’s freedom struggle, a lawyer, an anti-colonial nationalist and a political ethicist. He was all of this and so much more! 

MK Gandhi has come to define an entire philosophy, a way of being, not just for individuals, but for nation states. He is respected and held in the highest esteem throughout the world for his philosophy of non-violence, truth, honesty, harmony, self-sacrifice and resistance. Even those that Gandhi opposed with all his might admired him! Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India before India attained freedom said of Gandhi, “Mahatma Gandhi will go down in history on par with Buddha and Jesus Christ.” 

There have been leaders, thinkers and saints, for instance, Buddha, Kabir, Sufi saints and Guru Nanak in India alone, who have preached non-violence, peace, love and compassion as a way of living. Mahatma Gandhi’s unique genius, however, lies in articulating and crafting the theory of non-violence into an instrument of action and political awakening in the modern world. At a time when the world was reeling under the devastating impact of the two World Wars, , the rise and eventual defeat of Hitler, the catastrophic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, Gandhiji adopted non-violence not just as an ideal way of life, but as a powerful movement that mobilized an entire generation of Indians and brought the mighty British Empire, the imperialist power for whom it was said “The Sun never sets on it”, to its knees. 

It is for good reason that Gandhi is called the Father of Non-violence. He strongly disliked the term “passive resistance” as he felt it propounded passivity and acquiescence for what was actually an active form of civil protest. Gandhi’s Ahimsa is, in fact, inextricably linked to direct action. It is a strategic position masterfully crafted to disarm the strongest opponent and render them ineffective. As the author and political leader Shashi Tharoor said for Gandhi, “Don't ever forget, that we were not led by a saint with his head in clouds, but by a master tactician with his feet on the ground.” 

The core of Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of Ahimsa lies in the search for Truth. He believed that they were fighting for truth and hence devised the term “Satyagraha” derived from the words “Satya” meaning Truth and “Graha” meaning seizing or taking hold of. He said that a Satyagrahi must rid his mind of fear and refuse to be a slave to anyone and that Satyagraha was an attitude of mind and any person following it would be victorious and blessed by God. These words of his helped give his followers great confidence and belief in his methods and vision. 

Mahatma Gandhi had once said, “In its positive form, Ahimsa means the largest love, the greatest charity. If I am a follower of Ahimsa, I must love my enemy. It is no non-violence if we merely love those who love us. It is non-violence only when we love those that hate us. I know how difficult it is to follow this grand Law of Love. But are not all great and good things difficult to do? Love of the hater is the most difficult of all. But by the grace of God, even this most difficult thing becomes easy to accomplish”. (Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi).

Non-violence is the greatest force in possession of humankind using which it is possible to defy the whole might of an unjust and partisan forces. Hence, Gandhi characterised it as a “soul force”. He argued that non-violence is “the law of our species” and love and non- violence is the bond that unites human beings, not hatred or violence. He wanted people to accept non-violence as an article of faith and adopt it as a way of life. He demonstrated the potency of non-violence by making it the foundation of his personal day-to-day life and his public life as in the struggle for India’s independence. 

To commemorate Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of non-violence and truth, The International Day of Non-Violence is observed on 2nd October, his birthday. 

Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence and peaceful resistance, that developed in the crucible of the British Empire in the early 20th century, has stood the test of time. It is remarkable that one man emphasised nonviolent resistance in his campaign for Indian independence almost a century ago and, through the sheer moral weight of his steadfast commitment to this, he remains, till date, an iconic figure for people standing up against injustice and seeking change across the world. He has inspired leaders, thinkers and activists around the world. 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Civil Rights leader who is often called the American Mahatma and is counted amongst Gandhi’s worthiest disciples, devoted his life to fighting against racial injustice. He has been quoted saying "If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived, thought, acted and inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace and harmony." Barak Obama, former president of the United States also looks up to Gandhi and kept a portrait of him in his White House office. He had said, "In my life, I have always looked to Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration, because he embodies the kind of transformational change that can be made when ordinary people come together to do extraordinary things." 

Today, we live in a conflict-ridden world where everyone has differing opinions and viewpoints that often clash. There is growing hate, polarisation and divisiveness. But, as peaceful protest movements in various parts of the world have demonstrated, never before has Gandhi been more relevant than he is today.

Satyagraha remains a potent force to drive change globally. Shaped by Mahatma Gandhi and honed under his leadership during India’s independence movement, Satyagraha has turned into a global instrument of non-violent protests and dissent against tyranny and authoritarianism and a tool of the powerless against the powerful. 

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan had already invoked non-violence during Gandhi’s lifetime and was known as the “Frontier Gandhi”. Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Benigno Aquino Jr are some of the many famous followers of Gandhi in the 20th century who successfully launched their own Satyagraha against injustices and conducted peaceful struggles for human rights. 

It is only fitting that in the apartheid-ridden South Africa, which was the land of the origin of the idea of Satyagraha following Gandhi’s experiences with racism and injustice during the two decades he lived there, this philosophy made a big contribution to bringing about a peaceful transformation and the end of apartheid. Nelson Mandela, who spent 28 long years in prison fighting against white supremacist rule before leading South Africa to a multi-racial democracy as the country’s first Black President in 1994, said that Gandhi’s non- violent and peaceful approach which won India freedom from British colonial rule was an inspiration to him. Mandela, who was born 3 years after Gandhi left South Africa and who never met each other, said, “Gandhiji influenced the activities of liberation movements, civil rights movements and religious organizations in all five continents of the world. He impacted on men and women who have achieved significant historical changes in their countries not least amongst whom are Martin Luther King.” 

Desmond Tutu, another towering leader of the anti-apartheid movement and a human rights activist said, “Gandhi was to influence greatly Martin Luther King Jr., the leading light in the American Civil Rights Movement, as well as the South African National Congress of Nelson Mandela. So many people expected our country to go up in flames, enveloped by a catastrophe, a racial bloodbath. It never happened. Because in the struggle against an evil of injustice, ultimately it did not take recourse to violence and because you and so many others in the international community supported the struggle.” 

In recent years too there have been many non-violent protests against contemporary injustices around the world that have drawn inspiration from the Gandhian methods of non- violent resistance. 

The murder of George Floyd was a seminal moment in contemporary America that triggered outrage and lead to the most definitive movement of our times for racial equality and justice called Black Lives Matter. Yet, despite the pent-up rage, hurt and fury amongst Black Americans, the movement drew from Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent protests. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) analysed thousands of Black Lives Matter protests and demonstrations in all the states of the USA between May 26 and August 22 2020 and found that more than 93% of those protests had been peaceful. The protestors demonstrated using peaceful methods such as internet and social media, candlelight marches, rallies, books, articles, films, magazines, painting murals, etc. and no violent methods were used. 

Taking the knee is another iconic symbol of peaceful protest around the world that is clearly inspired by the Gandhian philosophy of non-violence. Started by the American football player Colin Kaepernick in 2016, in protest against the lack of attention given to the issues of racial inequality and police brutality in the United States and against the unfair treatment of Black Americans, it has now become a globalised symbol of steely resolve and silent resistance. The simple act of kneeling, of defiance without uttering a word, has become a  cornerstone of the global movement against racial oppression. As we saw during the recently concluded Tokyo 2021 Olympic Games or Euro 2020 Championship earlier in the year, many sportspeople kneel and take the knee before their respective matches to make a statement and express solidarity with the movement for racial equality. 

Closer home, Gandhi’s mantra of non-violence, that won India freedom from the British, continues to inspire generations of Indians and form the bedrock of most major protest movements to drive social and political change in independent India. 

The Chipko Movement of the 1970s was a non-violent protest against deforestation and its leaders called themselves Gandhians. Sundarlal Bahuguna who started this movement along with scores of women activists employed the tools of non-violence and the most Gandhian of all values, love, as they hugged trees to prevent their felling. It was a unique environmental protest, long before such movements became mainstream, that gained worldwide recognition and respect for Indian environmentalism. 

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a social movement to save river Narmada from large dams as well as to represent the displaced people, led by Medha Patkar is perhaps amongst the longest running non-violent protest in the world. The NBA has adopted and repurposed Gandhian methods and tools, and protested through peaceful rallies, sit-ins, hunger strikes, silent protests and, in a reinterpretation of Satyagraha, Jal Satyagraha where activists have stood in water up to their faces for long hours to register their protest. 

The times have changed and India, like the rest of the world, of the twenty-first century is a very different place from the India of the last century. Technology has pervaded all aspects of life and we cannot imagine our lives without social media and our smartphones. Yet it is a tribute to the eternal significance of Gandhi’s philosophy and values that these continue to drive protest movements with the tools adapted to the contemporary times. 

The anti-CAA protests of December 2019 – Jan 2020 that started with a sit in at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi and sparked numerous such sit-ins across the country is a shining example of 

the Mahatma’s values continuing to inspire new generations of Indians. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was introduced that triggered widespread protests across the country. The Shaheen Bagh sit-in was the most enduring symbol of all the anti-CAA protests that took place. Hundreds of people took part in this sit-in that was led by the brave women of Delhi. They protested peacefully for 101 days and art, creativity and ahimsa, or non-violence, were the languages of opposition and resistance. With their reading of the Constitution of India, the multi-faith prayers, the inspirational poetry, the makeshift libraries, the feeling of brotherhood, harmony and hope that they generated and the love, support and solidarity that poured in from all over the world, this movement quickly became an exemplar of the power of peaceful resistance by ordinary citizens. 

The Farmers protest, that has been going on for almost one year now across India, is another notable example. The protesting farmers are Gandhian in their stamina, spirit and persistence. The government has legislated Farm Laws that, according to the government, would raise the standard of productivity of the agricultural sector and bolster private investment. However, the farmers are sceptical and hold that these reforms were brought about without adequate consultations with the farming communities of the country and have been passed without any debate or discussion. Regardless of the merits or the shortcomings of the laws, what is of significance is that today the world is witnessing one of the largest organised protests in human history with millions of farmers participating in it. The protesting farmers are demanding a repeal of these agricultural reform laws that they believe are detrimental to their interests. It is a testament to the Gandhian values that Indians have imbibed that the vast majority of these protests have been peaceful and characterised by peaceful sit-ins and road and railway blockades. 

In democracies, dissent and dialogue continue simultaneously and in a peaceful manner. Peaceful protests, non-violent resistance and voicing dissent are the fundamental rights of every citizen in a democratic country. All the above-mentioned movements are prime examples of how peaceful and non-violent protests and demonstrations have a substantial impact on society and succeed in ways that violence can’t. 

We see that Gandhian values and philosophy of non-violence is not just alive and active in the modern world, Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of truth and non-violence continues to inspire leaders, activists and people all over the world. Gandhian non-violence has been key in protests against oppressive and authoritarian injustices for decades. Organised civic pressure and a commitment to not be violent has been instrumental in fighting many human rights injustices and social ills such as foreign occupation, repression of women and minorities, racial inequality, caste oppression and even environmental degradation. 

It will remain one of the world’s greatest ironies that Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace, brotherhood, unity and non-violence, met a violent death at the hands of a religious fanatic. Yet, seventy-three years since his tragic assassination, the tools of transformational change through peaceful means that he devised continue to resonate 

around the world. It may be hard to get a true measure of his global impact but there can be no denying that it has been formidable. Gandhi’s worldview and his unique model of driving positive and lasting change through peaceful means have informed thinking and movements everywhere. 

Mahatma Gandhi is amongst the pantheon of the greatest leaders this world has ever known who has and will continue to inspire many. To conclude with the famous words of renowned scientist Albert Einstein on Mahatma Gandhi, “Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked Earth”. 

Edited by the Out of Print team

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021, Second Prize - Noor Sabharwal

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021

Second Prize 

(shared)

Noor Sabharwal 

Neev Academy, Bangalore

The Moderate Radical

Dinyar Patel’s recent biography of Dadabhai Naoroji suggests that Gandhi ji considered Naoroji the father of the nation. The biography also interestingly describes Naoroji as too moderate for the radicals and too radical for the moderates, something that could be used to describe Gandhi ji as well. His ability to balance practicality and idealism was his genius, his enduring legacy, and my inspiration.

 

In 1909, Mahatma Gandhi, fondly referred to as Bapu, used the time and space on a long sea journey from London to South Africa to write Hind Swaraj. This book represented his idealistic vision for nonviolent political change – non-cooperation. It was highly impactful because it laid out the tools and strategy that Gandhi ji used from 1915 (when he arrived in India) till 1947 (when the British left India). It synthesized his genius in finding the right balance between thinking big and new thoughts while persisting with getting small things done till big things happened. 

An important anecdote about the creation of Hind Swaraj that conveys the intensity of his vision, is the fact that he wrote with such fury that when one hand started aching, he wrote with the other while still writing in two languages (Gujarati and English). This book outlines four major themes. Firstly, he makes the case for the notion that ‘Home Rule is Self Rule’. He expresses concern over India remaining anglicized after independence. As he puts it, some "want English rule without the Englishman ... that is to say, (they) would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englishman. This is not the Swaraj I want.”1 Second, he highlights that independence is only possible through passive resistance, stating that violence is not only abhorrent but counter-productive. He believes, “The force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of arms.” To exert this, he brings in the concept of Swadeshi (self-reliance). He suggests that all Indians refuse trade and dealings with the British. Addressing the colonizers he says, “If you do not concede our demand, we shall no longer be your petitioners." He makes the valid actionable point that if trade is the value of India to the British, remove trade from the equation. Finally, Gandhi ji argues that without rejecting western civilization, India will never be free. He remains very critical of western civilization stating that “India is being ground down, not under the English heel, but under that of modern civilization." He speaks about civilization not just in relation to India but argues that “Western civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destructed." In this, he posits that western civilization by its own virtue is unhealthy. The brilliance of this book and the man is that while he speaks of dreams, values, and philosophy, his pragmatism shines through because this text is a battle plan. 

Gandhi ji’s biggest and most universal legacy is the concept of Ahimsa. This word has its origins in Sanskrit with the word ‘san’ meaning to kill. In this form, it means desirous to kill, but this is negated by the prefix-a. So the literal translation of ahimsa is lacking any desire to kill. Bapu learned this concept from his wife as she deliberately resisted conforming to his will through by quietly suffering his stupidity. He extended the definition of ahimsa beyond just non-violence, to what he stated was an “infinitely higher” meaning. To not offend anybody, internally or explicitly. Being the first human to extend this principle to the social and political sphere, his innovation faced resistance and ridicule. He was critiqued for being overly imaginative, but he affirmed that it was a tool for the common people. In the struggle for India's independence, he insisted on the adoption of civilized methods of non-violence and suffering. His stand for the freedom of India was not based on hatred for the British. He famously said, “I am patriotic because I am human and humane” proving that his intentions did not focus on destroying the oppressors, but rather empowering the oppressed. While nonviolence in a battle for independence from a colonial power seemed far-fetched, Gandhi ji grounded his ambition with action, determination, and faith. 

In 1921, Gandhi ji and his followers planned a non-cooperation movement to force the British government of India to grant self-governance to India. It was one of his first organized acts of large-scale civil disobedience and became an opportunity for Bapu to gain attention and trust. Additionally, the movement built on the anger that lingered from the widespread horror in India over the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh: in Amritsar in April 1919, the British-led troops killed several hundred Indians. Anger compounded as the government failed to address those responsible for this failure of humanity, notably General Reginald Dyer; he had commanded the massacre and was welcomed back to his home as a hero. Gandhi strengthened the movement further by providing support to the Muslim campaign against the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The movement was to be non-violent and consisted of Indians resigning their titles, boycotting government institutions, and eventually, refusing to pay taxes. However, a revolt in Kerala by the Muslim Moplahs (August 1921) and a number of other violent outbreaks alarmed the originally moderate opinion. After an enraged mob murdered police officers in Chauri Chaura village (now in the state of Uttar Pradesh) in February of 1922, Bapu called off the movement despite significant opposition to his decision from fellow leaders 2. In keeping with the idealistic context of non-cooperation, he made the difficult decision to not use the rage of the public due to the potential violent and long-term damage this could cause to his strategy. This did not mean he was underinvested or weak, but exactly the opposite. He allowed logic to overpower his emotions in this decision showing restraint, thinking of the long term, and creating curious awe among supporters and opposition. 

Through the Purna Swaraj declaration, Gandhi ji exemplified the importance of threatening. On the banks of the Ravi river in Lahore under the leadership of young Jawaharlal Nehru, Congress adopted the resolution Purna Swaraj or complete independence in 1930. The resolution read: “The British Government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the principle of exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence.” 3 The resolution further laid down the methods to achieve the goal, stating that “the most effective way of gaining our freedom is not through violence.” His mental toughness manifested itself in the Declaration of the Independence of India as he used morality and conviction to see his beliefs through. The Purna Swaraj resolution was too radical for the moderates who wanted more dialogue with the British and too moderate for the radicals who wanted independence through violence. Hearing them, he found compromise; he managed to represent a diverse oppressed majority. 

His ability to reconcile opposites was captured again in the 24-day salt march over 250 km that began in Sabarmati Ashram and ended at Dandi on 6th April 1930. The British passed the India Salt Act of 1882 that created a government monopoly on the manufacture and sale of salt. When Bapu spoke of resistance to this, his fellow congress members and spectators laughed at him. The Statesman, a prominent newspaper, wrote about the choice: "It is difficult not to laugh, and we imagine that will be the mood of most thinking Indians”.2 Lord Irwin, the Viceroy wrote to London saying, “At present, the prospect of a salt campaign does not keep me awake at night”. Bapu placed faith in his march, understanding that an item of daily use would resonate more with the masses. The salt tax provided 8.2% of the British Raj tax revenue and hurt the poorest Indians most significantly. Explaining his choice, he said, "Next to air and water, salt is perhaps the greatest necessity of life." He felt that this protest would greatly dramatize Purna Swaraj in a meaningful way by touching Indians of all castes, religions, and backgrounds. The leaders quickly realized the power of salt as a symbol when the protests gathered steam and became a direct action campaign of tax resistance and nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly. Bapu started this march with 78 of his trusted volunteers but ended with over 60,000 people. While this movement did not have great significance in the legal or formal affairs of the Indian’s oppression, it served a much deeper purpose. Bapu’s ability to synthesize showed that he knew the value of symbols or what today would be called marketing and soft power as a tool in his battle for “right against might”. In promoting such a symbolic event, he changed hearts and convinced minds. 

Gandhi ji had a significant bearing on the choice of the first Prime Minister of India. From Rajendra Prasad to Maulana Azad to Sardar Patel, he considered many capable leaders. Maulana Shaukat Ali called Patel the “volcano in the ice”, he was also the greatest organizer of the party. However, he was 14 years older than Nehru, and both Gandhi ji and Patel saw themselves as men to free the country and leave the management to the younger generation.4 When asked by a British journalist if he would be the next prime minister, Bapu quickly said,“It will be reserved for younger minds and stouter hearts”.2 Considering their intentions, the ill health of Patel, and the “Nehru personality” as one of the darling faces of the youth of India, Gandhi favoured Jawaharlal Nehru India to be India’s first Prime Minister. This must have been a hard choice but again, reflected his willingness to take the long view. 

Another issue important to Bapu was gender equality. In Young India (1921) he states that the female sex is “the nobler of the two as it is the embodiment of sacrifice, silent suffering, humility, faith, and knowledge”. As a privileged, renowned, and educated man in the 20th century, it was very easy for him to fall into the mould awaiting him. Instead, he made a choice. One based on the ideal of equality for all. He became one of the first Indian political figures to support women having their own “sphere of activity” realizing that the sexism women faced was counterproductive in his fight for India’s long-term progress. His belief in equality transformed somewhat into equity in this regard. Learning from the oppression of the British Raj he stated, “the contrary custom” to the current oppression of women “should be to prefer women, merit being equal, to men even if the preference should result in men being entirely displaced by women”.5 His dependable kindness became recognized and all the more powerful with his action-oriented thinking. At the Round Table Conference’s Federal Structure Committee meeting in 1931, he highlighted that while the Congress did not wish to implement any scheme of nominating members to legislative bodies to give adequate representation to minorities, the organization was obligated to judge candidates fairly. Around the same time, he beckoned women to take part in the Satyagraha movement. The fact that 17,000 of around 30,000 persons who courted arrest during the Salt Satyagraha were women volunteers is a conspicuous example of their equal role under the leadership of the Mahatma.6 The message he gave to the women of India was of such a nature that they responded to it in a manner that they had never done before. Sarojini Naidu, Kamala Nehru, Sushila Nayyar, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, Anasuya Sarabhai, and Miraben are a few of the illustrious women associated with the Gandhian movement. His ideas about women and their role in political life were a departure from the 20th-century norms restricting women. He saw them as Indians, and hence, made conscious attempts to articulate the implicit connection between public and private life. He also extended his goals into the future by looking ahead and redefining independence as “the day a woman can walk freely on the roads at night” or the day in which Indians are free from all systems of oppression. 

In The Years That Changed the World2, Ramchandra Guha eloquently highlights the true meaning of swaraj. He states that for Gandhi ji, political and legal independence meant nothing unless “it was accompanied by religious harmony, caste and gender equality, and the development of self-respect in every Indian”. While other leaders used the word swaraj to mean national independence, he made Indians aware of its “true or original meaning, swa-raj, or self-rule”. His dedication more than to the country and politics was to every Indian. As a leader, he exemplified the purpose of not building followers but more leaders. It is almost impossible to imagine India getting independence without the team of rivals (a wonderful book by another historian that describes another great world leader) that Bapu nourished. His ideal was his vision for India and his practical approach was to open hearts and minds. 

Gandhi ji considered his biggest failure to be Partition. In his stout opposition, he proposed to the Viceroy that Jinnah be appointed prime minister in the hopes that this would satisfy his ambition and wean him away from his insistence on Pakistan.7 Lord Mountbatten agreed that this would please Jinnah’s vanity, however, Congress leaders worried that opting out of the constitutional arena would be the wrong choice. Further, appeasing Jinnah would not stop the partition as leaders in the Muslim League would overpower him. Nehru described Jinnah stating that they were up against “something which is neither political, nor economic, nor reasonable, nor logical.” Patel was also clear that there would be no more appeasement of the Muslim League. Accordingly, Bapu withdrew his offer stating that the decision had been arrived at after taking into account the pulse of the people of all communities. “The demand has been granted because you asked for it. The Congress never asked for it. But the Congress can feel the pulse of the people. It realized that the Khalsa as also the Hindus asked for it.”7 In this instance, his practicality took the reins as his emotional investment turned to desperation. Selflessly, he allowed his party to make the decision, despite his obvious preference to oppose partition. 

Bapu spent the last year of his life fighting for the ideal of unity, but when he realized this was no longer practical he stepped back. Even on his last day, he used a meeting with Sardar Patel to express his practical idealism. His practicality was captured by his delaying of a prayer meeting by 10 minutes to take a promise from Sardar Patel, stating that he would not resign from his post despite his disagreements with Nehru. He counseled him of the importance of working together for the future of India’s unity and prosperity. His idealism came through in the same conversation when he reportedly reiterated his decision from a few days earlier: “I want to go to Lahore. I do not want to go with any police or military escort. I want to go with faith and trust in the Muslims there. Let them kill me if they want. Let the Government stop me if they will. But how can the Government stop me? They will have to kill me if they want to stop me”.8 His practicality grounded him but he never let go of his ideals. His life was his message because he taught us that in a gentle way you can shake the world. 

References

1. Gandhi, Mohandas. Hind Swaraj. S. Ganesan & Co., Publishers, Triplicane, 1921. 

2. Guha, Ramachandra. Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World. Vintage Canada, 2019. 

3. “Constitution of India.” CAD, 

www.constitutionofindia.net/historical_constitutions/declaration_of_purna_swaraj__indian_national_congress__1930__26th%20January%201930. 

4. "NEHRU : AUTHORITY, INTIMACY AND VOCATION IN THE LIFE OF A REVOLUTIONARY on JSTOR." Jstor.org. n.d. Web. 28 Aug. 2021. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/41854623> 

5. "Harijan - Harijan, Ahmedabad, Sunday, April 7, 1946 - South Asia Archive." Southasiaarchive.com. n.d. Web. 28 Aug. 2021. <http://www.southasiaarchive.com/Content/sarf.120270/224227> 

6. "Gandhi on Women on JSTOR." Jstor.org. n.d. Web. 28 Aug. 2021. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/4374897> 

7. Collins, Larry, and Sohravardi Saīd. Freedom at Midnight. Nigārishāt, 2002. 

8. Gandhi. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India, 1973. 

Edited by the Out of Print team

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021: Third Prize - Annapoorani Pandiyan

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021

Third Prize 

(shared)

Annapoorani Pandiyan

The Gandhigram Rural Institute, Dindigul Disitrict

A Response to: Why did Gandhi consider cowardice and apathy even worse than violence? do you agree with him? Why or why not? 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction 

2. Ways of Countering Injustice 

3. Lesson from Anitha’s Suicide 

4. Comfort Zone – Cowardice Zone 

5. Conquer Objectives 

6. Structural Violence versus Direct Violence 

7. Nonviolence is the Weapon of the Strong 

8. Conclusion 

9. References 

1. Introduction: 

According to Gandhi “Science without Humanity” and “Knowledge without Character” are social sins. But the rapid Growth of Science and Technology redefines the life of human beings. Slowly and steadily, Artificial Intelligence has been overtaking human intelligence. In the process we are surrendering ourselves to the technology. Literally, we are trapped by corporatized society and believe that luxuries are the core part of life. The Dalai lama beautifully said that “Love and compassion” are necessities not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive”. We forget the fact that we are part of society and, knowingly or unknowingly, we are falling into the root ignorance zone, that is that the world is not ready to find the right balance between Science and Humanity, Education and Character etc. This is the highest form of cowardice. 

In my point of view, a

1. Coward is one who submits himself / herself to injustice. 

2. Coward is one who is afraid to come out of root ignorance ” 

3. Coward is one who is afraid to live morally and ethically

4. Coward is one who is not ready to come out of his / her comfort Zone

5. Coward is one who compromises his / her principles for the sake of short pleasures

With regard to the above definitions of cowardice, “Gandhi has to be the bravest man of 20th Century. He never submitted himself to injustice, he always searched for truth and knowledge ( Sat + Chit = Ananda), he laid strong boundaries for his code of conduct, earned food by cleaning the toilets and spinning, rather than as a lawyer (sweat of the brow), and honoured his prime principle of nonviolence till his last breath. Gandhi was not only the Father of our Nation but the Conscience of the World.

 

2. Ways of Countering Injustice: 

Key words: Root Ignorance, Structural Violence, Comfort Zone, Submissive, NEET 

“Anywhere injustice in world is a threat to peace everywhere” – Martin Luther king There are three ways to countering injustice. 

1. Submissive – bow to injustice – the highest form of cowardice 

2. Violence – punishing or countering the opponent (subjective) 

3. Nonviolence – kill the evil not the evil doer (objective) 

But we are confusing nonviolence with cowardice. There is huge difference between these two words. The above quote of Martin Luther King, shows that when the world is under the pressure of the injustice, or any other disturbances affect the peace and welfare of an individual, 

the world of injustice ---- > affects individual people.

Among eight billion of people live in the world, one third of the people are cowardly and in apathy. First, we should know the meaning of cowardice and apathy: cowardice means lack of bravery and apathy means lack of interest and enthusiasm. Most of the people in the world are knowingly or unknowingly engaging in cowardly activities. That is called root ignorance. 

3. Lesson from Anitha’s Suicide 

Following case study of Anitha’s suicide, clearly explains the terms – injustice and cowardice. 

Anitha was a student from Ariyalur District ,Tamilnadu. She scored 1176 out of 1200 in the XII standard examination. She was District First and was the only student from the District to secure 100% marks in Physics and Mathematics. Since childhood, she dreamt of being a doctor and did her best in the qualifying examination despite of economic and social barriers. She lost her mother at a very young age due to health issues. That was a driving force for her to become a doctor. Her medical seat would have been assured if the State Board marks alone had been considered like in previous years. 

Unfortunately in 2017, the NEET Exam, which is based on Central Board syllabus, was introduced in Tamilnadu. NEET coaching in India is now a trillion dollar business. Poor Anitha couldn’t afford such big money. After the failure of several protests and law suits, desperate Anitha lost her hope in the process, and she committed suicide. 

In this case, I observed two things. 

1. The NEET Exam is an example of Structural Violence (no access to education is a form of Structural Violence) – Only the rich are able to clear the exam. It is the biggest injustice and pressure to the students. 12 years of studies are literally meaningless. 

2. Submissive to injustice – Tamilnadu is famous for its social justice. It has lots of first graduate doctors, doctors from rural backgrounds and doctors from socially downtrodden communities. There is no question of Anitha’s knowledge and mission. Despite of performing 99.99 % of correct actions, she did 0.01% wrong activity (submitted herself to the injustice). 

From this incident I came to know that she was very passionate, and confident about her dreams and bold enough to fight against the injustice but at the end, she lost her life by suicide. This not an end to her and we all know that one quote from Gandhi which is, “strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will”. 

No doubt that the NEET is an injustice but, at the same time, suicide is not the solution. The great Nelson Mandela spent 27 years to get justice and became the president of South Africa. We should not lose hope at any injustice, and never give up. 

4. Comfort Zone – Cowardice Zone 

98% of the people in the world are never ready to come out of their comfort zones. They are not ready to fight against injustice. They never know that injustice somewhere will affect their peace. In this zone, they will be always in safe and will not fight against the injustice. They will become cowardly and apathetic. 

From the picture, we clearly understand that 

 

Comfort Zone and Fear Zone ----> Cowardice and Apathy 

Learning Zone and Growth Zone ----> Conquer objectives 

5. Conquer Objectives 

To conquer our objectives against injustice, we should understand the difference between submissive behaviour, violence and nonviolence. In Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi movie, Gandhi’s speech against the Asiatic Registration Act (Black Act) clearly explained the difference between the three. 

Cowardice / Apathy – Accept the Black Act.

Violence – (Indian protesters said) Kill the officials who disgrace the Indians

Nonviolence: (Gandhi said) will attack no one; will kill no one; we will not give our finger prints; they will imprison us; fine us; seize our possessions; but never give up our self-respect. Our objective is to fight against their anger not to provoke it”. We will not strike a blow but we will receive them, and through our pain we will make them see their injustice. It will hurt, as all fighting hurts (violence). But we cannot loose. They torture my body, break my bones, even kill me; then they will have my dead body; not my obedience. (A nonviolent man never can be a coward).

6. Structural Violence versus Direct Violence 

There two types of violence. We all know about direct violence but we do not understand Structural Violence. Examples of structural violence are: poverty, hunger, gender discrimination, caste and religious discrimination and other social injustices. Our belief system plays a pivotal role in organizing structural violence and we automatically surrender to the belief system. In the process, we became invisible cowards. We are afraid to come out these social stratifications. Hence one should understand that Structural violence is more dangerous than direct violence. 

Gandhi dedicated his entire career to fighting structural violence. That’s why he said that “I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence”. 

On another occasion, he said, “The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence”. So, in our lives, we should not choose cowardice in any situation. 

7. Nonviolence is the Weapon of Strong 

The very apt quotation from Gandhi for nonviolence and cowardice is, “Nonviolence and cowardice are contradictory terms. Nonviolence is the greatest virtue; cowardice the greatest vice. Nonviolence springs from love, cowardice from hate. Nonviolence always suffers, cowardice would always inflict suffering”. 

As much as possible, in our lives, we should adhere to nonviolence; we should not choose the way of cowardice. We should not be cowards at any instance. To remove cowardly behaviour from the minds of the people, Gandhi made life long efforts. He said his life is his message. His unique method of Satyagraha guided Indian Independence. The Dharasana Salt Satyagraha is the best example for this generation to learn about nonviolence. During that epic event, many people got injured and died because of the violence of police officers but none of the Gandhian army ran away from the place and never even raised their hands against the brutal assault of the policemen. That was the turning point of the freedom movement. Winston Churchill said that “Dharasana inflicted such humiliation and defiance as has not been known since the British first trod the soil of India.” 

8. Conclusion: 

This essay shows that the rapid growth of science and technology and the present day education system is making us cowards. The corporate world wants us to become cowards, rather than a protestor. Today, even the protesters are symbolized as men of violence. To bring peace and harmony, one should understand the difference between submissive, violence and nonviolence. Students and youth should learn to be correct persons rather than good persons. Correct persons should not be good persons to all. They have to come out of their comfort zones and understand the structural violence of society. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were instrumental in the removal of structural violence. Once structural violence is removed from society, direct violence will automatically vanish from society. The means to the nonviolence is not an easy one; but that is the only way. It is the matter of existence versus extinction. 

"If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived, thought, and acted, inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace and harmony. We may ignore him at our own risk," 

- Martin Luther King 

9. References: 

1. Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi

2. Gandhi film directed by Richard Attenborough

3. https://beahero.agency/why-you-should-step-outside-of-your-comfort-zone/ 4. Report of Dharasana Satyagraha 

Edited by the Out of Print Team

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021: Third Prize - Deeksha Pasupulati

The Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2021

Third Prize 

(shared)

Deeksha Pasupulati

Kodaikanal International School

Non-violent Resistance is the new catalyst for change in the Modern Age

The topic explored in this essay is Gandhi viewed non-violence as an active form of resistance. Looking at contemporary injustices, does non-violence work? As violence is a human construct, it is prone to manipulation. For example, a modern day man might find aboriginal rituals brutal because they involve battle, but to an aboriginal man, it is tradition and culture. Its definition depends on the media and the government as it creates a sense of power and superiority. Violence could be defined as a wide array of actions, situations, phenomena and so on. It is dependent on the person describing the situation. For example, the Taliban would describe the situation in Afghanistan as a way of Allah doing his work and bringing order and peace to Afghanistan. But an Afghan could describe the situation as extremely violent and bloody. According to Gandhi’s philosophy, humans do not possess the ability to solve conflicts nonviolently (“Brief Outline of Gandhi's Philosophy”; Murphy). However, it is not impossible. Gandhi believes a major difference between man and animal is that man can fight the biological urges that he has in common with animals, therefore making him superior to the act of selfishness and violence the brute possesses. He states that “non-violence is the law of our species as violence the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to the strength of the spirit.” (“The Gospel of Non-Violence”). Non-violent methods of fighting have been successful in the past, however, the methods and applications of non-violence have changed in today’s world. 

Gandhi states “I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills” (“Brief Outline of Gandhi's Philosophy”; Murphy). He believed that as long there is truth and nonviolence in the motive of the movement, it will succeed. Although Gandhi’s philosophy is hard to decipher, the basic idea of it is simple to execute. Gandhi’s philosophy is based on Satyagraha, which he adopted to resist all physical and psychological forces in a nonviolent approach. The idea of Satyagraha includes ideas and concepts like ahimsa or nonviolence, truth, celibacy or Brahmacharya, non-possession of materialistic items, non-stealing, asvada or the control of the palate, high tolerance levels, swadeshi and so on. The concept of Satyagraha roots from social, cultural, political, economic and psychological aspects of life. He [Gandhi] strongly believed that love and nonviolence governs all. The sole purpose of nonviolent methods of resistance while upholding principles of truth is to assert one’s freedom of oneself over mind and body. 

Gandhi fought warfare without weapons; he accepted the differences in power and took [used] this to his advantage. He fought violence and hatred with Ahimsa or nonviolence and love. He utilised soul-force in opposition to brute force. Although Gandhi applied this technique in several situations, he really never executed it in an international war scenario. But, Gandhi’s execution of Satyagraha during 1946 and 1947 all led to successes. Some of the examples include the times he took on fasting in Delhi and Calcutta for peace. As Gandhi states, “MY RELIGION teaches me that, whenever there is distress which one cannot remove, one must fast and pray” (“My Fasts”). A classic example of Satyagraha would be the civil disobedience movement that took place in 1930. The Dandi Salt Satyagraha and the Quit India movements used Satyagraha as a weapon of soul force. 

Moreover, non-violent movements have been favoured over violent movements to approach disputes worldwide in the 21st century. However, their effectiveness has been lost due to the pandemic and changes in structure and capabilities of the movements themselves. For instance, between the period 1900 - 2019, analysts have established a total of 628 maximalist mass movements that aimed to gain territorial independence through expulsion of colonial power. Liberation movements are often depicted as movements involving rebels with guns, but less than half of these campaigns (303) involved armed resistance. The other 325 greatly relied on nonviolent resistance. The graph below shows the increase in engagement of nonviolent movements when faced with dire circumstances in recent years. See figure 1 

 

(Chenoweth 70)

In addition, people seeking political change o ften tend to participate in civil resistance. This may be because of the universal acceptance of nonviolent resistance being a legitimate and successful method in addressing change. Although nonviolent resistance is not fully understood or accepted, the preference for nonviolent methods of resistance has increased (Chenoweth 71). Technological advancements have made it easier to learn about events that formerly went unreported or unnoticed. As access to the internet expands, more outlets like newspapers, social media platforms, etc. reach people easily. People can learn about Iceland, the world’s most peaceful country, and get inspired to do the same. As nonviolent resistance is becoming an increasingly favourable form of movement, it may be drawing more attention from scholars and news outlets, creating a catalyst for change. 

Moreover, in the postwar era, a substantial segment of society has come to value equality and fairness, protection of basic human rights and avoidance of unnecessary violence. The terrors of war have become much more visible than they were in the past, making nonviolent forms of resistance more effective and within reach. The growth of International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs) such as the Albert Einstein Institute, Nonviolence International and so on, aim to promote nonviolent forms of resistance and its theory. 

Over the past decade, a large number of democratic governments have faltered and returned to authoritarianism. In recent years, the erosion of democracy has evoked mass protest movements in both democratic countries such as the United States, Poland and Brazil, as well as in authoritarian countries such as Hungary, Turkey and Egypt (Chenoweth 72). The sudden growth of civil resistance movements around the world has been both successful and unsuccessful. It has been successful in the way that many people have come to realise that injustices can be confronted with strategic nonviolent methods. However, not all civil resistances address injustices effectively, which doesn’t lead to complete eradication of the injustices being faced. For instance, in Syria in 2011, dictator Bashar-al-Assad unleashed military force and chemical weapons against the civilian population’s nonviolent resistance. This resulted in the conflict in Syria being continued for almost 10 years now, and becoming the most brutal civil war the country has ever faced. 

Furthermore, in cases of government repression, the probability of nonviolent resistance being successful is significantly higher than violent resistance succeeding. This is because nonviolent resistance movements tend to take place on a larger scale which makes them more politically representative. This opens up several opportunities for the public to target the regime’s pillars of support. An example of this was when security forces refused to shoot at demonstrations in Serbia in 2000 leading to Otpor, a civic protest group, successfully overthrowing Milošević controlled authorities. 

Movements in the 21st century are quite different from ones in the past due to a lack of strength and knowledge. To elaborate, firstly, the strength in terms of participation is smaller on average as compared with movements in the past. Although there have been recent impressive mass movements such as the protests led by millions of people against the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in 2017 and 2019, they were small compared to successful movements led in the late 1980s and 1990s. In the 1980s,  the average recorded nonviolent campaign involved around 2 percent of the population of any given country. In the 1990s, the average recorded campaign involved around 2.7 percent of any given country’s population. However, since 2010, this average has decreased to 1.3 percent. Although a mass uprising would be more likely to succeed with a larger proportion of the country, Gandhi believed not in the size of the movement but the perseverance and motive the movement was driven by. 

Secondly, contemporary movements o ften tend to rely on mass demonstrations while ignoring other techniques such as mass civil disobedience or general strikes since they forcefully disrupt a regime’s general stability. Since mass demonstrations and protests are what a majority of the population associate with civil resistance, the lack of knowledge leads to lack of results. Satyagraha states that non-cooperation, fasting or voluntary self-suffering in the name of protest is a form of nonviolent resistance. A majority of protestors are willing to get angry and step up to have their voices heard but aren’t willing to suffer for change. We need look no further for an example than the protests due to the US elections that took place in 2020. Protesters were willing to express their anger but were not ready to face violent consequences and casualties. 

Mass demonstrations are unsuccessful in terms of effectiveness since they don’t put much pressure on the elite, especially when they are short term. However, general strikes, and stay-at-home strikes are more effective because of their instant disruptiveness of economic life which can lead to immediate concessions. It takes planning and organization to enable movements that are long term, and to coordinate and sequence unique tactics to build participation, power and influence. Movements with a leader possess the capacity to develop and grow easily. For instance, the Fridays-For-Future movement led by Greta Thunberg, a 15-year-old, is a nonviolent movement for the climate crisis organized by teenagers from all over the world. This movement involves great use of technology for advertisement and funding, making it a fast growing movement. 

Technology can be utilised as a method to promote and better nonviolent movements. For instance, the widespread antiracism protests that took place in the United States because of the killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd at the hands of police officers required a lot of community relief funds and other donations. Social media was a great factor in making sure the nonviolent protest continued. Although online methods of protests do not make up for the eye-catching media content in the way mass movements do, they represent a new method of tactical innovation. Movements have developed the ability to be self-sufficient using tools like social media to gain power and leverage. The use of technology also increases opportunities for the public to participate in different ways. For instance, elderly people and people who are not present for the strike can make donations to support a cause. Gandhi referred to this as a “constructive program” and considered it a part of Satyagraha. 

Nonviolent movements like Fridays-For-Future, the Sunrise Movement and Extinction Rebellion can still work towards combating climate change on an online platform. Technology gives movements the power to take place in different ways and this is extremely crucial considering the present situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. In spite of the pandemic, 2020 and 2021 have seen some great nonviolent protests, which displays the flexibility of Satyagraha and Ahimsa. 

Nonviolent forms of resistance have transformed over time, however, their motive at heart has been the same – to overthrow injustice and end violations of human rights. Modern day society is driven by the idea of instant gratification, which seeks instant results. Mass demonstrations performed in the modern day are significantly shorter compared to those that took place in the past, but this has not affected their effectiveness. As Gandhi states, “there is no time-limit for a Satyagrahi nor is there a limit to his capacity for suffering. Hence there is no such thing as defeat in Satyagraha” (“Power of Satyagraha”). Mass movements are dispersed and solved faster in today’s world because of increased media attention and the strength the public hold against any regime. The prevalence of now near-endless resources for acquiring knowledge on non-violent resistance has increased significantly amongst the public ever since 1990, which makes movements more efficient and effective. As an example, Gene Sharp, also known as the father of strategic nonviolence and the founder of the Albert Einstein Institution has formulated a paper with 198 methods of nonviolent action, which has toppled dictators on four different continents. 

Satyagraha is a fluid concept with endless possibilities for interpretation and execution. Gandhi made sure this concept has no limitations like race, religion, or nationality. As an example of how Satyagraha is not limited by race, Martin Luther King Jr, o ften also labelled as “American Gandhi” was successfully able to replicate Gandhi’s theory of Satyagraha. King perceived Satyagraha as a process, never an achievement (Jahanbegloo). Although King was deeply influenced by factors like his religion and nationality, his two main tactics for non-violent resistance were civil disobedience and non-cooperation – which were influenced by Gandhi’s ideas on Satyagraha. This example represents the power of nonviolent resistance and how successful it can be if used right. 

In the same light, Nelson Mandela carried out a nonviolent movement against injustice and repression from 1948 to the 1990s in South Africa while embodying Gandhian values. Mandela states, “there is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountain top of desires” (Jahanbegloo). Mandela exceptionally symbolized the values and methods of Satyagraha as his movement went beyond colour, creed, and class. When Mandela was elected president in 1994, South Africa began to overlook their own problems like humiliation and violence to heal the country from the national and racial divide. It was essential to utilise effective nonviolent methods to defeat the brutal and racist apartheid and construct a legitimate, democratic government. Mandela wanted to establish harmony in South Africa through practising nonviolence. But in order to achieve this, he knew Africa had to look back at its brutal past and heal. 

Mandela said, “to make peace with an enemy, one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes your partner” (Jahanbegloo). This quote, models Mandela’s approach to Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence. It took a while for communities in Africa to understand and execute Mandela’s vision of nonviolence as a process of nation building. However, Mandela’s execution of Gandhi’s philosophy has become a catalyst for the acceptance of nonviolent forms of action across the world in the 21st century. Mandela strengthened Gandhism by engaging in movements directed towards civic participation and democracy. 

In conclusion, Satyagraha is a way of human understanding rather than a political tool. It is driven by a pure sense for justice and love. Although its ways of execution have transformed over time, the main idea still remains the same. The development of technology has improved the means of execution for change and has made it more accessible to the public. Gandhi’s philosophy was written in a way that it could be relevant regardless of the time frame. Nonviolence is an effective tool for solving contemporary injustices effectively. Since Satyagraha possesses qualities that do not have any boundaries regarding race, nationality or age, it makes it easy for anyone to execute in the modern world. 

Works Cited 

“Brief Outline of Gandhi's Philosophy.” Brief Outline of Gandhi's Philosophy | Articles on and by Mahatma Gandhi, www.mkgandhi.org/articles/murphy.htm. 

“The Gospel of Non-Violence.” The Gospel of Non-Violence | Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap21.htm#:~:text=Non%2Dviolence%20is%20the%20l aw,but%20that%20of%20physical%20might. 

Murphy, Stephen. 'Why Gandhi Is Relevant in Modern India: A WESTERN Gandhian's Personal Discovery', Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1991. 

“My Fasts.” My Fasts | Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap06.htm. 

Chenoweth, Erica. “The Future of Nonviolent Resistance.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 31, no. 3, July 2020, pp. 69–84., doi:10.1353/jod.2020.0046. 

“Power of Satyagraha.” Power of Satyagraha | Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap34.htm. 

Jahanbegloo, Ramin. “How Satyagraha Still Drives Change Globally.” Mint, 16 Oct. 2018, www.livemint.com/Politics/AeKzn7TXUJNXKSoLF6wpVN/How-Satyagraha-still-drives-c hange-globally.html. 

Edited by the Out of Print team