Gandhi's 9/11 Avijit Ghosh [ 9 Sep, 2006 2240hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
When Osama bin Laden's men slammed aeroplanes into New York's Twin Towers on September 11, the day's abbreviated form, 9/11, immediately became shorthand for violence. And five years down the line, it continues to be so.
Few remember that the same day — 9/11 — was actually synonymous with non-violence. Exactly 100 years ago — September 11, 1906, to be precise — this day also marked the birth of satyagraha, although the term itself was coined at a later date (see box).
Over the next century, satyagraha — which literally means the force born of truth and love or non-violence — has been put to test in different political theatres around the globe.
In his book, Gandhi as Disciple and Mentor, political scientist Thomas Weber writes about its influence on world leaders such as Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama and Lech Walesa.
Back home, Vinoba Bhave's Bhoodan movement and his efforts at making Chambal dacoits surrender, and Sunderlal Bahuguna's Chipko movement are a few examples of Gandhian methods being applied with success in varying degrees.
The recent Bollywood hit Lage Raho Munna Bhai, where Gandhi-giri is put to test, also demonstrates that satyagraha still has the power to move people. And yet it is the violent 9/11 that occupies the mind space of the majority.
The question that immediately arises is: In the backdrop of rising terrorism and with nation-states themselves becoming more violent and oppressive, could satyagraha still be used as a method to attain larger political goals?
Historians and political scientists believe satyagraha can be effective even today. But they also point out that the process is time-consuming and that the satyagrahi's opponent must possess a conscience.
Because, as historian B R Nanda points out, in the ultimate analysis, "satyagraha is a battle for the opponent's mind." He illustrates the Gandhi effect on one of his opponents.
When Gandhi left South Africa for good in 1914 after spending 21 years there, the man at the receiving end of his campaigns, General Jan Smuts said: "The saint has left the shore. Thank God, forever." Several decades later, Smuts was a member of the Churchill war cabinet.
During a meeting, the British PM is said to have called Gandhi a quisling, a synonym for traitor. Smuts countered it saying that Gandhi was one of the greatest men on earth. "That's the long-term effect of satyagraha," says Nanda.
Historian Bipan Chandra and political scientist Imtiaz Ahmed believe satyagraha works primarily when the opponent has a conscience or moral fibre. Gandhi himself was aware that satyagraha may not work against dictatorship. Chandra recounts an incident to make his point.
In 1937, a Chinese delegation meeting Gandhi asked him how they could fight Japanese aggression through a non-violent struggle. Gandhi replied that such a struggle requires long training and that they should go back and counter aggression the way they knew best.
"In violence, you attack the enemy. Non-violence appeals to the conscience of the enemy. It is not anti-opponent. Satyagraha aims at stirring up the finer side of the opponent," says Chandra.
The logical question that follows is: Would Gandhian methods work today against Bin Laden's terrorism or George Bush's neo-imperialism? According to Ahmed, satyagraha anticipates coming face to face with the opponent.
Gandhi always worked from the centre of political action. However, Al-Qaida operates from a distant, isolationist position making it impossible to counter it through satyagraha. "Osama may be acceptable to many Muslims.
But he neither has the skill nor the moral fibre to mobilise Muslims as a political force to wage a non-violent struggle against US imperialism," says Ahmed. However, he believes that given the right leadership, satyagraha can be successful against the Bush regime.
"If satyagraha worked against the British, why can't it work against the US?" Ahmed also feels that ultimately the US failure to control Iraq is due to its inability to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
"More than the insurgency, it is the silent resistance of the common Iraqi that is the biggest worry of the US. And it is this struggle that could ultimately lead to US withdrawal," he says.
In that sense, another version of Gandhi's non-cooperation movement continues in Iraq.