Conflict Resolution: Gene Sharp’s Reflections on Gandhi’s Nonviolent Method

- By Varalakshmi Moganty^*

Prof. Gene Sharp, a social scientist of our times, is a staunch believer in democracy and human freedom. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee (2009, 2012, and 2013) and a Right Livelihood awardee, and is one who propagated nonviolent resolution to attain political freedom from dictatorial governments. As a young student, he wrote his M.A. thesis, Nonviolence: A Sociological Study (1951), a study on the methods of nonviolence. Sharp’s seminal work Gandhi wields the weapon of moral power in 1960; other early works, Gandhi Faces the Storm (1961) and “The Meaning of Nonviolence” (1967), depict Sharp’s understanding of Gandhi and praise of Gandhi for his moral primacy for conflict resolution; Sharp finds Gandhi’s satyagraha was based on inner conviction and was more effective than non-violence practiced as a temporary policy. However, Gene Sharp in his later works, despite his due acknowledgement to Gandhi’s words and methods, had tried to show him as a political strategist. Sharp appraises Gandhi by saying that he had made a unique contribution in combining nonviolence as a principle with the technique and strategy to meet social conflicts. Sharp was more fascinated by Gandhi when satyagraha was implemented as a political tool; and also when Gandhi identified sources of power of the ‘ruler’ that lie actually in the hands of the ‘ruled’ due to their passive submission to the ruler. Still further Sharp’s works like Waging nonviolent revolution (2005) depict nonviolent action as one that does not depend on the assumption that ‘people have to be pacifists or saints’ or that “people are inherently good” (Sharp, 2005). Yet, we find, that Gene Sharp firmly believes in nonviolent political action, to resolve any conflict, in all his works. Thus it is evident that Gene Sharp’s understanding of Gandhi takes various phases in order to translate his own idea of nonviolent revolution; rather in his own words “improvised nonviolent revolution”. Hence, while going through Gene Sharp’s works one has to evaluate Gene Sharp’s early considerations for Gandhi’s moral primacy and convergence with Gandhi’s idea of nonviolent conflict resolution and Sharp’s transition from Gandhi. However Gene Sharp, through his work, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation (2002), influenced some nonviolent revolutions in Serbia, Egypt and other places. Thus there is a need to understand ‘the significant Sharp’ as well as ‘the significant Gandhi’ in view of today’s world, of different and peculiar conflicts rooted in political hegemonies and other dominant natures of mankind as against, the ideal and humane world we cherish in Gandhian lines to live peacefully. Further to Gandhi peace is attained at various levels of nonviolent conflict resolution; negotiation; legal action; satyagraha and through constructive programme. Hence one has to look at conflict resolution as the avoidance of, violence, destruction and anticipated conflicts related with various issues such as educational violence, economic violence, rural deprivation and other deprivations that have answers in Gandhi’s constructive programme. However Gene Sharp’s techniques too nevertheless help resolve any dispute even without a moral basis. In this backdrop the present paper attempts to discuss reflections of Gene Sharp on Gandhi’s nonviolent resolutions.

Gandhi experienced the sense of nonviolence and learnt his first lesson in “ahmisa” through the forgivingness of his father expressed in the form of tears, when he confessed his theft to his father in his childhood: “Those pearl-drops of love cleansed my heart, and washed my sin away. Only he who has experienced such love can know what it is. As the hymn says: Only he who is smitten with arrows of love, knows its power. This for me, is an object lesson in Ahimsa. Then I could read in it was pure Ahimsa. When such Ahimsa all-embracing, it transforms everything it touches. There is no limit to its power” (Gandhi, 1927, p.24).

It is due to this love for fellow humans Gandhi observed nonviolence; experimented with nonviolence and was successful. To him nonviolence works in various ways; as a regulative principle; as resistance to violence in day-to-day life and as a civil resistance in South Africa; legal action in Champaran; as civil disobedience during Indian independence and as penance to God and fast unto death to see fraternity among Hindu-Muslims. Gandhi’s constructive programme is proactive and also corrective; educational measures for children and women, village hygiene and sanitation are some instances where the process of nonviolent action is inclusive of these measures in order to achieve effective results. Gandhi’s nonviolence is not limited to mankind alone but is pervasive to the global life of diverse beings.

While Gandhi understood nonviolence in a comprehensive way, to Sharp, though fascinated by Gandhi’s nonviolent method in his early works in terms of moral power to yield political goals, his later works depict some kind of transition from the moral basis of understanding. In the process, Sharp’s improvised form of nonviolent action is meant for practical purposes not necessarily with moral reference. While expediency is the need of the hour, in view of the high rate of peculiar forms of violence to self and others in the current world, we need to look at, not only the external ‘political dictator’ who exercises violence or repression but also the ‘internal dictator’ who deliberately kills the conscience of the self and operates violent actions. While political freedom is the root of all freedoms and also a powerful tool for the growth of individuals and states, it is also an appropriate dilemma as to what the democratic and liberal nations are doing against violence in their societies, in the form of economic exploitation, wage differentials, social exclusion; sexual violence and other development divides. To Gandhi nonviolence is effective when it is understood as an inner conviction; developed due to one’s knowledge and wisdom. In fact, Gene Sharp while he was young could understand Gandhi’s nonviolence in all its dimensions but he transited to find nonviolent action as a political action.

This paper tries to understand reflections of Sharp in terms of his early understanding of Gandhi, his transition and relevance and the popularity of his expedient nonviolent actions for the fall of dictatorial democracies through his “improvised nonviolent revolution” and other aspects needed for discussion.

Young Sharp on Gandhi’s Nonviolence: Weapon of Moral Power

Gene Sharp’s works mainly, Gandhi Wields the Weapon of Moral Power (Three case stories), 1960, Gandhi Faces the Storm, 1961 and “A Study of the Meanings of Nonviolence”, 1967 are some sources of this perspective. The three cases dealt with Gandhi wields the weapon of moral power are: Gandhi in Champaran, 1917-18; Gandhi and independence campaign, 1930-31 and Gandhi Fast at death, 1948. To Sharp’s Gandhi wields the weapon of moral power Albert Einstein wrote a foreword where he expressed his reverence to Gandhi:

“...He [Gene Sharp] considers it his bounden duty to serve a cause with all power and without flinching from any sacrifice, a cause which was clearly embodied in Gandhi’s unique personality: to overcome, by means of the awakening of moral forces, the danger of self-destruction by which humanity is threatened through breath-taking technical developments”(Sharp, 1960,p.v).

Sharp says that ‘Gandhi’s philosophy of life and his method of opposing evil are both called “satyagraha” and it is important for us to see this method to fight evil (Sharp, 1960,p.3 ). To Sharp Gandhi is, basically a man of action and his thinking and philosophy were never static; and is one who aimed at the attainment of truth through love and right actions (Sharp, 1960,p.4). Sharp strongly believed that we can learn about the weapon of moral power from a study of case histories on Gandhi’s methods that “we have forgotten in an age of so many other powers: military, mechanical, atomic, governmental and economic”; and, that “the weapon of moral power” would “help us to save ourselves and build a new world” (Sharp, 1960,p.9). Dr. Bharatan Kumarappa in his introduction to Gene Sharp’s work (1960) on how Gandhi worked following his moral principles held:

“His [Gandhi’s] way was the one taught by the Prophets, not of striking the opponent down, but of winning him over by an appeal to his reason and conscience through selfless devotion to a righteous cause, self-suffering and love. He took seriously Buddha’s instruction to overcome hatred by love and Jesus’ teaching to love your enemy. He imbibed the Hindu teaching of centuries of the marvellous spiritual values of self-suffering. His genius lay in blind faith in these principles and ruthless application of them in practice” (Sharp, 1960, p.vii).

Sharp on Gandhi’s conception of Satyagrahi:

Sharp in his work (1960), explains some of the qualities of a satyagrahi as detailed by Gandhi. Accordingly, satyagrahi is one, ‘who seeks constantly life of truth and love’; turns the searchlight inward’; lives so that “he does not wrong to his fellow men through exploitation, oppression, violence and other means”. And satyagrahi is one who “looks upon all as his brothers”. Further, he reiterates Gandhi’s words that ‘cowardice and satyagraha’ as contradictory words and also ‘fear and love’ as contradictory to each other. Further about satyagrahi Sharp details, as one, who appeals to common sense and morality of his adversary through word, purity, humility, honesty and self-suffering; also one who holds to the “truth and refuses to compromise on basic moral issues in the face of punishment, persecution, and infliction of suffering on him”(Sharp, 1960,p.4 ).

Sharp understands various dimensions of Gandhi. The three facets of satyagraha he detailed in terms of Gandhi’s weapon of moral power are:

• Constructive programme
• Direct Action
• Inner conviction (Sharp, 1960, pp. 5-8)

Gandhi’s Satyagraha as Constructive Programme:

To Sharp satyagraha is a positive programme for social reconstruction and it is undertaken in the spirit of service. He meticulously reinterprets how constructive programme is linked with satyagraha. Thus Gandhi’s satyagrahi is supposed to take up a constructive programme to build a new social order by voluntary constructive work when he is not engaged with direct action, satyagraha. And such a constructive programme is inclusive; removes untouchability and establishes unity among religions. Constructive programme also deals with decentralized economic production and distribution; village sanitation; adult education; rights of women; preservation of native languages; economic equality; work with peasants; education in health and hygiene; nonviolent labour unions; work with hill tribes; care of lepers; and work with students and also with abolition of the use of intoxicants and narcotics (Sharp, 1960,p.5). Sharp’s preference to constructive programme is better expressed when he said:

“...Constructive work can be purer than nonviolent struggle because it leaves no room for hypocrisy, compulsion or violence. The programme gradually builds up the structure of a new non-violent society, while direct action is used to remove parts of the old structures which are blocks to the building of the new” (Sharp, 1960, p.6).

Satyagraha as direct action against social evils:

Gene Sharp rightly observes another side of satyagraha and its significance as direct action. Sharp justifies direct action by saying:

“There often arise social evils which require direct and active challenging for their removal. These may be the result of social tradition and lethargy. Or they may be the result of intentional policies of the government, the economic powers-that-be, or some other social group or individual. These specific social evils and blocks in the progress of the constructive programme require the application of the values of satyagraha to conflicts” (Sharp, 1960,p.6).

Satyagraha as inner conviction:

Referring to Gandhi’s words on “nonviolence of the weak” Sharp holds that “most of the campaigns in India were of this type”. Sharp says so, because, those who participated in the campaign are not “believers in non-violence as a matter of principle”. Sharp is convinced that [Gandhi’s] satyagrahi is one who has “discipline and plans” in his hands (Sharp, 1960, p.6). Sharp further said that Gandhi, later in his life, “came to the conclusion that to be truly effective, nonviolence should be a matter of inner conviction, applied to all areas of life” and that this conviction Gandhi called “non-violence of the brave” (Sharp, 1960, p.6). Further Sharp says: “… . If the participants in a campaign are limited to believers in the non-violence of the brave, the leader will have a much smaller number but more reliable and effective participants in the campaign”(Sharp, 1960, p. 7). Sharp recalls, Gandhi’s rules prescribed for participants; on the need to, purify themselves through such ways as prayer, meditation, fasting, or remaining in their own homes for a day before the campaign begins and also Gandhi’s emphasis on the need to pledge to serve only truth and love, with satyagraha (Sharp, 1960, p. 8).

Sharp on Gandhi’s method of Satyagraha:

Gene Sharp explains that once satyagrahi determines that the injustice is to be removed, he tries to solve the problem by negotiating and if no solution is reached he would proceed for direct action. Sharp also says that a satyagrahi generally plans “his campaign and its strategy and tactics very carefully” for direction “before the period of negotiation” (Sharp, 1960, p.7). Thus “in case of failure of negotiation”, the next step is, “to involve groups of people, in contrast to satyagrahi’s own individual action” (Sharp, 1960, p.7).

Sharp on Techniques of Satyagrahi:

A satygrahi has to follow certain steps of Gandhi such as, “a careful and adequate organization” “group discipline”; “publicizing the injustice and the issues involved, using techniques of pamphlets, books, catchy songs, slogans, personal contacts, public speeches, group meetings, debates, discussions, radio and movies (where possible) and later mass meetings, public resolutions, abstention from work, colourful publicity and symbols”(Sharp, 1960,p.7). Other techniques include, “the hartal (a temporary work stoppage to purify the participants and to strike the imagination of the people and the opponent); peaceful picketing; economic boycotts undertaken in the spirit of self-purification; non-payment of taxes, rents, etc.; hirjat (migration from the territory of the oppressing State) ; non-violent non-co-operation with the opponent, practices in varying degrees; social boycotts of those persons actively cooperating with oppressor (under taken in the spirit of love with neither desire nor result of harm to the boycotted persons); civil disobedience of immoral laws and orders; and the satyagrahic fast, either limited or unto death (either being of limited application and involving strict qualifications and conditions)”, details Sharp (Sharp, 1960,p.8).

Sharp on moral rationale for Gandhi’s unhappiness:

Sharp held that when the Direct Action Day on August 15, 1946, resulted in four days of savage riots in Calcutta, where 5,000 were killed and 15000 wounded as per official estimates “Gandhi was filled with shame and humiliation over all the events”. See Sharp’s reference to the Bombay riots early in 1946 when Gandhi said:

“...See what is happening in Bombay – the Bombay where I have passed so much time, which has given the public causes so much money and which, I had thought, had fairly imbibed something of Ahimsa [[love and non-violence]]. Will it prove the burial ground of Ahmisa?”(Gandhi, in Non-violence in Peace and War, Vol. II, p. 42 cited., Sharp, 1961, p. 8).

Further, Sharp referring to the days of partition said: “The riots had not ended with partition. From August to December 1947 murder, arson, and looting were common. ...Hindus and Sikhs were leaving Pakistan, and Muslims were leaving India. Refugees poured across borders on foot”(Sharp, 1961,p.11). Sharp refers to the state of mind of Gandhi:

“I would prefer to die rather than live in an India where such brutalities are practiced”(Mellor, Andrew, India since Partition, p, 64, cited., Sharp, 1961,p.11).

Restoration of peace held in Individuals:

Sharp’s early understanding seems that he had the right perceptions of Indians and Gandhi: “Even though the happenings in India were so disastrous, they had to be seen in perspective”(Sharp, 1961,p.62). He added: “If need to be, one had to stand alone. Sharp said:

“During Gandhi’s efforts to stop Noakhali, at the breaking of the Delhi fast and many other times, Tagore’s favourite song that Gandhi loved very much was sung, “If no one responds to your call, walk alone,” [Gandhi, in Non-violence in Peace and War, Vol. II, cited., Sharp, 1961, p. 63]. That was exactly what one often had to do if he knew deep inside that he was right. Eventually, a few might begin to understand and in time many would see that way” (Sharp, 1961, p.63).

Further Sharp insists on this moral duty of nonviolent action: “Did the job seem difficult? If it did, it was because of man’s inertia. The universal rules of conduct were really simple and easy to apply, Gandhi felt, if the desire was there. If men were to live, they had to increasingly come under the sway of non-violence (Sharp, 1961, p. 67).

Gandhi as nonviolent political strategist: A transition in Sharp

It is evident that Gandhi aimed at a nonviolent conflict resolution to resolve any social conflict. While the research question here is whether Sharp agrees with the moral basis of this political action at present, Sharp himself starts his discussion:

“One of the most important of these problems is that whether or not nonviolent action as a political technique is separable from belief systems which stress nonviolence as a moral principle. Or does the acceptance of nonviolent action as a political technique is separable from belief systems which stress nonviolence as a moral principle” (Sharp, 1979, p.273).

Thus he gives us two views in this regard; one view [Sharp did not give any reference to these views] is that, “without a belief in nonviolence as an ethical imperative it is impossible to maintain necessary nonviolent discipline in face of repression, or that nonviolent actionist will lack necessary courage. Another view is that the technique and belief system are separable in view of the substitution of nonviolence for war and political violence (Sharp, 1979, p.273). Sharp was of the opinion that, though discussed this problem repeatedly, “he [Gandhi] never attempted to provide a systematic analysis of the factors and influences involved in it” (Sharp, 1979, p.275). At the same time, Sharp said, that “Gandhi had a lasting significance, however not only for his role in the history of India and the world, but also for his challenge to established political tenets”. Further, he said: “In many ways, we have already moved beyond Gandhi. Yet, we will be able to do so far more ably if we seek to learn as much as possible from the thought experience of this man, who was, without doubt, one of the most remarkable political strategists”(Sharp, 1979, p. xvii).

When we find Sharp understands Gandhi’s, nonviolence as a moral weapon we further find a different understanding and the possibility to revise his ‘earlier judgments’. To Sharp, the homage we pay to Gandhi as “Mahatma” – the great-souled one – usually becomes a kind of vaccination against taking him seriously (Sharp, 1979, p.2). According to Sharp, Gandhi was “an experimenter in the development of “War without violence”. Sharp cites examples of when Gandhi did not support the Second World War and when he did not support military action in Kashmir. Hence, says, Sharp, Gandhi’s “efficacy of the nonviolent action was not always convincing to hard-headed realists”[Sharp had not mentioned the names of these hard-headed realists](Sharp, 1979,p.4 ). Sharp also remarks, on how Gandhi’s picture and name were widely used by the Congress Party in the election campaign. Also, Sharp mentions, when Gandhi on “the day before his assassination drafted a proposal for abolishing the Congress” and “suggested a constitution for converting it in to an association for voluntary work to build a nonviolent society and guide India’s development from outside the Government”. In view of these facts, Sharp suggests that Gandhi must be evaluated on the basis of his own outlook and his own policies (Sharp, 1979, p. 5).

Sharp on Gandhi’s own evaluation of nonviolent action:

To Gene Sharp, while examining Gandhi it is essential to be familiar with his own evaluations both of the “nonviolence” that preached and also of that he held in local and national uprisings (Sharp, 1979, p.89). Sharp in order to establish Gandhi as a political strategist cites many instances of ‘Gandhi’s own evaluation of ‘nonviolent action’ during and after some of his nonviolent struggles. Some of these are cited in the following lines.

Sharp opines that Gandhi’s growing sense of alienation during approaching independence which was associated with incidents such as the plight of peasants; the offer by the Indian National Congress to fight militarily on the side of the British during World War II in a bargain for independence and western-type of industrialization made him feel personal inadequacy(Sharp, 1979, pp. 89-90). He refers to Gandhi: “It [nonviolence] is as likely as not that a fitter instrument will be used to carry it [[the divine purpose]] out and that I was good enough to represent a weak nation, not a strong one. May it not be that a man purer, more courageous, more far-seeing is wanted for the final purpose”(Harijan, 12 October 1946 and Nonviolence in Peace and War, II, p. 321, cited., Sharp,1979,p.90 ). Sharp cites Gandhi’s own words when Gandhi in May 1947, on riots in Bengal, Bihar, and Punjab: “it is just an indication that as we are throwing off the foreign yoke all the dirt and froth is coming to the surface”(Harijan, 8 June; Nonviolence in Peace and War, II, p. 258 cited. Sharp, 1979, p. 101).

Further reference to Gandhi’s words added: “Now that the British were voluntarily quitting India, apparent non-violence had gone to pieces in a moment the attitude of violence which we had scarcely harboured, in spite of the restraint imposed by Indian National congress, now recoiled upon as and made us fly at each other’s throats when the question of the distribution of power came up”(Harijan, 31 August; Nonviolence in Peace and War, II, p. 289 cited. Sharp, 1979, p.102). And also that, “it was because their struggle was not nonviolent, that they today witnessed loot, arson and murder”(Harijan, 27 July; Nonviolence in Peace and War, II, p.277, cited., Sharp, 102). Further Sharp carefully used Gandhi’s expression especially when Gandhi ‘saw the Indian’s expedient use of the nonviolent technique in an unfavorable light’: “but their non-violence I must confess was born of their helplessness. Therefore, it was the weapon of the weak” (Harijan, 4 August; Nonviolence in Peace and War, II, p.132 cited. Sharp, p.99). Sharp also cites Gandhi:

“I have frankly and fully admitted that what we practiced during the past thirty years was not non-violent resistance but passive resistance which only the weak offer because they are unable, not unwilling, to offer armed resistance”(Harijan, 27 July 1947; Nonviolence in Peace and War, II, p.132 cited., Sharp, p.99).

When Gandhi used the term nonviolence of the weak, Sharp contends that it as a highly questionable term, for, not only it has strong emotional overtones but it ceases due to forces beyond control (Sharp, 1979, p.113) Interestingly Sharp further contends that when the earlier nonviolent action is born out of their helplessness, expedient nonviolent action was not the weapon of the weak because it born out of “a new determination and ability” (Sharp, 1979, p.114). Sharp held, “Gandhi explained his advocacy of limited nonviolence for achieving political objectives in those terms, and at other times he explained it in part of his own spiritual imperfections”. Hence, Sharp cited Gandhi:

“However, being a practical man, I do not wait till India recognizes the practicality of the spiritual life in the political world. India considers herself to be powerless and paralysed before the machine guns, tanks and the aeroplanes of the English and takes up non-cooperation out of her weakness. It must still serve the same purpose; namely, bring her delivery from the crushing weight of British injustices, if a sufficient number of people practice it (Young India, 30 July 1931; Nonviolence in Peace and War, I, p. 3, cited., Sharp, p. 278).

Sharp further refers to Gandhi when he said: “I could not have done otherwise if I was to introduce it into politics. In South Africa too I introduced it as an expedient. It was successful…. I have no sense of disappointment in me over the results obtained. If I had started with imperfect as I am, I started with imperfect men and women and sailed on an uncharted ocean. Thank God that, though the boat has not reached its heaven, it has proved fairly stormproof” (Harijan, 12, April, 1942; Nonviolence in Peace and War I, p. 396, cited., Sharp, p.279). Sharp further held that “in the light of these various insights from Gandhi, it is possible that the usual formulations of the problem of the relationship of the nonviolent moral principle and the nonviolent political technique often distort their real relationship and therefore hinder rather than assist finding a solution(Sharp, 1979, p.305). Sharp in the backdrop of such references seems to conclude “Gandhi’s assumption that people having once seen and experienced the practicality of the nonviolent technique in one situation would easily accept the universality of ethic and political technique was demonstrated not to be correct. This does not mean, however, that the practical development and demonstration of the technique was of no help in the wider efforts to remove political violence and to gain acceptance for nonviolent ethics” (Sharp, 1979, p.304). However Sharp said further:

“If the universal ethic is in fact valid, the progressive development of the practical application of nonviolent means in social and political life may thus finally proceed to the point at which the supposed conflict between loyalty to the nonviolent ethic and political practicality is dissolved into a mere advanced analysis”( Sharp, 1979, p.306)

Sharp’s improvised nonviolent revolution

As we understood from the above discussion, Gene Sharp’s conception of nonviolence had been changing. However his method of conflict resolution is nonviolent. Look at Sharp when he said: “A careful study of M.K.Gandhi’s thinking on power, strategy, and nonviolent struggle was exceptionally important and continues to influence my insights into this type of conflict. Equal or greater influence, however, has come from learning more about the practice of pragmatic nonviolent struggle in other parts of the world, especially Europe” (Gene Sharp, 2005, p.4).

Sharp also said:

“...My serious studies of this phenomenon began in 1949. My master’s thesis in sociology at Ohio State University in 1951 opened my exploration of this field. However, conclusions presented in this volume were reached slowly and incrementally, as a result of more than fifty years of study, observation, and reflection about the practice of nonviolent struggle and thought about its relevance and potential purposes. Some of my earlier perceptions about nonviolent action have over the years have been modified, rejected and even reversed” (Sharp, 2005, p.3-4).

Nonviolence: A technique not principle:

Gene Sharp in his further works expressed that an understanding of the term “nonviolence and its use generally is, confused. When people used terms like “nonviolent resistance”, “political defiance”, “nonviolence”, “people power”, and “civil resistance” these are inappropriate some times (Sharp, 2005,p.20). Sharp’s list of movements where nonviolence is used as a technique is exhaustive. Some of these include the military dictators of El Salvador and Guatemala ousted in 1944; the American civil rights struggles in 1950 and 1960; Non-cooperation by French conscript soldiers in 1961; Solidarity struggle in Poland in 1989 and some of the recent movements like OTPOR resistance in 2000 in Serbia and others (Sharp, 2005, pp. 17-18). Hence nonviolence is used in most times not due to the belief but was appreciated and followed due to its effectiveness as a technique according to Gene Sharp.

Nonviolent struggle as pragmatic choice:

Sharp in later times also evinces “nonviolent struggle” as identified by what people do, but not by what they believe (Sharp, 2005, p.19) and cases such as labor strikes are done only in a “particular situation only”. This is not based on the belief but due to imitation or due to the “anticipated effectiveness” (Sharp, 2005, p.20). Present Sharp, continues to this conception on the pragmatic choice, and we find many such expressions in recent times. Note also when he said: “It is worth noting that some believers in “principled violence” have even rejected nonviolent struggle because it was a way to wage conflict in which they did not believe”(Sharp, 2005, foot note 2, p.20). Sharp reiterates:

“Nonviolent action does not depend on the assumption that people are inherently “good”; potentialities of people for both “good” and “evil” are recognized”; “There is nothing in nonviolent action to prevent from being used both for “good” and “bad” causes”; and “Nonviolent action is not limited to domestic conflicts within the democratic system. It has been widely used against powerful governments, foreign occupiers, despotic regimes, tyrannical governments, ruthless dictators and totalitarian governments” (Sharp, 2005, pp.22-23).

Of Human nature and practice of nonviolence:

Sharp contends that it is a widespread practice that nonviolent struggle is against human nature and would require fundamental change or a new ideological belief system; such views are not supported by the reality of the past where nonviolence had been used as a technique. Sharp also rejects such views of nonviolence as a belief in “turning the other cheek” or loving one’s enemies. Instead, this technique is more based on the undeniable capacity of human beings’ stubbornness irrespective of their beliefs in the use or nonuse of nonviolence. And this technique is compatible with the nature of political power and vulnerabilities of all hierarchical systems (Sharp, 2005, p.22-23).

The Technique and Dynamics of Nonviolent Action:

Sharp’s aim is to understand the concept of nonviolence thoroughly and present it in a systemic way. In view of present world where “violence shapes our societies in many ways through wars, dictatorships, social oppression, genocide, political assassinations and terrorism” Sharp wanted to study and see nonviolence and its method as an “alternative to the use of violence” (Sharp, 2005, p.1). Nonviolence as a method against oppression is used when an opponent uses his power over the other person or group of persons. Sharp studies the nature of this power gained and exercised by one person or a group of persons over others. Through his improvised nonviolent method, Sharp suggests steps to resist oppressive power and to ensure one’s rights and to establish democratic societies. The first step is to “identification of sources of power”. This power generally rests in authority; in human resources and skills and knowledge in certain intangible factors like psychological and ideological; also in material resources and in certain sanctions punishments are used (Sharp, 2005, pp. 29-30). As a further step, Sharp advises to explore on “Why do people obey the authority? Sharp explores the reasons as multiple, complex, variable, and interrelated; can be identified in people’s habits, fear of punishment; moral obligation; self-interest; psychological identification with the ruler; indifference and in the absence of self-confidence to disobey (Sharp, 2005, p.32). From here he discusses on “factors controlling the political power”. The degree of the liberty of tyranny in any government for the large part, in the words of Sharp is “a reflection of the relative determination of the population to be free and their willingness and ability to resist efforts to enslave them”(Sharp, 2005, p.36). Ultimately it is people’s will for “self-liberation” and “to act to ensure their freedom and rights” that shape their own society . To achieve this, some efforts to change the hearts of the oppressed who are weak in their determination is essential according to Sharp. In this context he refers to Gandhi: “Indian independence leader Mohandas K. Gandhi emphasized the importance of change and will and a change of attitude as prerequisites for a change in patterns of obedience and cooperation” (Sharp, 2005, p.37).

Sharp identifies the dynamics of nonviolent action as a political ju-jitsu that operates among three broad groups, “the general grievance group”, “the opponent’s usual supporters” like, the general population, opponent’s functionaries, administrators and top-level officials and “the uncommitted third parties” on the local or world level”(Sharp, 2005, p.406). The success of nonviolent struggle is based on how these groups respond to nonviolent struggle. Hence an increase in support for grievance groups plays in the political ju-jitsu (Sharp, 2005, p.207). The whole nonviolent process and opponents' methods to stop their noncooperation and “nonviolent struggle against repression creates a special, asymmetrical, conflict situation” where the repression of the opponent “will not necessarily succeed in stiffing the resistance”. And Sharp held that some of the nonviolent struggles, though not all, can make use of this asymmetry on a political level. The way of using this symmetry is thus comparable to the Ju-jitsu of Japanese martial arts where the “attacker’s violent thrust is not met with physical blockage or a counter-thrust” but makes the opponent to lose his balance and fall forward by pulling him forward “in the same direction the attacker has already started to strike”. Similarly, in political-ju-jitsu the opponent’s violent attack is not met with counter-violence, instead, it is met with nonviolent defiance. According to Sharp, this process makes nonviolent resistance stronger where the strength of the opponent is violence (Sharp, 2005, pp.405-6). Further in the political struggle too, the oppressive power of the authority will be weakened and this is based on the degree that the population, ‘repudiates the moral right of the current rulers to rule; disobeys, non-cooperates, and refuses to assist the rulers’; ‘declines to supply the skills and knowledge required by the rulers’ and ‘denies the rulers’ control over administration, property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, communication, and transportation’ (Sharp, 2005, p. 38).

Further Sharp stresses on the factors essential for the impact of the third party on the conflict. These are: one, the status of nature – national or international dissension and opposition to repression; second the nature of opponents and their sensitivity to third parties and their dependency on the third parties. Third is the aftermath actions of third parties when their opinions are changed against that include, public protests, declarations, and demonstrations that supplement the resistance. And the fourth factor is the shift in opinion and support and encouragement they give to the nonviolent resisters till they win (Sharp, 2005, p.411-412).

The dynamics of nonviolent struggle end up by achieving success through four ways: conversion, accommodation, nonviolent coercion and disintegration. Conversion of the opponent results because of rational and or emotional changes in the opponent’s thinking. Sharp also says many a practitioner of nonviolent reject conversion believing that as impractical (Sharp, 2005, p.416-7). Accommodation is a process of nonviolent struggle where the opponents do not convert themselves but resolve to grant the demands and adjust with opponents [nonviolent resisters] in order to avoid long repression and nuisance. Nonviolent conversion results from widespread noncooperation from opponents of all sources of power mentioned earlier as authority, human resources, and material sources such as transport, communication and other sources. Further, the opponent’s ability to apply sanctions against resistance; from police or military forces too, gets reduced or disobeyed to act against nonviolent resisters. Thus disintegration increases in the opponent groups due to the large and effective number of nonviolent resisters and their noncooperation and coercion (Sharp, 2005, p.420-1).

Sharp’s influence on recent nonviolent revolutions

Gene Sharp expressed that Gandhi was “one of the most widely known men of our age” and at the same time as “one of the least understood”. While “some glibly say what a great man”, “others regard him as an impracticable, idealistic reactionary”. Thus Sharp aimed to say that “Gandhi’s greatest contribution”, to “the development of an active, dynamic way of combating social evils without the use of violence” (Sharp, 1960, p.xii). Gene Sharp founded in 1893 The Albert Einstein Institution, a research institution on nonviolence; Sharp’s writings had an impacting influence on evolving alternative mechanisms to resolve conflicts and for establishing democracies in Serbia and Egypt.

Sharp’s work, From Dictatorship to Democracy (1993/2010) which was first published in Bangkok by the Restoration Democracy in Burma in 1993, has been translated into 31 languages and has been published in Serbia, Indonesia, and Thailand and other countries (Sharp, 1993/ 2010, publisher’s note) helped to evolve some successful nonviolent revolutions of recent times. The transcript of the documentary film titled, How to Make Nonviolent Revolution (MEF) on Gene Sharp’s success, reads the words of Sharp:

According to Sharp, as already we understood, in nonviolent struggle “one fights with psychological, social, economic and political weapons, which are more powerful against oppression, injustice and tyranny than” one does with violent methods (MEF, 2011, pp.4-5). Sharp’s influence on removal of the Dictator in Serbia October 7, 2000 is evident when the first lesson Srdja Popvic, the leader of the revolution learnt from Sharp as: “Plan a strategy”; “If you do not know what you are doing, you are likely to get into big trouble”. And the second lesson tells: “Overcome atomisation”. Atomisation is that when a regime attempts to make every individual in this society an isolated unit. In such a state each suffers from fear of other; even to speak with neighbour or a family member (MEF, p.6). Following Sharp’s methods people used to demonstrate OTPOR(a Serbian word for resistance) in the streets of Serbia; used pots and pans to make noise; used stickers, children wore OTPOR T-Shirts; did not watch TV news; disco clubs joined the protests (MEF, p.8). The third lesson deals with the “Pillars of Support”; the police, the Sanghar, the religious institutions, the workers and any other organization (MEF, p.8). How to resist violence is the subject matter of the fourth lesson: “Resist violence”. To Sharp use of “totally different kind of weapon” to resist the opponent is essential when the opponent uses weapons that cause violence. Thus following Sharp’s method democracies were established in Serbia, Ukraine and Egypt.

Concluding remarks

Sharp was studying on theory and practice of nonviolence from various sources - mostly Western. Thus he could not follow Indian literary and historical sources on nonviolence. Further, it may be true that neither Indian literature nor systematized theory of nonviolence was available until Gandhi understood and practiced nonviolence from the interpersonal level to major social and political issues.

All experiences of Gandhi made him wiser and wiser to enhance his moral strength; made him respond to violence in a distinct nonviolent way for the rights of Natal Indians in South Africa. His all movements are rooted in this moral strength. If Indian people soon after their achievement of independence changed their nonviolent attitudes and behaved violently, it was not Gandhi’s fault. Gandhi definitely had a planned mechanism based on the moral ground; on nonviolent actions. And movement after movement his belief in nonviolence made him morally stronger than before. His lament was not only due to the failure of nonviolent practice but it was not practiced as the way it ought to be practiced, with all moral strength. Above all Gandhi was trying to be more and more truthful to his words and movements throughout his life.

However, Sharp’s systematic and exhaustive study of nonviolence and his guidelines for nonviolent revolution have proven results for the establishment of democracy. While Gandhi’s conceptions and practices have an eternal relevance, Sharp’s methods are pragmatic and expedient. And it is the need of the hour, to have an ideal at the back of our minds, and translate it, to a pragmatic realm to reach at least the sub-ideal or goal.

Lastly, Sharp’s acceptance of the nonviolent method itself is in tune with normative precept when it is intended to wage injustice, disorder and violence, dictatorship or an unfair law. Even though Sharp in his later works, tried to say that “in order to use nonviolent action effectively, people do not have to be pacifist or saints” (Sharp, 2005, p.21), his theory on dynamics of nonviolent action, as we understood, is only through conversion of opponent and through discipline of nonviolent resisters. Hence nonviolent action is an inner conviction but not a strategy and Gandhi has to be understood in an ethical tones whether to resolve a political or social issue.

Notes and References:

1. Gandhi, M.K. (1927). An Autobiography or The Story of my experiments with truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
2. The Media Education Foundation (MEF) (18th September, 2011). How to Start a Revolution: Transcript [a documentary film]. www.mediaed.org
3. Sharp, Gene (1960). Gandhi wields the Weapon of Moral Power[Three Case Histories]. Ahmedabad: Navajivan
4. __________(1961). Gandhi Faces the Storm. Ahmedabad: Navajivan.
5. __________(1979). Gandhi as Political strategist: with essays on ethics and Politics. Boston: Porter Sargent Publications, Inc.
6. __________(1993/2010). From Dictatorship to Democracy: A conceptual frame Work for Liberation. The Albert Einstein Institution
7. __________(2005).Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers Inc.

* Dr. Varalakshmi Moganty is a former Research Fellow, in Philosophy in University of Hyderabad and Centre for Gandhian Studies, GITAM University in Visakhapatnam. Currently she is working as an Associate Editor to Gandhian Vision - International Journal of Peace and Gandhian Studies; Gandhian Studies Centre, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. She also worked as a researcher on National and International projects on development issues in Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), Hyderabad. She is the author of The Concept of Justice: A Philosophical Analysis (Serials Publications, 2017). Email: mogantyvl@yahoo.com