Luke Monteiro 1

Satyagraha Paper Final

Throughout the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries, there have been multitudes of great thinkers and
leaders, who have changed the face of the world through action, word, and thought. Both Famous and
infamous persons like Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Josef Stalin, Henry Thoreau, Dr.
King, Franklin Roosevelt, Mao Zedong, and others have established magnificent ideas and done great
and meaningful things. However, none can truly say that what they have done can be matched to the
work of Mohandas K. Gandhi as both a leader and a great thinker. Revered by many as a prime
intellectual, a pragmatic leader, and even referred to as the Mahatma, or Great Soul, and ridiculed by
others as inconsistent, ineffective, and a half-naked fakir, it is unquestionable that he has left a
considerable mark on humankind. He is most prominently known for his work with the concept of
Satyagraha, or Truth Force. This personal philosophy of Gandhi is unique in many ways. Specifically, it is
unique in its principles, philosophical base, and its nature and practice, and through these unique
reasons, it is possible to determine whether or not
One of the key aspects of Satyagraha that is important to note is its inherent principles originally
established by Gandhi. One of the principles of Satyagraha is the well-known concept of nonviolence.
This principle is the ideal that when committing to an action, one must do it nonviolently, or else one
risks corrupting oneself and ones goal. In fact, Gandhis notion of nonviolence is best understood
through Gandhis notion that we must not engage in the Machiavellian ideal of doing whatever is
necessary and any means must be done to achieve an end. Rather, Gandhi progresses the idea that an
end can only truly be achieved when the means are nonviolent, else it risks failure and brings about
more unneeded violence. As part of Gandhis principle of nonviolence, he has several examples of things
that one can do that are nonviolent and are key to creating an actual participation within Satyagraha.
Specifically, Gandhi talks about aspects of civil disobedience such as demonstrations, marches, and
boycotts. These acts became especially apparent in his participation of Satyagraha in both India and
South Africa. The other reason why nonviolence is such a prominent part of the principles of Satyagraha
is that Gandhi believed that nonviolence was not passive, but rather, was an active form resistance that
could produce change. The reason this notion was important was to make the connection that
nonviolent resistance was not passive and weak, but rather was like water. In other words, it was calm
and easy, and yet had the strength and power to form great caverns and push and move the Earth
however it wanted, or in terms of nonviolence, change people and with nonviolent action shift the
status quo in a positive way. The final aspect of nonviolence that makes it a crucial principle of
Satyagraha, is the concept that nonviolence served the purpose of winning, or manipulating the heart
and mind of the opponent or oppressor. By this, it means that by committing to an act that moves away
from violence, it allows the Satyagrahi to shame the oppressor and melt his heart by showing that
his/her violence is incapable of doing anything constructive, and that the nonviolence portrayed the
oppressed is not physically hurtful to the oppressor, but rather shows that the Satyagrahis are in a
position deserving respect. Ultimately, it is quite possible to note that nonviolence is the backbone
principle of Satyagraha.
An accompanying concept with nonviolence that serves as another major principle of
Satyagraha is what Gandhi termed as the Truth. In many ways, Gandhi established that the Truth can be
understood synonymously with nonviolence. This is because Gandhi believed the only way to truly
achieve the Truth is through nonviolent methods. In other words, one must live and breathe
nonviolence in order to achieve the Truth. There are two main reasons why the Truth is a key principle
of Satyagraha. The first reason is based in the religious aspect of the Truth. In fact, Gandhis original
conceptualization of the Truth was that God is Truth. However, he ended up amending this statement to
Truth is God. He had done this because of his desire to achieve religious plurality. Specifically, the author
Sharada Sugirtharajah, talks about Gandhis desire to achieve religious pluralism because the tendency
to do good deeds is significantly better that than sticking to the hardcore principles of any one religion.
Gandhi also believed that religious plurality was the only true way to embrace the Truth because people
Luke Monteiro 2
Satyagraha Paper Final
who were say atheists, and did not believe in God, could still acquire the Truth through good deeds and
advocacies of nonviolence, and that those who did not necessarily believe in God had the ability have a
moral equivalency of such in the Truth. Also, Gandhi held the belief that religions, and knowledge in
general, only gave us partial views of the Truth, like different facets of a diamond, and as a result,
humans were incredibly limited in the their ability to acquire knowledge and even more hampered in
their ability find the Truth. Thus, only by being open to every possible form of thought and every form of
religious ideal can one even come close to becoming truly intelligent an close to the Truth. In fact,
Gandhi is his own great example of one who follows religious plurality. Specifically, Gandhi is known for
embracing aspects of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism, Judaism, while still accepting his own Hindu
identity. The other reason why the Truth is such an important principle of Satyagraha is that by
understanding the Truth, one can truly transcend life. In this sense, the meaning is that one can only go
beyond the bindings of humanity if they truly attempt to achieve the Truth. Gandhi employed this
notion because he became a being that strived to achieve the perfect state in which he could be firmly
grounded in society and portray desires of acceptance into civilization, while also transcending his own
being and understanding that his physical limitations meant nothing in comparison to how he could
conceptualize himself through some semblance of sentience and determine that moving to a state of
being outside of the physical would allow him to achieve even greater heights and truly understand his
notion of heaven and God through acceptance of the Truth. Ultimately, Gandhi proved that his concept
of the Truth is a key principle of his overall methodology of Satyagraha.
Another key principle to Gandhis formation of the concept of Satyagraha is his
reconceptualization of the purushartas. Originally, when Gandhi had done this, he had done it to, in a
sense, change the meaning of the concept as its original meaning was sexist. However, his ability to
reengineer the purushartas was also for the purpose of creating a unifying effect to his overarching
concept of Satyagraha and prove that there is a significant connection between his notions of the
political and the social. Specifically, in the paper by Anthony Parel, Parel talks about how Gandhi notes
that only by creating an even state between aspects of the political and economic and aspects of the
ethical and social can one truly be purposeful in Satyagraha. This is because Gandhi believed that being
too compromised by one side would cause problems for an individual. Specifically, being too
compromised by the political and economic would cause an individual to become incredibly materialistic
and overly humanist, causing the individual to be more focused on themselves having no desire to
devote themselves at all to Satyagraha or to promote themselves to any form of positive change. On the
other hand, one who is compromised by aspects of the ethical or the social causes the person to be to
entrenched in talking, thinking, and recognizing problems and mass producing concepts of mass
academia, but they have no desire in actually participating in any way to change the status quo, nor do
they have any solution to the problems they recognize their forms of ethics, meaning they lack the will
to act in terms of Satyagraha. However, Gandhi goes a step further in keeping the concept that the
purushartas are the root of civilization, and unless there is an even state of all aspects of the political
and the ethical, there is no way civilization can function. Ultimately, Gandhis notion of the purushartas
proves to be an important principle in his overall ideal of Satyagraha, specifically because of its
necessitation for the continuation of society, but also because without the even balance of the
purushartas, Satyagraha cannot function.
Another major principle of Gandhis ideal of Satyagraha is his devotion to the idea of Socialism.
Although Gandhis notion is not the true notion of socialism as an economic system to counteract the
negative aspects of capitalism through the redistribution of wealth of businesses so that no business, big
or small, experiences the problem with capitalism where businesses are allowed to fail, it is still
important to note that his belief in the more social and political aspects of Socialism are still key
components of Satyagraha. Specifically, socialism is a key principle of Satyagraha because of Gandhis
appeal to the concept of a society where the worker is the only thing that matters, and everyone is a
Luke Monteiro 3
Satyagraha Paper Final
worker in the sense that the real work in society is that of labor. He believed that manual labor was the
only true work for an individual because any work higher that that would be considered elitist and
coopted by a system of continuous exploitation through capital and wealth. Gandhi also liked the
concept of socialism in that everyone is treated equally, and that the systems of capital and wealth that
existed to degrade the poor would be dismantled in a world where everyone had a job that would allow
the worker to earn as much as everybody else as they were doing the same amount of work. Gandhi
also affirmed the concept of Socialism into Satyagraha because he felt that it was a state in which both
nonviolence and Truth could permeate the economic and the political and could work simultaneously.
Being able to work with the Truth and nonviolence, socialism became a principle of Satyagraha in that it
was a direct way in which Satyagrahis could live their life in terms of pragmatism regarding work and
earning a living. Ultimately, Socialism was a key principle to Gandhis overarching ideal of Satyagraha
because it became a major change in Gandhis conceptualization of Satyagraha, and it would give him
inspiration in terms of how to operate his Satyagraha movements in both India and South Africa, as it
would prove useful in his creation of the settlements and ashrams he used to give the Satyagrahis a life
to accompany their work with the Gandhi.
Another major principle to Gandhis concept of Satyagraha is his notion of understanding the
other. The Concept of Otherization has been existence for a considerable amount of time because of the
correlation of otherization to problems dealing with racism, sexism, terrorism, war, etc. However,
Gandhi actually provides the reasoning that only by understanding the other through oneself, can one
truly participate in Satyagraha. This is so for several reasons. The first, is that the problem with
otherization creates a dichotomy of good vs. evil, thus creating another dichotomy of us vs. them. This
mentality is truly horrible because it means we can never truly engage in Satyagraha unless we can
understand our opponent. In the case of Osama bin Laden, we can never truly face him if we cannot
understand him and eliminate notions of otherization which only serve to cause ethical problems, such
as a race divide, where we conceptualize him as inferior because he is different through his Arabic
origins in comparison to the mostly white origins of America, or we allow our ego to go loose and we
create a religious divide as we see him as inferior because he believes in Islam rather than Christianity or
Judaism or Atheism. By creating these negative distinctions of the other, we only serve to coopt out
form of ethics, while failing to embrace the enemy and understand his difference. The second reason
why failing to understand the other prevents Satyagraha from truly being engaged is that the dichotomy
of good vs. evil only serves to provoke and justify violence, when one of the major principles of
Satyagraha is nonviolence, and the us vs. them mentality creates a sense of difference between peoples
and leaves room for things like war and terrorism to occur because the mentality creates a newfound
fear of the other, and this fear allows to commit whatever acts of violence we want in order to protect
ourselves from this random other. One example of this is the Second War of the Balkans, or the Yugoslav
Wars, where the incredible amount of otherization that occurred because different cultural factions had
so much fear of the other lead to the bloodshed of thousands there. Thus, it invokes a sense of pure
violence which serves no inherent purpose and poisons both us and them. Finally, failure to understand
the other as a principle of Satyagraha causes a state of masking. In other words when we fail to
understand to other, we risk defying the other as violent while also masking the violence we commit.
The prime example of this is when America was attacked in 9/11, we were so focused on the death and
destruction caused by Osama bin Laden that we failed to see in March of 2003 the heinous acts of
violence we committed against the innocent people of Iraq when we bombed Baghdad and killed
hundreds of innocent people. We were so blinded by what happened to us that we forgot that violence
is still violence, and killing innocent people out of misplaced hatred is wrong. Ultimately, it is possible to
see how understanding the other is an important aspect to Satyagraha because without it, we risk
committing acts of violence rather than provoking acts of nonviolence. We progress a system that is
circular and will not stop until we do. In the words of Gandhi, an eye for an eye makes the whole world
Luke Monteiro 4
Satyagraha Paper Final
blind, and our desires for violence will see that through. Ultimately, only by understanding the other
through understanding the differences within oneself and looking within can we truly affirm Gandhis
concept of Satyagraha.
One of the reasons why Gandhis ideal of Satyagraha is so unique is because of its incredible
philosophical base. There are three aspects to this. One is that his notion of Satyagraha directly pulls
from the concepts of John Ruskin, Leo Tolstoy, and Henry Thoreau. The second aspect is that he also
pulls indirectly from philosophers like Lao Tzu, Jesus, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Finally, the third aspect of
his philosophical base is that his base can be understood and analyzed though the work of later
philosophers, such John Hick, John Mack, and Yannis Stavrakakis.
Gandhis ideal of Satyagraha pulls directly from the work of great thinkers such as John Ruskin,
Leo Tolstoy, and Henry Thoreau. The first man, John Ruskin, is famous for influencing Gandhi in the
specific way that his work, Unto This Last, amazed Gandhi when he had read it. Specifically, it promoted
the idea of socialism, something that would become a permanent part of Gandhis overall concept of
Satyagraha. Specifically, Gandhi credits his creation of the Phoenix Settlement, a place where people
would farm for the same salary and everybody was treated equally because they would break down the
barriers of difference between them in order to work and get through the day, to John Ruskin because
the social ideology of socialism intrigued Gandhi and provided him with a basis in which he and his
fellow Satyagrahis would live and exist while taking advocacies of nonviolence. Ultimately, the entirety
of the work proved to give Gandhis inspiration in terms of his personal experiments with economic
truths and realities. The next philosopher that had a significant influence on Gandhi directly was Leo
Tolstoy. Tolstoy was a moral thinker who progressed the concept of nonviolent resistance as a mode for
change. Gandhi absorbed the concepts progressed by Tolstoy to an extreme degree such as anarchic
tactics to differ from the norm, which became obvious with his ashrams, Phoenix Settlement and Tolstoy
Farm. He obviously also followed Tolstoys notion of nonviolent resistance because that became a key
aspect in Gandhis work with Satyagraha in both India and South Africa. He also agreed with Tolstoys
concept that there should not be any private property and that there should be a system more oriented
towards communal society. In fact, Tolstoy ha such an influence on Gandhi as they would write letters to
each other as Gandhi slowly became infatuated with the idea of nonviolence as a tool for independence
and change. The last philosopher that directly influenced Gandhi was Henry David Thoreau. Specifically,
Gandhi closely followed Thoreaus concept of civil disobedience, Walden, and indirectly his concept of
nonconformity. In terms of civil disobedience, Gandhi easily appealed to the concept as he fused it with
Tolstoys nonviolent resistance to form the core of Satyagraha. Specifically, Thoreaus work on the
subject prompted Gandhi to commit acts of demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, etc. to equate to
Thoreaus similar actions of civil disobedience where he would refuse to pay taxes or have speeches in
the middle of town to create dissidence against the evils of the American government just as Gandhi
fought the English Crown. Gandhi also took to the concept of civil disobedience in terms of his desire to
go to jail for his beliefs as a way of proving his resolve just as Thoreau had. Gandhi would also mirror the
concept of his ashram to Thoreaus Walden, where, just like the Tolstoy Farm and Phoenix Settlement,
Thoreau had a small farm and quiet place where barriers of difference were broken down and the work
was equivalent to what was earned. Gandhi would also take concepts of Thoreaus, such has
conceptualizations of transcendence and state of being, as well as Thoreaus theory of nonconformity,
where Gandhi, like Thoreau, believed in breaking down periods of conformity and creating change in the
status quo. Ultimately, it is quite obvious that Gandhis notion of Satyagraha, like nonviolent resistance,
ashrams, and civil disobedience, stems directly from these three philosophers.
The philosophical base of Satyagraha also points out that there was indirect ways in which
Gandhi was influenced when he created his grand ideal. These three philosophers are Lao Tzu, Friedrich
Nietzsche, and Jesus. Starting with Lao Tzu, it is possible to notice how Gandhi pulled his notion of
nonviolent resistance as direct action from Lao Tzus great ideal of Taoism. Specifically, the concept that
Luke Monteiro 5
Satyagraha Paper Final
the principle of nonviolence progressed by Gandhi is slow and strong like water comes from early Tao
thought, that power must not be overly quick and forceful, but rather slow and tranquil like water
because true power lies in that patience, similar to Gandhis notion so Satyagraha. The second
philosopher that has an indirect influence on Gandhi is Friedrich Nietzsche. Although Nietzsche does not
have a good track record with religious thought, he is known for creating the concept of ressentiment,
which stems from the concept that there is an external other that is not truly our enemy, but we may
construe it as such. As a result, we commit random acts of violence against that other in the name of
protection, or worse, or fear causes us to create horrible divides between us and the other, advocating
aspects of racism, sexism, etc. to differentiate that other and make them inferior to us. In a sense,
Nietzsche points out the same philosophical problem that Gandhi points out in terms of understanding
the other. Although Nietzsches answer to this problem is less than helpful, it is still important to note
the fact that there is a certain amount of failure to understand the other in the world, it causes terrible
things to happen, when not dealt with. The final philosopher that has had an impact on Gandhi
indirectly and actually sometimes a little directly is the Jesus Christ. Jesus notion of peace and love also
entered the teachings and notions of Gandhi in many ways. First, Jesus impacted Gandhi in terms of
helping break down barriers of the other because Gandhi absorbed the concept that one should love thy
neighbor and therefore love and respect the other because they may seem different, but they are still
humans seeking the Truth. Second, Gandhi absorbed Jesus saying, Whoever slaps you on your right
cheek, turn the other to him also, because Gandhi to believe that by allowing this act to come upon
you, then you allow yourself to truly embrace nonviolence while also melting the heart of your
opponent and shaming them for the violence which they commit. Third, one of the principles of
Satyagraha is a sense of religious plurality. As such, Gandhi had a strong connection with Christianity and
Judaism, and would constantly take lessons from the Bible and Torah, while also interacting and
befriending those of other religions who would approve of his ideal of Satyagraha. Finally, Gandhi also
mirrored Jesus concept that one should forgive past transgressions. For example, Gandhi forgave
General Smuts while he was in South Africa even though Smuts continuously cheated him and the other
Indians by constantly passing more and degrading laws. Gandhi indirectly employed the concept
because through it, he could continue his movement of Satyagraha in South Africa and still respect his
opponent, which was important to the success of the movement in the first place. Ultimately, it is
obvious that Gandhi was indirectly affected by these three philosophers for his ideal of Satyagraha.
Finally, the philosophical base of Satyagraha is also boosted, in a sense, by the philosophies of
other great thinkers who came after Gandhi and progressed similar ideals that would spread his
concepts and make them more accessible. One of these thinkers is John Hick. His ideology is very similar
to Gandhis in that it progresses the notion that there should be a certain degree of religious plurality.
Also, Hick has a competing theory with Gandhi. Instead of necessarily affirming Gandhis concept of the
Truth, he creates his own notion called the Real, which is very similar to Gandhis notion of Truth. Both
concepts allow Gandhis theories to become more accessible, and boost the philosophical base of
Satyagraha. The other two philosophers, Yannis Stavrakakis and John Mack, are both psychoanalysts
who take a vested interest in the Gandhian notion of understanding the other. In many ways, the
concepts are exactly the same, except they of course take the psychoanalytic route, but they both
analyze the same concepts of how there are constant cycles of fear created through dichotomies of
good and evil which are inherently bad because they justify violence and otherization. Specifically,
Stavrakakis notes of a scapegoating effect that occurs where in order to create a false sense of security
against the other in to feel superior to the other. Ultimately, their notions of understanding the other
through psychoanalysis are very similar to Gandhis form of understanding the other through the self.
This means that philosophical base of Satyagraha gives as much as it takes in terms of its underlying
principles being linked to other philosophers.
Luke Monteiro 6
Satyagraha Paper Final
The last thing about Satyagraha that makes it worth talking about and unique is its nature and
practice. In terms of its nature, there is a certain methodology in which it works. This methodology
starts with the user managing efforts to persuade through discussion and reason to allow for a sense of
accommodation and compromise with the opponent. The second mechanism which allows Satyagraha
to work is that if persuasion and discussion fail, then on should attempt to persuade through suffering
the self, specifically one way to do this is fasting. Finally, if that fails, then one may resort to nonviolent
coercion, which may contain any necessary form of nonviolent resistance of civil disobedience. As a
result of the fact that nothing in the world is perfect, it is imperative to note that the nature of
Satyagraha risks the possibility of violence ensuing due to lack of discipline of the Satyagrahis. Also,
several limitations exist to Satyagraha. The first is that it requires that the Satyagrahi treat the other
with complete respect. Second, lack of moral clarity on both sides may mean that there is no way that
Satyagraha can be adopted in certain instances. Third, Satyagraha requires complete discipline from its
followers, while the opponent in turn must have a fair sense of play, else it will fail. Finally, it is
necessary to point out that Satyagraha does not work with tyrants well because of their lack of moral
clarity and fair play while the followers tend to lose a sense of discipline in the sight of the tyrant. If all
else fails, the only option available for those who wish to continue Satyagraha must find a way to
eliminate the tyrant, otherwise the process itself fails and is useless. The final aspect of Satyagrahas
nature is that it is one of the few philosophies that takes physical action or comes with a sense of
pragmatism. In other words, Satyagraha is one of the few ideas in the world that has both an abstract
and concrete basis because it can be conceptualized and action can occur as well. Ultimately, it is known
that Satyagraha has an interesting nature; however, its practice has been just as interesting.
The practice of Satyagraha has been a phenomenon in terms of its use over the last century and
half. Its creator, Mahatma Gandhi became incredibly famous for using it as a tool to deconstruct
oppression in South Africa and win the independence of India. There are very specific examples of how
he did this as well. In particular, Gandhis work in South Africa showed Satyagraha initial success, as he
used its principles to many things including start two ashrams, the Phoenix Settlement and the Tolstoy
Farm, which were two large farms where everybody did work and the barriers of difference were broken
down to allow for a sense of plurality and equality to spread among all those who came- Jews,
Christians, Hindus, and others. Gandhi also applied aspects of civil disobedience as part of Satyagraha in
South Africa too. Specifically, he did things such as bring together all the workers, especially the mine
workers, to strike against the companies in South Africa who made the Indians work in terrible working
conditions. As part of civil disobedience, these workers followed Gandhi in trying to gain better rights for
these citizens. Also, Gandhi famously led a burning of passes as a demonstration in South Africa to fight
against the oppressive tactic used by the British controlled government to treat the Indians there as
second class citizens. One of the other things Gandhi did to prove the pragmatism of Satyagraha and
show its practice was the mass migration that the Indians took to cross the interior of the country,
which was closed off to them; however, Gandhi once again employed the concept of civil disobedience
in the attempt defy the government nonviolently and make the point that we citizens as much as
anyone else in the country was. Finally, on of the extremely bizarre things Gandhi did as part of
Satyagraha was temporarily moot it for the purpose mitigating the impact on the government during the
Boer Wars. In fact, as part of Gandhis belief in Satyagraha, he and several others served the British
during the war as nurses to prove that there was a sense of respect for the British coming from the
Indians regardless of the Indians strive for rights before the war.
As much as it was used in South Africa, Gandhi also became famous for using the practice of
Satyagraha in India as well. One example that is particularly amazing is when had a day of fasting and
prayer for the entire nation, causing everything in the country to shut down. This infuriated the British
because two things were realized that day. First, a small group of British generals cannot control the
entire nation of over 300 million people. Second, the Indian people have what it takes to unite to take
Luke Monteiro 7
Satyagraha Paper Final
down the British Empire through nonviolent methods. Another example of Gandhi using Satyagraha in
India is when he led the Salt March to the Sea to make his own salt as a representation of civil
disobedience as both a form demonstration and boycott in order to protest the price of salt on Indians
when Indians were producing the salt anyways. It became a famous example of how Indian were coming
up in masses to protest the British Crown and to fight for their rights and to become an independent
nation. Another example of Gandhis Satyagraha at work in India is during the Second World War,
similar to what he had done during the Boer Wars in South Africa, Gandhi decided to temporarily stop
the civil disobedience as a way of both having a sense of fair play and of showing respect to the British
government who would have a difficult time fighting the war had Gandhi continued his actions through
Satyagraha. Ultimately, it is quite obvious that the Gandhis practice of Satyagraha was very interesting.
Ultimately, looking at the unique principles, philosophical base, nature, and practice of
Satyagraha, it is possible to determine that the ideology Gandhi progressed so vehemently was a
mixture of both effective and ineffective. Satyagraha can be determined to be effective for many
reasons. First of all, it is possible to determine Gandhis form of Satyagraha has been successful in that it
is capable of achieving the civil rights and liberties of citizens, which is evident with his work in South
Africa. Also, the concept of civil rights spread into the United States with aspects of Satyagraha which
spread to the African American, Women, Hispanic American, and Native American Movements. These
movements picked up aspects of Satyagraha, like civil disobedience, demonstrations, boycotts, protests,
marches, and burning objects (Womens Movement would burn bras). Second, Satyagraha can be
determined of be effective because of the fact that it is credited with getting the British out of India.
Specifically, understanding the fact that the Satyagraha progressed by Gandhi was extremely successful
in proving to Britain after World War 2 that they could not afford to hold the territory and that the
country was so fixed on acquiring independence that the British Empire would have run itself ragged
trying to hold India. Third, Satyagraha can be determined to be effective because of its ability, on a
personal level, to break down barriers of difference as seen through the creation of ashrams by Gandhi
to bring those people closer together by eliminating notion of nationality, race, and religion in order to
put forth their efforts on the settlements for the purpose of Satyagraha and nonviolence. Fourth,
Satyagraha can be determined to be successful in that aspects of nonviolent resistance can cause
reformism and change because of the fact that Satyagraha is a pragmatic ideology. This means that
Satyagraha has the ability, through the actions of its followers, to change the status quo, where things
like plain academia or recognition, or pure politics cannot solve, Satyagraha has the capability to melt
the heart of the opponent and bring forth change in the norm. Specifically, an example is when Gandhis
protests in South Africa reached the tipping point, General Smuts was forced to allow Gandhi to have his
way in many respects. However, by seeing aspects of Satyagraha, it is possible to determine that the
practice of it can be fairly ineffective as well. The first reason why is that using aspects of nonviolence,
when put under strain or paired with lack of discipline from its followers, can erupt into horrible
violence pent up from unused aggression. An example of this is when India finally received its
independence, it erupted into violence over the divide between the Muslims and the Hindus because at
such a massive scale, not everyone can truly break down barriers of us vs. them and good vs. evil fast
enough to see that a unified India is better than one divided arbitrarily and for petty reasons. The
second reason why Satyagraha fails is because of its inability to deal with tyrants. This means that
Satyagraha fails in instances such as the Holocaust during World War 2 because of the inability for Jews
to fight against Hitler because he was a dictator and tyrant, or against say Pol Pot in Cambodia who
killed millions of citizens. Instances where tyrants resort to mass violence and genocide, Satyagraha is
completely useless. Finally, Satyagraha is also ineffective for the reason that the entirety of the concept
is never fully embraced, only parts of are. For example, after the independence of India, on top of a
failure to understand the other, there was a significant failure to embrace aspects of the purushartas
and socialism. For the most part, India kept systems of wealth and capitalism, while also embracing
Luke Monteiro 8
Satyagraha Paper Final
more of the political and economic then the social and ethical causing an imbalance in both aspects of
Satyagraha. Ultimately, it is evident that Gandhis notion of Satyagraha can be construed as both
effective and ineffective; however, the legacy he left us from his action through Satyagraha will be
remembered forever, as he developed one of the most pragmatic forms of ideology to date.