Gandhi Questions

[Mr. J.]

1. Gandhi often stated that it took great courage to be a
satyagrahi. Find at least three examples in the documents to support
his view.
2. Besides the personal danger that a satyagrahi might face, list
some other concerns one should have while conducting a satyagraha
campaign?
3. What did Gandhi mean by this statement, that the satyagrahi
"...never forget that he and the attacker are one"? Please be
specific.
4. Why do you think that so many Indians supported Gandhi's
satyagraha movement? Please be specific.
5. Which of the following statements is closest to your view of the
satyagraha?
a. I believe whole-heartedly in satyagraha. This type of civil
disobedience based on moral force not only shows great courage, but
it
truly has the power to change the world for the better.
b. The effectiveness of satyagraha is relative, depending on the type
of opponent you're facing. In some circumstances this tactic would
be
effective. In others it would be unwise and ineffective.
c. Satyagraha not only is foolish, it can be extremely dangerous.
Trying to fight bullets with non-violence is only asking for trouble.
The enemy won't be impressed and would welcome a potentially easy
victory against an overmatched foe.

Please explain your choice in detail! (For support, use information
from this handout, your readings on Indian history from earlier in
the
week, clips from Gandhi on the “Salt March”, and/or current events).

[Alison Mosier-Mills]

1. From the documents, it is clear that although Gandhi strived for
truth and non-violence, his controversial work often put him in
danger. Document 1 stated that Gandhi protested the “Black Act”, a law
that “required to Indian community to register with the government and
carry a certificate at all times on penalty of imprisonment or
deportation”. If those who simply didn’t carry the certificated faced
such harsh consequences, I can assume that the punishment for Gandhi,
who rallied people together to burn these certificates, must have been
even worse. He must have needed great courage to carry out these
demonstrations, and, luckily, he was successful.

In Document 2, some protesters “engaged in violent acts, including the
burning and hacking to death of twenty-three policemen in the village
of Chauri Chaura”. The government of Britain blamed Gandhi for
igniting this violence. Although Gandhi himself was strongly opposed
to violence, instead of dissociating himself from the protesters, he
admitted that he had been “playing with fire”. I think that this took
courage as well, because it would have been easy for Gandhi to run
away or claim that he was innocent, leaving his followers and the
protesters alone. However, he agreed to submit to the “highest
penalty”. Taking ownership of one’s actions is a great signifier of
courage.

Many of Gandhi’s peaceful protests, or those of his followers, were
met with violence from the opposition. In Document 3, Gandhi was
arrested but still staged a campaign against the salt tax. His
followers were beaten with long bamboo sticks, but they did not fight
back because they were practicing satyagraha (reaching for truth,
which is associated with non-violence). This truly show how much
courage a satyagrahi must have -- even when met with violence, they
did not respond with aggression, even though they were in much pain.

2. Besides the personal danger that a satyagrahi might face, there are
many other concerns that one must have while conducting a campaign. In
the article, I saw that two important issues were emphasized: the
behavior of other protesters, and the effect that protests might have
on others. As I mentioned earlier, Gandhi was accused of conducting
violent protests because some other protesters had engaged in brutal
acts. He, as the leader, was also held accountable for the actions of
others, which was an unanticipated issue that posed a threat to Gandhi
when he was arrested. Secondly, although the satyagrahi had agreed to
protest in demonstrations like the “Salt March”, that didn’t
necessarily mean that other, non-satyagrahi Indian citizens wanted to
protest as well. These protests often became deadly if government
forces responded with violence, and if ordinary citizens became swept
up in the protests, there could be deaths.

3. I think that when Gandhi said that the satyagrahi “never forget
that he and the attacker are one”, he is referring to the fact that
they are both people and need to treat each other with “ahimsa”, or
love. By claiming that they are “one”, he is metaphorically staying
that if the satyagrahi harms his attacker, he will hurt himself as
well. When taken literally, this can mean that, because violence is
often cyclical, if the satyagrahi hurts the attacker, the attacker
will respond with even more ferocity and the fighting will continue.
Because this violence has erupted, it is now unlikely that either side
will reach a peaceful agreement by using words and peace. If the two
fight, both the satyagrahi and his attacker are likely to become
physically hurt and an understanding between the two will never be
obtained; essentially, violence can destroy their humanitarian bond.

4. I think that many Indians supported Gandhi’s satyagraha movement
because there was already much resentment about the British dominance
in India, and therefore people looked towards someone who would
challenge it. For example, Gandhi led the Salt March to protest the
unpopular British tax on salt. I also think that many of Gandhi’s
principles, such as respect towards animals (or vegetarianism), and
non-violence, are represented in Hindu beliefs. Because of this, he
had an already-receptive audience to listen to these beliefs. This
helped him develop a large following.

5. Answer: (b) The effectiveness of satyagraha is relative, depending
on the type of opponent you’re facing. In some circumstances, this
tactic would be effective. In others, it would be unwise and
ineffective. Although Gandhi was often successful in his peaceful
endeavors, he was frequently met with violence and didn’t fight back,
such as in the Salt March. While I understand his logic behind this, I
think that it’s a tragedy that so many of his supporters were beaten
or killed because they refused to act with violence. Although I would
definitely say that I’m a strong proponent of peace and diplomacy
before unilateral military action, in looking at recent current
events, it’s clear that “talking it out” doesn’t always work. The
recent protests throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa,
particularly in Libya, are perfect examples of this. In Libya, Qaddafi
was sending his military and his air force against his own citizens,
who were protesting against Qaddafi’s longtime autocratic rule.
Although many of the protesters themselves DID respond with violence,
forming the rebel army, the rest of the world, including the US, the
UN and NATO, attempted to make peace with Libya without resorting to
violence. When Qaddafi refused to respond to these diplomatic efforts,
violence was used because so many Libyan citizens were in danger. In
another African country, the Ivory Coast, the leader Laurent Gbagbo
refuses to give up office. After a failed attempt to remove him with
economic incentives, the UN and France began to send troops to the
Ivory Coast. In these two examples, violence was necessary after
peacekeeping efforts failed. To conclude, I believe that satyagraha is
a good principle and can be effective at times, but unfortunately,
sometimes violence is necessary.

[Christine]

1.
Gandhi believed that satyagrahi meant to hold on to the truth in every
situation, no matter how “fierce the storm.” One example from the
documents was from The Great Trial by K.P.K Menon. In it was a
description of how Gandhi had been arrested for writing seditious
articles; this had led to some violent acts. Gandhi, following his
views of being a satyagrahi stated, “I do not ask for mercy.” He would
not take to a “light penalty but to the highest penalty.” This quote
is an example of courage, for he would take whatever punishment he was
given, regardless of how awful. A second example was when Gandhi had
been arrested once again for his campaign against the salt tax. Gandhi
remained courageous throughout this occurrence and took the beatings
of the police. Whatever he believed in, he followed. Finally a third
example of courageousness of Gandhi’s role as a satyagrahi was
illustrated when he burned certificates of the “Black Act” law or the
Asiatic Law Amendment Act. Against all forces and government, he
campaigned. Regardless of what other people were thinking or believed,
he performed his act of defiance. Eventually, a compromise was reached
that actually ended some of the harshest provision of the Black Act.

2.
Other dangers apart from personal dangers include disruption of a
society, town, and groups of people. For example, when Gandhi had been
arrested for writing seditious articles, much violence broke out and
there were burning and hacking to death of policemen. Other concerns
also include the rising opinions from other nations and cultures. As
Gandhi expressed after the Salt raid, “the western mind finds it
difficult to grasp the idea of nonresistance.” The idea that no action
is taken against violence seems far too challenging for many other
countries. Some looked upon Gandhi with respect while others were
surprised and taken back.

3.
I believe that Gandhi’s statement, “…never forget that he and the
attacker are one” implied that the satyagrahi is not attempting to
bring about hostility and aggression. Instead, the satyagrahi becomes
one who puts themselves in the attacker’s shoes and attempts to change
this person from the inside out. Things can be accomplished without
resentment and enmity, because in the end the conflict is resolved by
peace and love. Gandhi always held to this belief and never crossed
the line into violence. “…scores of native police rushed upon the
advancing marchers and rained blows on their heads…not one of the
marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows.” This resistance to
attack back is the idea that the attacker and he are one. There is no
need to attack the attacker, because this in turn will not bring about
resolutions. As the term ahimsa entails, “…more than just the absence
of violence; it is intense love.”

4.
I believe that many Indians supported Gandhi’s satyagraha movement,
because it was peaceful and moving. Many Indians had been going
through oppression and saw that this was a movement they could turn to
and find hope. For example, the salt taxes enforced by the British
were unfair and unjust, but in staying in tune with their Hindu
beliefs, many turned to Gandhi for the change they all wished for.

5.
I personally agree with b- The effectiveness of satyagraha is

relative, depending on the type of opponent you’re facing. In some
circumstances this tactic would be effective. In others it would

unwise and ineffective. So many times in history, peaceful oppositions
have been successful and have brought many great changes to societies.
On the other hand, sometimes when not enough of something is done in
opposition, greater oppression takes place. Although Gandhi believed
whole heartedly in peaceful resistance, I see the reality of this
belief. There are many powerful and dangerous forces in the world and
even if a whole gathered group comes together to fight this force,
there are possibilities of defeat. Violence has been seen to be
effective. Take, in extreme, some of the worst dictators in the world,
Stalin or Hitler. Their tactics of violence oppressed the people and
it was very difficult for these people to bring about any change. If
any one were to resist the government of country, it would be
immediate death. I do believe it depends on the opponent. As seen in
Gandhi’s case, some of his peaceful campaigns have led to change. In
the United States alone, Martin Luther King Jr. was a peaceful
resistor to prejudice and his tranquil defiance led to future changes
in the country. Thus, I believe that satyagraha is relative and its
effectiveness can change within circumstances of the opponent.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[k.Borkovitz]

1. Gandhi often stated that it took great courage to be a satyagrahi.

Satyagrahi, often translated as “reaching for the truth” is a notion
closely tied to Gandhi’s perception of ahisma. Literally, ahisma means
“the absence of violence”; to Gandhi, it meant the love that remains
once all violence has ended within oneself. And so, with satyagrahi,
one must enter battle without committing any act of violence - not
even cruel words may be said. Even when the opposition provokes you,
you must not react violently. Obviously, it takes a great deal of
courage to not fight back, even when your life is in danger.
In India, Gandhi led a satyagrahi campaign in which some Indian
protestors tortured and killed 23 policemen. The British government
blamed Gandhi for the attacks. He, instead of acting out, accepted
full responsibility for the attacks (even though he was not one to
promote violence in any way). He stated that he couldn’t remove his
mark from the event, because he had taken a risk in starting the
campaign in the first place. He, instead of attempting to cower from
the situation, was extremely courageous in demanding the harshest
penalty possible. He didn’t want mercy; he wanted justice.
To protest the salt tax, 2,500 satyagrahi followers attempted to raid
the salt works at Dharsana. As directed by their leader, they did not
use violence at all. This led to them each being beaten in the head by
throngs of native police holding long bamboo sticks. Their unprotected
skulls were crushed; they, however, were extremely brave in the
massacre and followed orders to remain peaceful.
Gandhi wrote in his newspaper about Zionism and anti-Semitism. He
stated that if he were a Jew in Germany, he wouldn’t cower and leave.
He would stay, and demand to be thrown into a dungeon or to be shot;
he would refuse to be expelled from Germany. Human dignity and courage
would be enough to demand their rights to live in Germany as a Jew.
2. Aside from the fear of personal danger that a follower of a
satyagrahi campaign might face, there are two other possible fears
that might be possible. One might fear the disobedience of other
followers; if even one follower becomes violent, the others could
follow suit just as easily. Any act of violence could be enough to
discredit the whole campaign. Additionally, one might fear oppression.
In conducting a satyagrahi campaign, obviously not every single person
will support the cause. Therefore, an individual of higher authority
might attempt to arrest or ban the followers and therefore disband the
campaign.
3. Ahisma, to Gandhi, meant the love that remains once all violence
has ended within oneself. In battle, he stated that a follower will
“never forget that he and the attacker are one. This ahisma is more
than the absence of violence; it is intense love.” Since ahisma is an
internal struggle, committing any acts of violence would hinder one’s
chance to achieve that intense love within oneself. Hurting another
individual would hurt your chances of achieving ahisma.
4. Individuals may have supported Gandhi because he provided a feeling
of unity; a group of people working towards a common goal peacefully.
In South Africa, Gandhi opposed the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, in
which The Indian community was required to register with the
government and carry a certificate at all times. There were extremely
harsh penalties for not carrying the certificate at all times, such as
imprisonment or deportation. In an act of defiance, Gandhi held a
bonfire to burn these certificates. Over 30,000 Indians attended and
burned their certificates together.
5. B. I believe that the effectiveness of satyagrahi is relative based
on opposition. The bonfire that Gandhi held, in which of 30,000
Indians gathered to burn their certificates, led to Gandhi and the
South African government reaching a compromise agreement that ended
some of the harshest facets of the Black Act. His campaign was
successful at this point. Later, in India, in an act of defiance
against the salt tax, followers planned to raid a salt work. While
they were completely peaceful and not violent, they were beat in the
heads with bamboo rods. They were hurt, and the campaign was
unsuccessful.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Joelle Khouri]

1. Being a satyagrahi definitely takes great courage. The satyagrahi
would go into protests knowing full well that they could get
physically hurt or be jailed. For example, when Gandhi’s followers
marched on the salt works at Dharasana to protest the salt tax, armed
government troops beat them with lathis (long metal-tipped sticks).
However, in following with the concept of satyagraha, none of the
marchers retaliated. It must have taken a great deal of courage to be
physically beaten and yet not fight back. Another example would be
when Gandhi was arrested for writing seditious articles. Some
protesters involved in his campaign had turned to violence, and the
British government blamed Gandhi for it. Although it would have been
easier to deny the charges, Gandhi took responsibility, pleading
guilty to sedition and asking for the highest punishment for the
violence committed. This act showed great courage: Gandhi did not take
the easy way out; he was courageous and accepted responsibility for
his actions. In general, it must have taken a lot of courage to defy
the government in any way. When the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, which
forced Indians to carry a certificate at all times, was passed, Gandhi
started a satyagraha campaign. In defiance, thirty thousand Indian
protesters burned their certificates. The punishment for not carrying
a certificate was imprisonment or deportation. The protesters were
very courageous in burning their certificates even with the knowledge
that there could be severe repercussions.

2. Conducting a satyagraha campaign would definitely be a huge
endeavor that could have many unforeseen consequences. It is very hard
for one person to control a mob of angry people. When people gather to
protest something, emotions and tempers tend to run high, and there is
always the possibility of spontaneous violence. This spontaneous
violence can be seen in Document 2, when some of Gandhi’s protesters
turned violent and caused the death of 23 policemen. This was
obviously not part of Gandhi’s plan for a nonviolent protest, but I
happened anyway. Therefore, before and during a protest, an organizer
should try to stress peaceful resistance as much as possible in order
to implant the idea of nonviolence into the protesters’ heads and to
try to limit potential damage.

3. To Gandhi, satygraha (civil disobedience) and ahimsa (nonviolence)
were closely tied. In fact, for him, ahimsa went beyond just
nonviolence and actually encompassed the love that comes once internal
violence is gone. In this regard, his quote that the satyagrahi
"...never forget that he and the attacker are one" makes sense. In
order to gain ahimsa, or intense love, a person would have to be
nonviolent. It follows that in hurting the attacker, a protester would
only be hurting himself by furthering himself from ahimsa, which can
only be obtained when all violence is gone.

4. I think that so many Indians supported Gandhi’s satyagraha movement
because they wanted to protest against the British exploitation of
their country, and Gandhi’s way seemed sensible enough. The British
restricted the Indian people’s power in the government through the
Government of India Act of 1858 by giving all the power to the
viceroy, with the Indian councils having no authority. Even the India
Councils Act of 1892, while adding more members to the councils, was
moot, since the councils were not allowed to debate important
subjects. This repression led to the people of India wanting their
independence. Gandhi’s methods were easy to follow, and allowed people
to show their views along with many others who felt the same way.

5. Although I agree with parts of every option, option b (“the

effectiveness of satyagraha is relative, depending on the type of
opponent you're facing. In some circumstances this tactic would be

effective. In others it would be unwise and ineffective”) is the
closest to my view. I agree with option a in that satyagraha shows
great courage and has the power the to change the world for the
better. However, I also agree with option c in that satyagraha is
often extremely dangerous, almost to the point of foolishness. As
Gandhi and his followers demonstrated many times, satyagraha can be
successful. It worked with the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, when the
protestors and the government were able to reach a compromise. It
worked in Egypt, when the relatively peaceful protests toppled Hosni
Mubarak. It also worked recently, just this past week, when an
activist in India ended his hunger strike after the government agreed
to set up a committee to draft a new anticorruption law. However, in
some cases, violence is necessary. If the opposition refuses to
listen, it can be impossible to change their minds except through the
use of physical force. Examples of this can be seen throughout history
in places such as Nazi Germany and Libya today. So, while satyagraha
can be an extremely powerful force, it’s success can be limited.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Dan Maxwell]

1. One example of the great courage that it took to be a satyahgrahi
was in Document 1. During the Black Act, Ghandi burned hundreds of
certificates, which was both a bold statement and a courageous
statement. Ghandi put himself in danger by disobeying the law, which
stated that the penalty of not having a certificate at all times was
penalized by "imprisonment or deportation". This was the penalty for
ONE person. I cannot imagine the penalty enforced on Ghandi if he were
not successful at burning HUNDREDS of certificates. This act took
great courage on Ghandi's part. Another example of the potential
danger Ghandi put himself into was during The Great Trials. Because of
his satyagrahi campaign, some of his followers had engaged in violent
acts, of which Ghandi was blamed for starting. The British Government
arrested him, and Ghandi accepted the blame. He stated that he knew
that he was "playing with fire", yet he said that if he was set free
he would still do the same. This decision took great courage on
Ghandi's part, because he knew that his campaign could have got him
into trouble. A third example of how his Satyagrahi missions required
great courage is from Document 3, the "Dharasana Salt Raid". During
the raid, police officers descended upon Ghandi and his marchers with
clubs, and he did not resist. They took great beatings, such that a
witness reported that it "sickened me so much that I had to turn
away.". The beatings that he and his followers took required great
courage not to resist or fight back. Thus, to be a Satyagrahi required
great courage.

2. Besides personal danger, a Satyagrahi might face serious
repercussions and consequences. As evidenced by Document 2, Ghandi was
arrested because of his mission. This did not pose a great conflict,
because he was able to keep on with his missions, but other Satyagrahi
missions might have had serious consequences that could have put him
in jail. In Document 1, Ghandi faced the danger of being imprisoned or
deported. These such consequences could have ended his Satyahrahi
campaings in India for good. Another danger might be the danger of
trying to control a mass of people. As evidenced by Document 2,
sometimes a mass can get uncontrollable. Ghandi faces the danger of
his followers resorting to violence.

3. Ghandi abides by the tactic of Ahimsa - the love that remains once
all violence has ended within oneself. This can be used when he states
that the satyagrahi should never forget that he and the attacker are
one. If Ghandi remains faithful to not wanting anything for himself,
then he is only trying to help the attacker improve themself. Ghandi
has to keep in mind that both him and the attacker are people, and
both have some sort of Ahimsa within themselves, even if the attacker
may not show it on the outside. Therefore, Ghandi and the attacker are
bound to each other in similar yet different ways. The attacker may,
in himself, believe he is doing satyagraha, but really just needs to
readjust what his definition of satyagraha is. In conclusion, both
Ghandi and the attacker are searching for the truth, even if it comes
out in different ways, so both he and the attacker are one.

4. I think many Indian's supported Ghandi's movement because it was a
peaceful and sensible enough way to protest against the harsh British
control. Many Indian's wanted to protest against the British, but did
not have a way to make a difference, and they found that way in
Ghandi's Satyagrahi. The principles of Satyagrahi are closely tied to
Ahimsa, which is the love that remains once all violence has ended
within oneself. I think that many Indian's found the thought that they
could both protest against the British government while working
towards achieving total love within themselves appealing, so they
supported Ghandi.

5. I think that statement B is closest to my view of satyagraha. I
believe that depending on the opponent one is facing, the
effectiveness of Satygraha can be either effective but also it can be
unwise and ineffective. For instance, during the Salt Raids, the
Satyagraha was ineffective because the opponent was willing to use
force, while Ghandi and his followers were not willing to use force
whatsoever. Because of this, Ghandi and his followers were beaten and
"methodically bashed into a bloody pulp". However, in some instances,
Satyagraha can be very effective. In Document 1, Ghandi uses
Satyagraha to oppose the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, when he burned
hundreds of certificates to protest. Because of this protest, Ghandi
and the South African government reached a compromise agreement ending
some of the harshest provisions of the Black Act. In this example
Satyagraha was used effectively against the opponent. In conclusion, I
think that Satyagraha can be either ineffective or effective depending
on the opponent, and Ghandi has to choose the right opponents to fight
against.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Sarah]

1. Gandhi believed it took great courage to be a satyagrahi because a
satyagrahi must undergo willingly pains and difficulties that those
rebelling through other means would not. For instance, in Document 2
Gandhi asks for "the highest penalty" and does "not ask for mercy". He
has been arrested for writing articles which caused rebellion, and he
feels he deserves such punishment because some protesters did not
follow satyagraha and instead attacked and killed policemen in Chauri
Chaura. It took courage for him to ask for punishment for a death he
did not directly cause, but part of satyagraha is to avoid any
violence, and so if his articles sparked the rebellion, Gandhi had to
have the courage to submit himself for punishment. Another example is
in Document 3, when American reporter Webb Miller described the
satyagrahis refusing to defend themselves against attacking policemen.
"Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows.
They went down like tenpins. From where I stood I heard sickening
whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls." This again took incredible
courage, because the satyagrahis were dying without knowing if their
deaths would have an impact in the world, dying without being able to
defend themselves from the pain. Finally, Webb Miller states that “at
times the spectacle of unresisting men being methodically bashed into
a bloody pulp sickened me so much that I had to turn away. The western

mind finds it difficult to grasp the idea of nonresistance.” The

satyagrahis had to have the courage to continue with their non-violent
protests even if westerners and others were calling them fools or
scorning the protests. In conclusion, the satyagrahis had to have the
courage to die painful deaths or submit to arrest for their cause,
knowing that many in the world were laughing at their deaths and their
methods of protest.

2. Besides personal danger, a satyagrahi has to concern himself with
possible danger that could be caused to others, for he believes that
“he and the attacker are one” (Gandhi as Satyagrahi). For instance, in
Document 2, when Gandhi discovered that his articles had caused
protestors to attack police in Chauri Chaura, he felt horrible and
asked for “the highest penalty” because he believed any loss of life
was entirely his fault. A satyagrahi also must be careful that he
concerns himself with the entire world, because “he wants nothing for
himself” and “is not afraid of entering any conflict fro the sake of
those around him” (Gandhi as Satyagrahi). He must not allow the events
that occur near him to cause him to forget other injustices which he
can fight, such as when Gandhi tried to help the Jews of Germany, as
seen in Document 4.

3. When Gandhi said that a satyagrahi should “never forget that he and
the attacker are one”, he was referring to ahimsa, the love for all
living things and lack of violent thoughts. Gandhi believed that any
successful satyagraha campaign hinged on ahimsa, or, in other words,
that a satyagrahi must love and care for everyone, fearful of hurting
even those who brutally attack them. Gandhi believed that the attacker
was as deserving of love as the attacked, because all men were bound
by ahimsa. Besides, Gandhi believed that it is the divisions between
men that cause all of the violence in the world – if all men would
realize that they are one, violent behavior and persecution would
cease. For this reason he was unable to defend himself violently
against any attacker.

4. Many Indians supported Gandhi’s satyagraha movement because he
cared for all Indians and allowed all Indians to become involved. For
instance, all Indians could participate in the non-cooperation with
the British government by refusing to buy British goods or withholding
taxes. He also changed Congress “from a small group of India’s elite
into a mass organization, recruiting thousands of peasants” (Part II:
From Reform to Independence) and organized mass non-violent protests,
such as the protest on the salt tax, that all Indians could get
involved in. In “Part II: From Reform to Independence” it says that
there were marches throughout the country and taxes were not paid:
small steps that allowed all Indians to feel like they were acting
with Gandhi. Additionally, Gandhi cared for all Indians. The “Part II”
packet says that he organized the salt tax protest because the salt
tax was something that affected all Indians. He “also reached out to
Muslims by lending Congress’s support to the caliphate movement” (Part
II: From Reform to Independence), a movement that was trying to retain
the power of the caliph of the Ottoman Empire. For these two reasons
Gandhi gained a wide base of support from Indians throughout the
country.

5. I am somewhere between answers “a” and “b”: while I believe in
satyagraha whole-heartedly, I think there is occasionally a situation
whose obscurity or incredibly unusual circumstances would prove it
impractical. I believe in satyagraha because I believe that no man can
retain his integrity and reputation as an honest, caring leader while
engaging in violent acts. A current example is Alassane Ouattara of
the Ivory Coast, who has been forced to join NATO and the UN in using
violence to remove Laurent Gbagbo, who claims he won the presidential
elections, from power. Recently he has been accused of various
unnecessary killings, threatening the opinions that the UN and Ivory
Coast citizens had of him. While I do not believe that Ouattara should
have sat silently while Gbagbo claimed power, I believe his use of
violence has harmed his reputation permanently. I also believe that
satyagraha is the best way to prove the purity of what the protesters
want: if they are willing to die for it, without putting up a fight,
trusting that others will see the truth in what they are dying for,
then clearly it must be a fair and worthwhile cause. However, there is
the occasional situation where satyagraha would be useless. I do not
believe that the satyagrahi can count on his attacker to be swayed by
non-violent protests, more likely it is a person higher in command, or
a person from an allied country or other nation watching the protests,
who will feel the need to act when the protests occur. Therefore, in a
very obscure situation, or one where the media is not allowing any
news to spread, the satyagraha protest would probably go unnoticed and
therefore be useless. This includes situations like Libya, where
Colonel Qaddafi is attempting to control the media and prevent
journalists from reporting on successes of the rebels in his country.
Here, with repressive media and airstrikes by the government,
satyagrahi might be stifled before the world could notice or respond.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[sean young]

1. according to the documents, in order to be a satyagrahi Gandhi
often placed himself in dangerous situations. For example, according
to document one Gandhi opposed the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, which
forced the Indian community to "register with the government and carry
a certificate at all times on penalty of inprisonment or deportation".
So, in response to the act Gandhi decided to hold a bonfire to burn
certificates. As you can see here, if the penalty for not carrying a
certificate is imprisonment or deportation, then holding a bonfire to
burn the certificates of thousands of Indian citizens clearly would
have harsh repurcussions, especially if Gandhi hadn't been successful
in changing the act (which he managed to do). Next, according to
document two, some followers of Gandhi's satyagraha campaign
participated in the "burning and hacking to death of twenty-three
policemen in the village of Chauri Chaura". The British government
blamed Gandhi for those gruesome murders, meaning he would probably
have to face the iron law as punishment. Even then, Gandhi did not
protest and even asked for the "highest penalty...I do not ask for
mercy". Gandhi is willing to risk being thrown in jail or worse, to
stand up for his followers' actions during the satyagraha campaign.
Lastly, another example of the courage it takes to be a satyagrahi is
evident in the raid of the salt works at Dharasana. According to
article three, "at a word of command, scores of native police rushed
upon the advancing marchers and rained blows on their heads with their
steel-shod lathis. Not one of the marchers even raises an arm to fend
off the blows." It must take a massive amount of courage to be able to
peacefully withstand the blows of scores of police officers as they
repeatedly bash bamboo sticks over your head.

2. Other than the personal danger that a satyagrahi might face,
other concerns that one should have while conducting a satyagraha
campaign are how the other people will act in the campaign, and how
the campaign will be seen by the rest of the world. For example, one
needs to be aware of the fact that some followers of the satyagraha
campaign might not follow the non-violent stress that is put on the
protests, like in the example of the killing of the 23 policemen.
Also, document three states "the western mind finds it difficult to
grasp the idea of nonresistance", meaning that the satyagraha
campaigns might not be understood by the western world (i.e the
British occupyers), so the campaigns might be met with violence, even
thoguh they are themselves nonviolent.

3 When Gandhi said that the satyagrahi "never lets himself forget
that he and the attacker are one", I think that he means a few things.
First of all, I believe he means that the satyagrahi needs to realize
that the attacker is also part of Brahman, and therefore needs to be
treated with compassion. Secondly, I think Gandhi was trying to stress
the idea that if you give into the violence of the agressor, then the
violence will only lead to more violence, because the agressor will
strike you back after you react. By following Gandhi's advice, a
person's atman is at peace, and not as many acts of violence are also
being committed.

4. I think the reason why so many Indians supported Gandhi's
satyagraha movement was due to multiple reasons. First of all,
Gandhi's movement stressed nonviolence, and respected Brahman which
meant that a person's karma was benefitted by following in Gandhi's
footsteps. Also, people followed Gandhi's satyagraha movement because
he proved on multiple occasions that movements (backed by thousands of
people) could actually be effective. For example, when Ghandi held the
certificate bonfire, with the help of his followers, change was
actually accomplished, and the Asiatic Law Amendment Act was edited.

5. I agree with b, because I believe that the effictiveness of
satyagraha depends on the opponent that you are facing. For example,
in modern times there have been numerous uprisings and revolts in
Africa and the Middle East. In some countries like Egypt, although
there was a little bit of violence from Mubarak's supporters and the
police, Mubarak didn't really resort to violence against the
protesters. In this situation, I think that the satyagraha movement
would be extremely effective, because why use violence against an
enemy that isn't using violence against you? On the other hand, in
Libya as of now Qaddafi and his troops are literally opening fire on
his people, and relentlessly killing them. In this kind of situation,
when faced with sure death at the hands of someone who has no concern
for loss of life, satyagraha would be very ineffective, because any
protests would be put down with remorseless gunfire. But, Gandhi's
idea to counter this opinion is that the merciless massacre of
thousands of people who did not resort to violence against Qaddafi's
slaughter would get the attention of the entire world, and then it
would be the job of the UN to step in and get Qaddafi to stop. But
even in that case, the UN would need to resort to violence to get
Qaddafi out of power, which is why I think b is a reasonable opinion
on the issue.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Hannah]

1. Gandhi believed that it took much courage to be a satyagrahi, or
non-violent protester. One example of this was in Document 1, where it
says that Gandhi opposed the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, which required
Indians living in South Africa to register with the government and
carry a certificate at all times or they would be punished. Instead of
violently protesting, Gandhi arranged a bonfire to burn these
certificates as an act of opposition, which hurt no one. Eventually,
he was able to negotiate with the south African government to end some
of the most extreme laws of the amendment. In Document 3, as part of a
campaign to end the salt tax imposed by the British in India, Gandhi
led a raid of the salt works at Dharasana, and instructed those who
followed him to not use violence under any circumstances, even if the
police violently attacked them, which they did. None of the marchers
even attempted to defend themselves. In Document 4, Gandhi talked
about how the Jews in Germany should protest deportation. He said that
they should simply refuse to be expelled or succumb to discrimination,
which is a form of nonviolent protesting.

2. Besides personal danger to a satyagrahi, there are many other
concerns to consider. First is the physical danger to others, whether
it be followers getting hurt or the non-violent protest turning into a
violent one, where the opponent is harmed. Followers might not be
physically harmed, but if they are thrown in jail it will negatively
impact not only them, but their families as well. There is also a
cultural danger as well, meaning that other societies may not
understand the nonviolent protests and react violently, harming both
opponent and protesters.

3. When Gandhi said to "never forget that he and the attacker are
one," he means that both the opponents and protesters are humans,
often coming from the same culture, religion, or even family. One
example of this is during the salt raid when the police attacked the
marchers. Many of the police trying to violently break up the protest
were sepoys, or Indians that were working for the British. In this
case, literally the police (the opponents) and the protesters were
both of the same people, which is part of why the protesters did not
fight back when the police were attacking them.

4. I think that many Indians supported Gandhi's satyagrahi movement
was because not only did they want reform and freedom from the
British, it was a way to protest where the protesters would not harm
others, and hopefully the opponents would not harm them (which didn't
actually happen). Other nonviolent protests, such as Gandhi's protest
of the Asiatic Law Amendment Act in South Africa, were successful and
they believed that the protests Gandhi led would be successful as
well.

5. I believe that that statement b, "the effectiveness of satyagraha

is relative, depending on the type of opponent you're facing. In some
circumstances this tactic would be effective. In others it would be

unwise and and inneffective." I believe this because while satyagraha
is a wonderful way to protest, its effectiveness depends on the
opponent and how it will react to the protests. A modern day example
of this are the protests in the Middle East, especially Egypt and
Libya. In Egypt, the protests were started on Facebook, and protesters
gathered in public places, but they did not harm anyone. Even though a
few people were harmed, eventually Mubarak got the message and stepped
down from office, rendering the nonviolent protests effective.
However, in Libya, when the Libyans tried the same approach as the
Egyptians, Qaddafi sent air strikes on civilians in order to try and
stop it, sparking a civil war and the involvement of multiple
countries. Currently, the battle is still going on, and as of now the
protests have not been successful.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[kevin]

1. Examples of Gandhi's view of Satyagraha are numerous. Three
examples that stood out to me most included, first of all, the protest
of the salt works at Dharasana. Although the government officials
brutally beat the protestors, they offered absolutely no resistance.
It must have taken them incredible courage to adhere to the ideas of
Satyagraha so strongly as to allow themselves to be beaten so badly.
The second example is that the followers of the Satyagraha movement
did not allow themselves to resort to violence. Although they had been
subjected to repression and violence, they did not retaliate in any
sort of violent act. Refraining from surrendering to anger and
violence also must have taken Gandhi's follwers immense courage.
Finally, many of the protestors, including Gandhi himself, were jailed
for long amounts of time. To continue protesting even facing jail and
beatings was yet another measure of the protestors' courage.

2. Satyagraha protestors faced many different dangers, not only
physical harm. Protestors could face being jailed for extended periods
of time, as well as the jailing or worse for their friends and family.
Additionally, the Satyagraha protestors would have had the added
concern of controlling themselves and their emotions in the face of
violence and anger on the part of the government troops. If the
protestors lost control of themselves and resorted to violence, it
would discredit the campaign and only weaken the Satyagraha movement.
In addition, for this very reason, the protestors not only had to
refrain from violence, but they had to work to conscously prevent
violence as well. If violence did occur against the British troops,
even if it was not the intent of the protestors, they could be blamed
for the violence and their movement would lose face.

3. When Gandhi said that the Satyagrahi must never forget that he and
the attacker are one, he is referring to the Hindu faith, and the
concept of Brahma. Within the Brahma, every person and every animal is
part of the greater whole, a larger, greater collective. Because of
this view, if a Hindu engages in combat, he is only harming himself.
This outlook is especially relevant to the Satyagrahi, because it
encourages peaceful resistance. Gandhi aimed to use non-violent
protests to throw off the British rule, and he used the concept of the
Brahma to persuade others to share his views.

4. I think that many Indians supported Gandhi's Satyagraha movement
because it showed them a way to resist their oppressors in a way that
was keeping with the Hindu faith. For the many Indians who were Hindu,
violence directly opposed the individual's Dharma, and brought them
further from Moksha. By supporting Gandhi's Satyagraha movement, they
could achieve their dharma and throw off their oppressors at the same
time. Additionally, responding to the British with violence would only
encourage them to grip harder on India and respond with even more
violence. As seen in the mutiny of 1857, each act of horrendous
violence only made the problem worse, and the other side responded
even more brutally than before.

5. I agree with satement B. As seen with both Gandhi and Martin Luther
King Jr, the technique of nonviolent protest can make changes for the
better, and would be praise-worthy of every individual who would
partake in it. Violence is an act to be condemmed, and Satyagraha
avoids the problem of stooping to your enemy's level by removing
violence from the picture. Additionally, it brings favor from the rest
of the world, who would look on such an act as admirable and morally
righteous. However, Satyagraha does not always work. As can be seen
with the conflict in Libya, some rulers are too absorbed in their own
power to consider taking mercy on a non-violent foe. Gaddaffi was
using airstrikes on unarmed civilians even before the rebels started
using violence. It was only after they realized that Gaddaffi had no
intention of stepping down peacefully that the rebels started fighting
directly with forces loyal to Gaddaffi's reign. In this situation,
Satyagraha would be uneffective, and suicidal.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[ds]

1. Gandhi said that, no matter how fierce the provocation, one must
never use violence. Without violence, people lose one of the first
protective measures that they think to use. To lack the option to use
violence leaves people feeling exposed and unprotected, so that they
must trust those around them, they must venture out everyday without
the ability to protect themselves from violent attack.
As a satyagraha, Gandhi believed in nonviolence. However, some of the
followers of his movement did not, and many acts of violence were
committed by those who claimed to follow Gandhi. As a satyagraha,
Gandhi had to take responsibility for the violent actions of others
event even though he himself had committed no acts of violence. He
knew this would become his responsibility, but he courageously chose
to continue the rebellion against the opressive England. All the
satyagrahas knew that their movement would be persecuted by the
English and that they would take the blame for any violence, but they
still chose to continue the rebellion.
During the Dharasana Salt Raid, the satyagrahi followers were brutally
attacked and beaten by the police. Because of their strict belief in
non-violence, they did not retalitate, but merely took the blows.
However, they had faith that people would follow their example and
continue the movement if they were killed, and this what gave them
courage.
2. The satyagrahi followers deprived themselves of a great deal
through their non-violent non-cooperation. Indians who returned
honorary titles no longer held status amongst the British and parents
who removed their children from government schools had to look
elsewhere for education. People who withheld taxes faced legal action
and people who refused to buy British goods may have had more trouble
finding everyday conviences that only the British were allowed to
supply. Those who refused to work at government jobs faced economic
struggles if they couldn't find employment elsewhere. The movement
also required cooperation between many groups, such as religions like
Hinduism and Islam. Without cooperation between the religions, the
struggle for India's freedom would be in vain. A true satyagraha would
also have feared the fact that protests would stray from the original
intention of nonviolence and turn violent, as they did in the town of
Chauri Chaura when twenty-two policemen were brutally murdered.
3. I think that he meant that they were all part of brahman, the world
as a whole, and thus they must respect each other. Also, many of the
"attackers" he spoke of were native policemen, men who were born in
India but benefitted from British rule. He knew that the policemen
thought they were fighting for what was right, just as they satyagrahi
thought that they were protesting for what was right. In this way they
were similar.
4. Indians had long been oppressed by the British rulers. Their rights
had been taken away and they had been discriminated against. Indians
had long been awaiting a time when the British would leave, but their
promises of an independent India seemed empty. Gandhi was offering an
organized resolution to their problems. Because of its non-violent
nature, the movement did not conflict with the ideals of Indian
religions, and it really got the attention of the British. As one
reporter said, the concept of non-violence was complete foreign to the
western mind. The movement was also very spiritual in nature, and very
empowering. As Gandhi said in "Zionism and Anti-Semitism," "the the
God-fearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed
by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep."
5. I see that I am agreeing with the majority when I say that my
opinion is B. I at first had been leaning towards A because all the
famous non-violent movements that I've learned about have been
successful. Gandhi and the satyagrahi movement succeeded in eventually
securing India's independence. Another famous non-violent protest was
the American civil rights movement of the 60s, which eventually
granted minorities more equal rights. However, I think that the idea
of a completely non-violent movement is naive. I don't believe in
instigating the violence, but as with the riot and murder of policemen
in Chauri Chaura, it is unrealistic to think that the absence of
violence in a rebellion is possible. Gandhi himself admitted that he
knew violence would be manifest itself sometime or another during his
movement for India's independence. I also don't believe in turning the
other cheek when being attacked. Like the reporter said, nonresistance
is a foreign concept to western mind, but I do believe that one has
the right to defend oneself when being attacked. Submitting oneself to
abuse is unproductive. In this part of my response, I am leaning more
towards C, but I also think A because the idea of a non-violent
protest is something to strive for. I end up saying B because I think
saying that you believe in satyagraha is like saying you believe in
utopia. It's something to strive for, but impossible to reach, and
comes with infinite ways to stray down the wrong path.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Allie Ziegler]

1. Gandhi often stated that it took great courage to be a

satyagrahi. The documents clearly illustrate that Gandhi's work of
fighting injustice through satyagraha often put he and his followers
in danger. Document 1: A Bonfire of Certificates stated that as a
young lawyer in South Africa, Gandhi opposed the Asiatic Law Amendment
Act which required the Indian community to register with the

government and carry a certificate at all times on penalty of

imprisonment or deportation. As an act of defiance, Gandhi held a
bonfire to burn the certificates. Thousands of certificates were
burned in a cauldron to signify the inequalities of Indian people in
South Africa as represented by this law. It must have taken such great
courage for Gandhi to organize such a protest because if the penalty
for not carrying a certificate was imprisonment or deportation, I am
sure that penalty for the organization of a bonfire to burn those same
certificates would be of the greatest severity. In addition, it also
must have taken such great courage for those thousands of followers of
Gandhi to carry their certificates up to the platform and throw them
into the flames. Had these individuals been caught in the act of
burning their certificates I am sure that their punishment would have
been extreme.
Document two, The Great Trial by K.P.K Menon stated that
during the satyagraha campaign he recently led some Indian protestors
had engaged in violent acts, including the burning and hacking to
death of twenty-three policemen even though satyagraha calls for non-
violent civil disobedience. Gandhi himself said, "I knew that I was
playing with fire. I ran the risk, and if I was set free, I would
still do the same..." I believe that this quote shows Gandhi's courage
because he remained loyal to his followers even when they resorted to
violent acts. Gandhi easily could have dissociated himself from the
crimes of Chauri Chaura, however, he stated, "I had to either submit
to a system which I had considered had done irreparable harm to my
country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting
forth, when they understand the truth of my lips." Gandhi would not
abandon his followers even after his people "have sometimes gone mad"
because he will stand strong to fight for a cause he believes in.
Document four, Zionism and Anti-Semitism basically describes
the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. In his newspaper the
Harijan, Gandhi contemplated the situation of the German Jews. He
said, "If I were a Jew born in Germany and earned my livelihood there,
I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile might,
and challenge him to hoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse
to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment." Even though
Gandhi is not a Jew and has not been forced to endure the inhumane
treatment of the Jews, I believe that this quote shows the courage and
strength of a satyagrahi because Gandhi says that he would claim
Germany as his home because he has lived there, worked there and he
belongs there. I also believe that when he says, "I would challenge
him to shoot me, but refuse to be expelled" shows that he would rather
challenge his opponents to overpower him rather than to succumb to
their commands.
2. There are many dangers that a satyagrahi face while conducting a
satyagraha campaign. Other than the obvious personal danger that a
satyagrahi would face while leading a campaign, they also must deal
with the actions of their followers. A satyagraha campaign is supposed
to involve no violence, however as Gandhi said, "I know that my people
have sometimes gone mad.” When a satyagrahi is conducting a campaign
of thousands of people there is certainly room for mistakes. If any of
a satyagrahi's followers resort to violence or misuse their power that
punishment falls back on the leader of the campaign. Therefore, a
satyagrahi is not only in personal danger from the opposition, but
also in danger indirectly because of the actions of their followers.
3. When Gandhi said, the satyagrahi shall "never forget that he and
the attacker are one" I believe that it signifies a few relationships.
On a literal level, I believe that this quote means something similar
to the concept of mutually assured destruction in the Cold War. I
believe that it signifies the cyclical nature to violence and the fact
that if one attacks the other, the violence will spiral back to the
attacker. On a more symbolic level, I believe that it touches upon the
concept of humanity and that when you leave out race, religion,
beliefs, etc. every person is just that, a person. I think that in the
context of this article, this quote most directly means that we are
both fighting for our beliefs, and if we leave out the violence we
will more likely be able to reach a compromise or conclusion.
4. I believe that Gandhi had such a great number of followers because
he led peaceful protests on issues which most Indian’s felt strongly
about. For example, Gandhi led thousands of Indian’s in South Africa
to defy the Asiatic Law Amendment Act which prompted the government to
change the law that forced all Indian’s to carry a certificate of
identification at all times. I believe that Gandhi’s recognition of
religious culture, and his non-violent protests gathered great numbers
of followers because he was able to appeal to the masses. In addition,
Gandhi worked to minimize British autonomous rule over India which is
an occupation that many Indian’s disagreed with.
5. Although I agree with portions of each option, I most closely agree
with option B. I believe that in many cases satyagraha is effective
and truly has the power to make a difference. When just looking at
Gandhi himself it is evident that satygraha can certainly be
effective, but it can also be dangerous and unsuccessful. For example,
Gandhi’s massive protest of the Asiatic law in South Africa led to a
change in the amendment, however when Gandhi protested the salt tax
his group of non-violent protestors stood no match for the ready-to-
fight men of the military. The men that were killed or beaten during
the protest of the salt tax simply refused to fight back because it
was against their beliefs. I believe that this shows the positives of
satygraha but also the negatives. These men were extremely courageous
to protest without any thought for violence; however, the seeming
ignorance of these men to the situation they are faced with shows some
foolishness to the method of satygraha. Therefore, I believe that in
many cases satygraha is effective, however in some instances peaceful
protests may not be successful and violence may be necessary.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Saad Imran]

1. Gandhi had to take alot of risks to be a satyagrahi, and to take
these risks he demonstrated a great deal of courage. One example of
courage was in 'A Bonfire of Certificates' by M.K Gandhi, when he
burned the certificates of Indians living in South Africa. He burned
these certificates in response to the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, and
it took a great deal of courage to lead his Indian Brethren to burn
the certificates. A second example would be when in "The Great Trial"
by K.P.K Menon, he was arrested for writing seditious articles. It was
not only courageous to write the articles, but it also was courageous
to plea guilty on his behalf. It showed the qualities of a satyagrahi
as he was steps closer in attaining truth. A third example of courage
was when Gandhi planned to raid the salt works at Dharasana. This
showed courage as he knew the consequences which would be arrests,
beatings, etc.

2. One other concern a satyagraha must keep in mind while conducting
the campaign is to make sure no person resorts to violence, and
everyone follows ahimsa which is absence of violence and intense love.
Additionally, he must make sure that the protests cause no harm to the
localities in which they are protesting, and they must also make sure
that they are not harming a civilian or an officer intentionally or
unintentionally. This is shown when he was blamed for the killings in
Chauri Chaura, and he had to agree to the consequences of his
protesters as he did not properly control them to protesting in a way
without violence. He additionally said he knew he was "playing with
fire", and he had to incur the risk of the mad fury of his people
bursting forth, when they understood the truth from his lips.

3. I think he is saying that both he and the attacker are human, and
they must treat all humans with intense love. This theory of non-
violence and intense love is also called ahisma. I think he is also
saying i a way that the attacker and himself are one singular person
and if you have an act of violence against the attacker, then you are
both physically and morally hurting yourself. Additionally, an example
to support this would be if you were mad at yourself. If you are mad
at yourself, then you would not start hurting yourself but you would
carefully think out the problem and find a resolution. This is exactly
what gandhi is trying to say, that you should deal with problems the
same way for the attacker as if you would deal with problems amongst
yourselves. This additionally includes not resorting to violent
words.

4. I think there were several reasons why people supported the Gandhi
satyagraha movement. One reason is that Gandhi's movement was
basically a consensus movement as it benefited all Indians including
the Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christian Indians. Additionally I
believe the Indian people supported the satyagraha movement because it
was a movement without violence and a movement without violence means
the protesters not personally coming within harms way, and they would
feel better than if they physically hurt the others. Lastly, I believe
that the last reason why Gandhi's movement worked was because the
Indians all had a common hatred for the British as the British were
terminating their ideals, culture, economy, and more.

5. The following statements which is closest to my personal view of
Satyagraha is (b.) The effectiveness of satyagraha is relative,

depending on the type of opponent you're facing.  In some
circumstances this tactic would be effective.  In others it would be

unwise and ineffective. I believe this is my closest view of
Satyagraha as their are some instances which the movement would be
effective and others in which the movement would not be effective at
all. An example of when the movement would not be effective would be
if you are resisting a powerful, heartless, force and they do not care
about their citizens or peace whatsoever. A perfect example of this
would be Muammar Qaddafi and his constant attacks on his people. at
first the protests were peaceful on the protesters behalf, but when
Qaddafi initiated the tanks and army it became a full on war. An
example of when a peaceful movement would work would be if you are in
EGYPT for example and the dictator is semi-sane and peaceful protests
do the job, and their is no violence involved.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Alex Kim]

1. Gandhi was right in saying that it took great courage to be a
satyagrahi. In document 2, it says that Gandhi was arrested and
pleaded guilty to writing seditious articles. This shows courage
because even though he was non-violent and practiced satyagraha, he
was arrested. It also shows courage because he pleaded guilty. In
document 3, Gandhi's march on the salt works at Dharasana is
described. It took great courage for every person in that raid to go
to the works in the first place, and also to remain non-violent even
under blows from lathis. In document 4, Gandhi urges Jews in Germany
to become satyagrahi but it would take great courage to do so. Gandhi
says to challenge the persecutors to "shoot me or cast me in the
dungeon." It would take great courage to say such words.

2. When conducting a satyagraha campaign, one must not only worry for
his own safety, but also for the safety of those around him. For
example, had Gandhi's protest in South Africa failed, he and several
thousand other Indians may have been imprisoned for lack of proper
documentation. One must also be concerned with the results and impacts
on other rebels that one may have. For example, in Gandhi's satyagraha
campaign, some protestors resorted to violence for which all the
protestors were held accountable. Even though Gandhi was not violent,
he had to be careful that his actions did not encourage those around
him to protest violently.

3. Gandhi believed that ahimsa, non-violence, was not merely the lack
of violence, but "the love that remains once all violence had ended
within oneself". In this way, he said that the satyagahi should enter
conflict for the sake of those around him, without resorting to
violence, holding on to "the truth". To Gandhi, ahimsa meant an
intense love for even the attacker. Therefore, the satyagrahi is one
with his attacker and must not resort to violence when attacked.

4. I think many Indians participated in Gandhi's satyagraha movement
because it was the best form of protest that existed for the citizens.
So many Indians resented British rule, but did not know exactly how to
protest it. Gandhi's movement allowed people to be a part of an
organized movement, and there is strength and confidence in numbers.
Also, Gandhi was a Hindu and held true to many Hindu values. That may
have gave people more confidence in him and encouraged them to
participate in the movement.

5. I believe whole-heartedly in satyagraha. Although I think it is by
far the hardest form of rebellion, leaders like Gandhi and Martin
Luther King Jr. have proven that satyagraha has the power to change
the world. Gandhi's explanation of non-violence as an intense love
definitely makes it seem more appealing. Gandhi rationalizes non-
violence in a way that makes it very hard to oppose his logic. In some
cases, satyagraha may be slower than other forms of rebellion, but I
think that it is more powerful because anyone, no matter who they are,
can participate in satyagraha. Also, in cases in which someone says
satyagraha is truly impractical, probably any form of rebellion is
impractical. I would argue that if someone is protesting a government,
the government would be less likely to oppose peaceful revolution than
armed revolution.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Emily Lu]

1.By Gandhi’s definition, being a satygraha means that one disobeys in
a non-violent manner. Gandhi believed that this meant being courageous
enough to stick to the truth and brave the consequences. In document
2, when Gandhi was charged with writing seditious articles, he states
that "I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the risk, and if I
was set free, I would still do the same". I can see that although he
did not understand the consequences of the recent satyagraha campaign
he led, he would have still led the campaign with full comprehension
of the risks. From this, I see that Gandhi had the courage to stick
with his decisions. Another example is described in document 3, when
an American reporter wrote that "not one of the marchers even raised
an arm to fend off the blows...From where I stood I heard sickening
whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls. At times the spectacle of

unresisting men being methodically bashed into a bloody pulp sickened

me so much that I had to turn away." The reporter, as well as the
crowds surrounding the spectacle, winced in sympathy at the violence,
and I can only imagine how much courage it took to actually be the
victim of the beatings. As the leader, I am sure it took enormous
courage or Gandhi to face the violence himself, as well as the fact
that he was leading these people to their imprisonments and their
deaths. The third example I found in which Gandhi describes a
satyagrahi as needing courage is in Document 4: "If I were a Jew....I

would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment.

And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in
civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest
would follow my example". Gandhi’s quiet, non-violent resistance would
have taken much courage, and even more so from the fact that he would
be initiating it alone, without the support of his fellow Jews. It
must be difficult to do what Gandhi would have done, which was to
stand up to the Germans and show them that they have not wiped away
all the courage and dignity of the Jewish people.

2.Besides personal danger, a satygraha must consider the effects his
protests have on people, as well as the dangers his people are in
during their protests. During the Salt Raid, many of the eyewitnesses
were suffering simply by watching, groaning and wincing
empathetically. In addition, the Jews who had heard Gandhi’s
statements of what he would do if he were Jewish, may have reacted
differently than he had intended. They may have been angered by the
fact that Gandhi believed he could do all these things when he had not
even experienced the persecution that a Jewish person faces, or they
may have been inspired by the actions he declared he would do if he
was Jewish. Reactions and results, were of course, the goal of these
protests, but Gandhi had to be careful of what type of reactions he
was invoking. In addition, a satygraha must consider the things he is
putting his followers through. Although he may have been ready to risk
the beatings that occurred during the Salt Raid as well as face the
fact that he would murder some policemen, he may not have considered
that some of his followers might not have wanted to face the violence,
nor did they want to become so caught up in a mob mentality as to find
themselves hacking men to death.

3. When Gandhi stated that a satyagraha never forgets that he and the
attacker are one, I think he believed that they are on the same side.
Although the attacker may seem violent and oppressive, a satyagraha
must look past that, and reach for the truth. This truth is that the
attacker and the victim are not clearly defined roles, for if the
victim retaliates, he has become the attacker and the attacker then
becomes the victim. This cyclical nature can only be stopped if one
side does not retaliate “even in the face of the fiercest
provocation”. The result of the end of this cycle is ahisma, which is
the “intense love” that remains once the internal conflict has died
down.

4. Gandhi gained followers by reaching out to everyone, including the
Muslims and Jews. He supported the caliphate movement, which was when
the Muslims were worried that the caliph might lose his political and
religious power. He also gave inspiration to the Jews by describing to
them the way that he would stand up for himself if he were in their
position. Under his leadership, he gave everyone a feeling of unity,
especially within religions, that the cultures had not felt before.
Anger and violence was not the major drive behind this unity, but
instead peace and calm non-resistance, which further added to Gandhi’s
support.

5. I agree with most of the statements made in option B. It is evident
that satyagraha could be extremely successful, such as with the Black
Act. Gandhi’s idea to hold a bonfire allowed the people to unite and
pushed them to feel a sense of peaceful, non-violent defiance. They
stood up for themselves and received the reward when Gandhi and the
South African government reached a compromise. Recently, a form a
satyagraha has taken place in India that was also effective. An Indian
man had been fasting for 4 days, and his protest has proven
successful. The government has given in to his demands, and agreed to
appoint a committee to draft an anti-corruption law. However, I do not
believe that satyagraha is always wise. For example, in the salt raid
conducted by Gandhi, his people were beaten down brutally by lathis.
Gandhi’s followers did not even fight back, placing them completely at
the mercy of the native police force. This was not necessarily the
wisest form of satyagraha, but it was certainly effective. People
watched these defenseless, unresisting people being beaten down, and
the empathy gathered support for Gandhi’s cause. Although not the
smartest form of protest in this case, it did help the cause.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Leah Coppage-Gross]

1. There are many cases in the documents that exemplify how much
courage is needed in order to be a satyagrahi. One example would be
in document one when Gandhi began a satyagrahi campaign to protest the
Black Act which said all Indians had to carry around certificates.
The penalty for not carrying it was imprisonment or deportation, so it
is very likely that if he had been punished for organizing the burning
of the certificates, he would have been brutally punished. It took
great courage for him to take such a risk. Another example of great
courage in satyagrahi would be in document 2 when Gandhi wrote
rebellious articles. He was arrested for this and he pled guilty.
Violent acts were committed by Indians and afterwards, he felt
responsible, so he asked for the highest penalty possible-and he
wouldn’t resist his punishment. Another example of the courage it
takes to be a satyagrahi would be in Document 3 when Gandhi led the
Dharasana Salt raid. His people were beat down mercilessly with
bamboo sticks and they did not fight or resist at all. This is very
courageous because while they were being beaten, their policy of no-
resistance stood firm and they suffered all the pain.
2. When conducting a Satyagrahi campaign there are various concerns
that one might have to worry about besides personal danger. There is
obviously the danger that you put those around you in. For example,
when Martin Luther King Jr. conducted his campaign his family
constantly received threats and they were in real danger. Another
concern might be that those you are working with would give up the
cause and fight back. This would completely destroy the idea of the
cause and responding with violence would only lead to more violence.
3. When Gandhi said, “Never forget that he and the attacker are one,”
I believe that he means that one should not forget that you are both
simply human. You were created by the same being and you were put on
this planet to love, not be violent. I think he is also saying that
by being one with each other, hurting the attacker will only hurt
oneself more, literally and mentally. It is not one’s duty to be
violent and this will hurt dharma and it could also lead the attacker
to become more violent than before.
4. I believe that many Indians followed Gandhi’s movement because of
what he was standing up for and the way he was doing it. From reading
the history packets, I can tell that most of the population was tired
of the way the British treat the Indians and they wanted independence
from them. I think it also has to do with religion and one’s duty to
oneself and others. By protesting peacefully, you are not really
harming other people, but you are working for the greater good of
those you love. I think that many people strongly believed in this
concept and they believed in the ideals that Gandhi strongly upholds
such as love and non-violent non-cooperation. His way of rebellion
was very different from how rebellions usually go and I think that the
people saw that, and they saw that perhaps his way would be able to
bring about change faster than violence would, because they would get
more recognition for their acts.
5. B-I believe that the effectiveness of satyagraha is relative,

depending on the type
of opponent you're facing. In some circumstances this tactic would
be

effective. In others it would be unwise and ineffective. In Gandhi’s
case it worked pretty well, but I definitely would say that against
certain opponents-especially the merciless ones-Satyagraha would be
unwise. For example, if the people of Libya today used Satyagraha
against Qaddafi, many more people would be dead. When faced against a
ruler who doesn’t care how many people die, as long as they retain
control, such tactics would be ineffective. I think it would just end
up getting thousands more people killed and wouldn’t lead to
anything. It all depends on the type of opponent you are facing.

> > week, clips from Gandhi on the “Salt March”, and/or current events).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Yuichiro Iwamoto]

1. One reason that it took great courage to be a satyagrahi is taking
responsibility for the irresponsible acts of the people. As evidenced
in document 2, it is inevitable for some violence to erupt from civil
unhappiness especially when the suppressor of the uprising uses
violence. The Indian protesters burned and hacked 23 policemen to
death. A satyagraha must be fully aware of the consequences that his
revolution may bring, and take responsibility for the violence of his
people. Another reason it takes courage to be a satyagrahi is enduring
the violence from the British. The British are not going to allow the
uprising loose in India without any resistance. In document 3, such
British resistance is described. During a campaign against salt tax,
2500 protesters raided the salt works, but they were methodically
beaten with steel-shod lathis by the police. It was not Gandhi himself
that lead the movement, but it took courage nonetheless to not resist
as his fellow Indians were beaten into a bloody pulp. The third reason
that being a satyagrahi takes courage is because a satyagrahi needs to
oppose the ruling force. As shown in document 1, Gandhi opposed the
government of South Africa by protesting openly against the Black Act.
He even held a bonfire to burn the certificates which were crucial to
the new law. By showing this kind of open disobedience, the satyagrahi
faces strong risks of condemnation, but must show courage to overcome
it.
2. Other than personal danger concerns, a satyagrahi must be concerned
about the people taking part in the satyagraha campaign. There needs
to be a common goal that everyone is striving for, and perfect
coordination. Without common goals or coordination, the campaign would
cease to be effective because it will not have a justified reason.
Only when the satyagraha campaign is fighting against a common enemy
through non violent means, can it make an impact on the people's mind.
Only a non-violent unified protest will make the spectators move to
the protesters' side. If the satyagraha campaign was just an
uncontrolled wild mob of people, then the spectators would put it off
as rubbish making the whole campaign meaningless.
3. In the statement "...never forget that he and the attacker are
one", Gandhi meant that the satyagrahi and the protesters should not
consider the attacker inhuman or enemies. He is saying that although
both sides may seem like enemies to each other, in reality, they are
all humans struggling to survive. I think Ghandi is trying to promote
a sense of respect to the attackers, and saying that there should not
be any violence involved in these protests. Violence to anyone means
violence to a human being just like the protesters themselves. By
following Gandhi's civil disobedience tactics, no one is hurt, and
there is even respect towards the enemies of the movement. The core of
the concept of civil disobedience is ahisma or non violence.
4. Indians supported the satygraha movement because they yearned for
independence from the British, as well as better living conditions. A
major focus in some uprisings is salt. The British had a monopoly on
salt, which could be taken from the Indian ocean, and forced the
Indians to pay for it. Salt was a necessary product because it
preserved food. The unfair British monopoly on salt caused large
movements such as the Dharasana Salt Raid. It had gained Indian
support, because it was a common problem that troubled everyone. A
common objective unified the Indians. In the same way, the British
were the common enemy of Indians, so the satygraha movement which was
against the British fit the bill for the unsatisfied people of India.
5. I agree with statement A which is "I believe whole-heatedly in

satyagraha. This type of civil disobedience based on moral force not

only shows great courage, but it truly has the power to change to
world for better. My main reason for picking this is because I felt
that the satyagraha was deadly efficient in gaining support. If any
opposition of the movement were present, it could only be described as
unreasonable, because the protesters are only voicing their opinions
through passive ways. Any oppressive act on the satyagraha movement
will turn public support away from the oppressors. An example of this
is yet again, the Dharasana Salt Raid. A reporter vividly describes
the beating of harmless Indians, and how it pained everyone's heart to
see such atrocities. This pain in a person's heart turns to distaste
for the beaters and sympathy for the protesters. This eventually turns
into support for the movement, and the movement gains momentum. This
movement's effectiveness can be shown in Libya, where all
international support was lost when Qaddafi open fired on the
protesters. He resorted to violence, which immediately placed the
government as the antagonist. Through non-violence, unwavering support
and momentum can be gained and with it, the objective of the movement
can be reached.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[dalton morris]

1. From the documents, it is clear that it often took much
courage to be a satyagrahi. In document 2, Gandhi was blamed for the
violence that his followers committed. As we know, Gandhi was
extremely against violence but still admitted that the violence was
his fault. He explained that he needed to make a decision; either he
lived with a system that he thought was ruining his country, or he
protested against it and risked violence occurring. Just making the
decision to protest was courageous, but even more courageous was
standing up and taking the blame for the violence. In document 3,
many of Gandhi's followers were brutally beaten without fighting back.
It was extremely courageous for them to start protesting when they
knew there was a good chance they were going to be beat up. To make it
even worse, they knew from the beginning that they weren't going to
fight back and they would let themselves be killed if it that's what
it came to. Doing something like that for a greater movement is
extremely courageous. Finally in document 1, Gandhi railed against the
Asiatic Law Amendment act. This act required all Indians to carry
certificates proving they had registered with the government. If you
were caught without it, then you could be imprisoned or deported. For
Gandhi to stand up to those laws and burn all the certificates, took a
lot of courage.

2. Aside from the personal danger associated with being a
satyagrahi, there are a few other risks that present themselves.
First, you are not only held responsible for your actions. The
satyagrahi are represented as a group. If just one person starts to
use violence, then the whole group is subjected to the punishment. The
last danger is the impact that protesters might have on Indians that
did not want to protest. If thousands of Indians were protesting the
British government could not have always distinguished between the
protestors and the people that weren't protesting. Therefore, citizens
that weren't protesting could have been punished.

3. I think that when Gandhi said that satyagrahi "...never
forget that he and the attacker are one" he meant that both the
opposition and the satyagrahi are human beings. Bringing violence into
the picture would just hurt both sides. Both sides want something and
they should be able to come to a compromise and treat each other with
love. He feels that the conflict should always be resolved with
conversation and that violence does nothing but bad. Both sides are
human beings and deserve to be treated with respect and violence is
completely unnecessary.

4. Many people supported Gandhi and his movements because
they were tired of the British dominance in India. Gandhi's views and
ways of protest also went hand-in-hand with the Hindu's beliefs. He
preached about no violence and that everyone should be loved and he
had respect for animals. All those qualities fit right into the Hindu
lifestyle. Gandhi's movements were also a way to unite the Indians and
create a sense of nationalism within the satyagrahi.

5. B.
The effectiveness of the satyagrahi is relative to the
situation and the opposition. In some circumstances, peaceful protest
can be very effective. In many other situations the ways of the
satyagrahi can be foolish and dangerous. Take for instance the salt
tax protests, many of Gandhi's followers were brutally beaten because
they wouldn't fight back. Gandhi's methods were risky, sometimes they
ended up like the salt tax protest but sometimes they ended up working
very well. In more recent events, it is clear that taking the less
violent approach doesn't always work. Look at all the recent
revolution in the African and Middle Eastern countries, all of them
have had some violence. Overall, I think that the effectiveness of the
satyagrahi varies depending on the situation and the opposition. Some
opposition will just brutally beat non-violent opposition and
sometimes peace talks work. It all depends.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Becky Maz]

1. Ghandi was absolutely right when he said that it took a lot of
courage to be a satyagrahi, which comes from the word satyagraha; a
civil disobedience policy of non-violent non-cooperation. This policy
stated that a person practicing satyagraha must not be violent towards
or even protect themeself against their attackers. There are many
examples of this supported by the documents copied onto the handout,
"Ghandi as Satyagrahi", which describe several instances in which
satyagraha was properly practiced. Th first example in document 2,
Ghandi says "I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am
deeply sorry for it, and I am therefore here to submit not to a light
penalty but to the highest penalty. I do not ask for mercy.'' This
shows that he, although wrongly accused of starting the violent
protesting of others, is not going to rebel against the British who
expected him to go down fighting. In document 3, it shows that most of
Ghandi's followers were true Satyagrahas, it says, "Not one of the
marchers even raised an arm to fend off their blows." This is talking
about Ghandi's followers during the salt raid, who were attacked by
the British, but did not resist. In the same document, it gave the
perspective of a westerner, which proves that there are few in this
world, or the world that we are accustomed to, who would be capable of
honoring Ghandi's views of extreme love and non-violence. The author,
Webb Miller says, "The western mind finds it difficult to grasp the
idea of nonresistance." For him, it was uncomfortable just watching
this scene, and he, like many others, would probably not have been
capable of not defending himself.
2. There are many concerns that a satyagrahi might face at anytime,
but especially while conducting a campaign. Not only could they get
hurt, but their families become threatened. If they were to die, their
income may no longer be able to support their family. Also, their
family may be put in jail as a result of their actions. They also be
caught following the path of resistance and/or violence if they become
afraid of the dangers of a campaign. They would probably also be
endangering innocent stander-bys who were not involved in the protest,
but who lived in the village where it was being held.
3. When Ghandi refers to a man and his attacker being one, I think
that he is asking the satyagrahi to remember that they are both human,
and in some ways brothers. Like Ghandi would not promote hurting a
family member, he believed that all people were related in the greater
scheme of things. Also, if one of the people is not promoting non-
violence and love, how can anybody in the world ever learn to love
people who may appear different on the outside, but who, on the
inside, are still human.
4. I think that a lot of Indians supported Gandhi's movement because
of his ability to appeal to the masses. Not only did he appeal to
Hindus, but to Muslims as well, and he, overall, just wanted an India
that belonged to the Indians. Another reason that so many people
supported him was because a lot of those masses were peasants, who, if
they were Hindu, probably believed that Gandhi could help them get
closer to being in a higher caste in their next life. This also would
make them part of something bigger than just being a peasant. In many
cases, peasants were looked down upon, and were excluded from many
groups- they were even forbidden to hear the Vedas- and this made them
feel that their voices were being heard.
5. I feel that my personal view of Satyagraha is closes to b. I say
this because there are circumstances in which nonviolence is good to
use, and is more effective, even though a few people may have to
suffer for it. I think that one of the best examples of this is when
the fight for civil rights was going on in America. The protests used
were mostly peaceful, and, although it was unfortunate that some
people were killed, arrested, or injured, this was a political
situation, and, because it was within one country, it was best that no
intense fighting broke out between races. However, I do feel that for
bigger issues, that are provoked inhumane acts of violence occurring
in another country, it is often necessary to use physical violence,
rather than protest nonviolently. One example of this that stands out
in my mind is during World War II when the holocaust was happening.
There was no way that somebody like Hitler was going to give up his
power if people simply made picket signs and chanted; it took action
from the rest of the world. Another example of this, which is a very
pressing issue in the world today is the 'war on terror'. I know it is
not supposed to be called that anymore, but it's true that it is
impossible to stop groups like the Taliban from attacking people
around the world without some form of violence. Sometimes, it is
impossible to do what is best for the people of this world without
hurting somebody along the way.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Emerson Congleton]

1.Gandhi' statement that it took great courage to be a satyagraha is
accurate. The satyagraha were faced with many hardships and risks,
there are several examples of these dangers in the handout we received
in class "Gandhi as Satyagraha". The first example is in Document one,
in 1908 in South Africa, Gandhi started a satyagraha campaign to
protest the law (the Asiatic Law Amendment Act) that required Indian
people to register with the government and carry a certificate on
their person at all times. Gandhi and thousands of supporters burned
almost two thousand certificates in an act of defiance, destroying
one's certificate was dangerous mainly because if you were caught
without a certificate the penalty was imprisonment or deportation. It
took great courage for the protestors to burn their certificates even
while they knew their possible fate, the satyagraha campaign went on
until 1914 when the South African government ended some of the harsher
provisions of the Asiatic Law Amendment Act. Example number two is
found in Document two; Gandhi was arrested for writing seditious
articles to which he pled guilty, and during the campaign he had just
led some Indian protestors killed twenty three policemen in the town
of Chauri Chaura. This situation demonstrates the danger that all
satyagraha protestors face, if only one of them uses violence the
validity and the point of their message is warped and it allows the
British government to place the blame more easily on any random
protestor. making peaceful protests more difficult for the protestors
who are not engaging in any acts of violence. The third example is
found in Document three; in 1930 Gandhi and his men planned a raid on
the Dharasaha salt works. When they arrived there they were attacked
by native police brandishing steel-shod lathis against the skulls of
the marchers. Not a single marcher raised his hand to fend off the
blows. This last example shows the true risk the protestors were in,
even while peacefully protesting they were viciously attacked and they
could do nothing about it because that would go against their rules as
satyagraha.
2. The greatest danger the satyagraha protestors could have faced
seems to come from themselves. If a single protestor breaks ranks and
turns violent it ruins the rest of that protest and it would be easy
for the rest of the demonstrators to follow in his lead. Any violence
ruins the point of the satyagraha protests and their message, it also
provided the British with an excuse for violence from their side.
3. When Gandhi said "...never forget that he and the attacker are one"
I think he meant that when ever an attacker is present there is always
a protestor right along side them. Even if the protestor never utters
a word or does anything violent, they are still present. I feel that
Gandhi was also referring to the cyclical nature that violence has,
one moment it can be the attacker and the victim but then in the next
second the roles can be reversed.
4. I think Gandhi had so many followers because he stood for such an
important cause and because he was non-violent. Freedom from the
people who has oppressed the citizens of India for a century was an
idea that was appealing to the Indians in the satyagraha campaign.
There were and still are many Hindus in India and Gandhi's method of
non-violence appealed to the fact that all HIndus conform to non
violence, but Gandhi didn't appeal to the higher caste members as much
as he did the lower level caste members who were unable to move up in
the social caste system.
5.B) Satyagraha would be effective in some situations and ineffective
in other situations. It all depends on the type of opponent you have,
if your opponent is non violent as well and just ignores the
protestors and their campaign then it would be useless in that case.
If you opponent was very violent then satyagraha could prove to be
dangerous to the protestors if they never fought back and just
accepted every beating demurely, however on the flipside a violent
opponent could also be helpful to their campaign. If the opponent was
the only one using violence then it reflected badly upon the opponent
and not the protestors. Satyagraha could either be beneficial or
detrimental to one's campaign depending on the situation.

[jblr...@aim.com]

Kelly Colton
1. I agree with Gandhi that it takes great courage to be a
satyagrahi. As per our documents, satyagraha is often translated as
“reaching for the truth.” For Gandhi this meant practicing civil
disobedience in a completely non-violent manner. Gandhi spent much of
his life fighting for justice using satyagrahi. This theory becomes
very difficult to practice when you are faced with violent
provocation. For example, in the Dharasana Salt Raid police men
rushed Gandhi’s organized protestors and starting hitting them on the
heads with long bamboo sticks. The satyagrahi followers did not even
raise their arms to block the blows and were passively beaten.
Reporters say that 300 protestors were injured and two were killed. I
can’t imagine how difficult it would be to remain motionless while
being beaten. It is in the human nature to defend ourselves and the
self control must have been tremendous. Prior to this, Gandhi led
another peaceful “Bonfire of certificates”. In that time all of the
Indian community had to carry government registered certificates at
all times. Thirty thousand Indians gathered to burn their
certificates in a peaceful protest. It took courage for Gandhi to
organize this demonstration because there were prison sentences for
not having the certificate, never mind burning thousands of them. He
knew it was likely that he would be imprisoned but he organized the
demonstration anyway because he felt it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, not all of Gandhi’s protests ended peacefully. In the
village of Chauri Chaura, the protestors burned and hacked to death
twenty-three policemen. This speaks to how difficult it is for
protestors to remain civilized. Even with Gandhi’s strong leading
hand and the philosophy of satyagrahi, protesting crowds can lose
their way and commit horrific violence. Gandhi accepted
responsibility for the killings and he did not ask for mercy on behalf
of the protestors. Gandhi was forced to spend major pieces of his
life in jail for having started rebellions. It takes great courage to
allow yourself to be beaten and also to continue to fight for justice
even though you know it is likely that you will be jailed as a
consequence.

2. In addition to the personal danger that satyagrahi involves, there
is always the fear that the protestors will not all be able to
continue the practice. It is somewhat amazing to me that the
protestors all stayed still while they were being beaten in the Salt
incident. One of the concerns in a satyagraphi movement is that one
or two of the protestors will break rank, grab a bamboo stick and
start beating a policeman back. Then there is the potential that the
policemen could become even more violent and start shooting the
protestors, perhaps killing innocent people watching the
demonstration. The killing of policemen in the village of Chauri
Chaura is an example of the best intentioned satyagrahi movement going
bad. As a further repercussion, the protestors can lose support for
their cause as people judge them for the violence committed. As
Gandhi said “I knew that I was playing with fire” when carrying out
the demonstrations. Whenever satyagraphi is practices there are risks
involved.

3. When Gandhi says “…never forget that he and attacker are one,” he
means that all of the individuals in the confrontation are “one” or
the “same”. We are all brothers trying to fight for what we think is
just. He called this concept “ahimsa” and said that we should not
only stop any violence, but that we should also love each other. This
concept in my mind also leads to the concepts of mutual respect for
each other and respect for life. Ahimsa fits perfectly with the
philosophy of satyagrahi because how could we hurt or become violent
against someone we love (even if they are not demonstrated love
towards us). I think that Gandhi understood that the only way to stop
the cycle of violence is to be the first one to lay down your arms and
to practice completely passive behavior in the face of violence. I
would imagine that in time Gandhi would hope that this passive and
loving behavior could lead to a more peaceful society.

4. I think the Indians supported Gandhi’s satyagrapha movement because
he was fighting so hard for human justice causes that affected their
everyday lives. The basic human rights that Gandhi was fighting for
against the British really were issues for the Indian people. Most
people wanted to see these things changed, but were afraid to
challenge the government for fear of being arrested or hurt. Gandhi
had the courage to stand up to the government in a peaceful way that
also fit with the teaching of the Indian people’s Hindu religion. The
Indian people respected and supported Gandhi and gave him an honorary
title because he really fought for their rights in a courageous and
peaceful manner.

5. I believe that satyagraha is a wonderful and idealistic concept but
that its effectiveness is relative, so option B is closest to my
beliefs. I support satyagraha whenever possible, but I do not believe
it works in all situations. When reading through Gandhi’s work it
made me think of the mostly peaceful protests for social change that
Martin Luther King led. It made me think that perhaps Martin Luther
King was one of the leaders who were influenced by Gandhi. In today’s
turbulent Middle East, there have been large groups of protestors who
for the most part were peaceful while trying to take down the
dictators in their country. Specifically, the protests in Egypt and
Tunisia were largely peaceful and the rulers in both countries left
power without substantial deaths or fighting. I would say that these
are examples of effective satyagraha. The situations in Libya and the
Ivory Coast represent circumstances where stayagraha would not be
successful. No amount of peaceful protesting would convince Gbagbo
from the Ivory Coast or Qaddafi from Libya to leave power, so more
violent action has been necessary to try and remove them from power.
So while satyagraha is good in certain circumstances, the world has
not evolved to a place where it could be successful in every
situation.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Lindsay Korzekwa]

1) Satyagraha, or "reaching for the truth" is characterized by the
absence of violence, or ahimsa. Gandhi was a strong proponent of this
form of protest, though he acknowledged that it takes great courage to
achieve the intense love that it calls for. In document 1, Gandhi
began a satyagraha to protest the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, which
would force the Indian population to carry a certificate or risk
deportation. He held a bonfire to burn thousands of these
certificates, and had no way of knowing how the British government
would react. It took courage to stand up for his beliefs even in the
face of uncertainty.

In document 2, Gandhi chose to take responsibility for the actions of
some of his followers who had committed violent acts. Even though he
had encouraged all of his followers to follow the path of non-
violence, he decided to tell the British, "I knew that I was playing

with fire. I ran the risk, and if I was set free, I would still do the

same." He surrendered to the government and chose to "submit to the
highest penalty". It takes a huge amount of courage to take
responsibility for one's actions, especially if it is not directly
one's own fault.

In document 3, Gandhi's satyagraha protest against a salt tax that was
imposed on the country. However, he and his followers were met with
violence. In addition, because non-violence is central to the idea of
satyagraha, the protesters offered no resistance against the British
lathis, or metal-tipped sticks. It takes incredible courage to remain
unresisting even when faced by pain, and I was amazed that so many
people did their best to adhere to these rules.

2) In addition to the physical danger that is part of satyagraha,
there are many other concerns that it are essential to address before
leading a campaign. It is important to realize that, no matter what
the message being spread by the leader of the protests is, it is
always possible for violence to occur. Some amount of this is beyond
anyone's control, as Gandhi found with the killings in Chauri Chaura.
It is also important to remember that, often, those who are being
protested against have no qualms about using force to keep control,
which could turn a peaceful protest into a massacre.

3) Gandhi, in explaining just what satyagraha entails, said that the
true satyagrahi must always remember that "he and the attacker are
one". This statement can be taken both literally and metaphorically.
Part of the Hindu ideology says that we are all a part of the brahman,
and each have part of the divine spirit in us. This means that, in
harming another living thing, one is also harming oneself. No matter
how different we may seem, each of us are just parts of the whole, and
violence for the wrong reasons interrupts the cycle of birth and
rebirth that is central to the hindu set of beliefs. If one forgets
that he is one with his attacker, he is no longer following his
dharma, and is therefore removing himself from brahman.

4) Gandhi's satyagraha movement was very popular among India's people,
for various reasons. It did not discriminate based on caste, so anyone
could take part in it and feel like they were making a difference.
Also, the things that the satyagrahas were protesting applied to all
Indians, not just a specific group. A tax on salt affected the entire
population's daily lives, so it stands to reason that many would
decide to protest. In addition, the very manner in which the protests
were conducted appealed to the part of Hinduism that calls for respect
to other living beings. Satyagraha was a peaceful way to tell the
British that they were serious about independence.

5) I agree with b, for I believe that, while in many cases satyagraha
is the most effective and peaceful way to get something done, there
are also times when violence is necessary. When lives are in immediate
danger, such as the situation in Libya, peaceful protests would do
very little, for the attackers had already shown their willingness to
use force. The truth is, many dictators could care less if their
people started a march to show their dissatisfaction with their
policies. When this is the case, there is little choice but to fight
back. This was proven in Libya, where the citizens tried a method
similar to satyagraha, but it was unsuccessful and even backfired. The
government began airstrikes on its own people, making action
necessary. However, I believe that in most cases satyagraha would
suffice to get a point across, such as the disapproval of a particular
tax or policy that does not put lives in immediate danger. The
protests would both express the public's opinion while also making
their cause more viable in the eyes of the rest of the world, as the
international communtiy would see that the group is not just fighting
out of anger or revenge, but that they are actually trying to create
dialogue with their government. It also makes it less likely for the
other side to use force to fight back, for it would be viewed as a
massacre if they were killing unresisting citizens.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Claire]

1. Gandhi stated that it took great courage to be a satyagrahi because
satyagrahi had to keep on "reaching for the truth", regardless of how
fierce or violent the opposition was. Sometimes, satyagrahi had to put
themselves in harm's way, carrying out nonviolent protests even when
their lives or well-being were in danger. Document 1 recounted an time
when Gandhi hosted a campaign against the Black Act, burning Indian
registration certificates and defying the law, which required all
Indians to carry certification at all times. In a nonviolent protest,
Gandhi risked his and his followers' well being by facing imprisonment
for their actions in the name of satyagraha. In Document 2, Gandhi
highlighted the dangers satyagrahi had to face, exemplified in the
situation where he was arrested for writing seditious articles. In the
satyagraha campaign he had recently led, some of his followers had
engaged in violent acts, but Gandhi knew that satyagrahi had to face
dangerous risks such as these. Gandhi himself stated that he was
"playing with fire", that is, by leading these campaigns, he was aware
that the protests might erupt into violence. In this way, Gandhi saw
that satyagrahi needed much courage to go on with their actions.
Furthermore, Document 3 described the satyagrahis' need for courage
against death. Gandhi and his followers were beaten mercilessly by
government police, and being satyagrahi, they were not supposed to
defend themselves with violence. As satyagrahi, they had to stand by
and take the blows thrown at them. Gandhi and the satyagrahi had the
courage to face death in the name of truth.

2. There were many other concerns that people had while conducting a
satyagraha campaign besides personal dangers. For one, it is very hard
to retain the integrity of every single satyagrahi who is protesting,
and as a result, violence may break out. As delineated in Document 2,
A satyagraha campaign led by Gandhi led \some Indian protesters to
engage in violent acts, culminating in brutal policeman murders. It
was extremely hard to control all protesters, and as emotions often
ran high during campaigns such as these, it would be extremely easy
for tempers to blow and violence to erupt. Additionally, there is the
danger of misinterpretation of these violent acts, for one violent act
by one person in a single satyagraha campaign can, in the eyes of the
enemy, immediately change a nonviolent protest into a violent one.
Opponents of the satyagraha campaigns would look for any excuse to
attack the protesters, and one act of violence may be the inciting
incident that sets off a a wave of attack against the stayagrahi.

3. When Gandhi stated that the satyagrahi "never forget that he and
the attacker are one", he meant that at the base level, the bare truth
is that all humans are family, and therefore should abstain from
violence against one another. Even when one person is acting extremely
threatening against another, Gandhi always stuck firmly to the belief
of ahimsa, or intense love. This intense love is the driving power
behind Gandhi's justification for non-violence; he believed that man
should hold an intense love for his brothers, and should not engage in
physically antagonistic altercations with each other. According to the
"he and the attacker are one" principle, there is also an implied
message of self-injury. For each side to attack each other is like
each side attacking itself. Each side is hurting his brethren, and
ultimately no one will benefit in the long run. There is also the
implied meaning that it is useless to engage in violence, as engaging
in violence against oneself is counterproductive.

4. I believe that many Indians supported Gandhi's satyagraha movement
because Gandhi was the ideal solution to the issues that the Indian
people were facing at the time. There was much resentment towards
British rule and the unfair way they oppressed the Indians, like
through the salt tax, and Gandhi was there to act as a leader that
could unite the people in a unified effort to overcome these
injustices. Moreover, he preached nonviolence, and sought to achieve
liberation from the British without loss of human life. This appealed
to many because they believed they could achieve change without huge
sacrifices. A wise, compassionate, and determined leader, the Indian
people looked up to Gandhi for guidance in dismal times.

5. I would say that answer (b) is closest to my views of satyagraha.
The effect that satyagraha has upon society truly depends on they type
of opponent that the satyagrahi are facing. In some cases, nonviolent
defiance could be a powerful tool in swaying officials, but only if
these officials are not bent on using violence to control the
satyagrahi. For instance, in Document 1, describing the burning of
certificates that Indians had to carry under the Black Act, Gandhi and
his followers engaged in a symbolic demonstration that was illegal,
yet nonviolent and extremely powerful. The government officials did
not respond with violence, but rather threatened protesters with
imprisonment. The campaign continued until Gandhi and the government
reached a peaceful compromise that ended some of the worst parts of
the Black Act. In this instance, the opponent was not armed with heavy
artillery or weapons, and did not want to oppose the peaceful
demonstrators with death. A nonviolent agreement was achieve, in a
spectacular illustration of satyagraha's potentially powerful effect
in inducing change.
However, satyagraha is not an effective tool when the opponent
expresses an amoral willingness to combat nonviolence with violence.
As stated in Document 3, which described the Dharasana Salt Raid,
peaceful followers of satyagraha were beaten mercilessly and "bashed
to a bloody pulp". In this case, the opponent that the satyagrahis
faced was ruthless, and so peaceful protests did nothing to sway
government opinion.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Adam]

1. Gandhi was correct when he stated that it took great courage to be
a satyagrahi. One example where a satyagrahi had to be courageous was
when he or she participated in the Salt March. They had to take the
hits of the British soldiers without resistence. Also, many of the
satyagrahis who marched were imprisoned. Another example of when the
satyagrahis had to be courageous was during the Black Act. The people
were burning their certificates in a bonfire and they knew that the
British wouldn't be pleased with this. Even so, they still proceeded
with these actions. A third example is when Gandhi suggests what he
would do if he were a German Jew in Document 4. He would refuse to be
discriminated against and would refuse to be expelled. It is
courageous because he would accept being placed into a dungeon and
probably be tortured rather than listen to the Germans and accept the
fact that they're forcing out of his home.
2. Satyagrahi's face other dangers other than personal danger. One
example is when Gandhi was blamed for violent acts that his followers
engaged in. Since he is the leader of the campaign, he was blamed for
their acts. Being a Satyagrahi means to do non-violent disobedience,
and the violent acts that he is being blamed for go against his
beliefs. Another danger that can come out of the actions of the
Satyagrahis is problems for the towns and people near the
demonstrations and disobedient acts of the Satyagrahis. Some acts
could cause the British to shoot and harm non-Satyagrahis
unintentionally. Also, the disobedience that the Satyagrahis engage in
could affect the economy of towns in a negative way.
3. When Gandhi says to the satyagrahi to never forget that he and the
attacker are one, I believe that he is reinforcing his ideas of being
non-violent. Since the satyagrahi and the attacker are one, that means
that the satyagrahi would be hurting himself if he were to attack the
attacker. Therefore, the satyagrahi would want to remain peaceful and
refrain himself from being violent.
4. I believe that so many Indians supported Gandhi's ideas of
satyagraha because they were willing to do anything in order to get
rid of the British. After seeing some victories for the satyagrahis,
many would want to join in the cause. Also, since Gandhi was the
leader of the Congress Party, people believe in him and would want to
follow him. "Congress seemed to be the only political organization
with the power to deal with the British government" (Part II, 15).
Since the Congress was the only organization strong enough to deal
with the British, many would want to support their fight against the
British.
5. (B) "The effectiveness of satyagraha is relative, depending on the

type of opponent you're facing. In some circumstances this tactic
would be effective. In others it would be unwise and ineffective".

This statement is the closest to my view of satyagraha. For example,
satyagraha was successful in Document 1. The satyagrahis the
certificates that they were required to carry around in a bonfire. A
very large amount of Indians participated. Once the disobedience was
complete, Gandhi and the South African government reached a compromise
because of the protests. One example where satyagraha was unsuccessful
was in Document 3. During the Salt Raid, many satyagrahis were beaten
with sticks with metal tips. They weren't able to defend themselves
against these fierce attackers because of their beliefs. In this
instance, satyagraha was ineffective because the opponents that were
being faced attacked the protestors relentlessly. That is why the
effectiveness of satyagraha depends on the circumstances being face
and the type of opponent that you're facing.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[mclax...@aol.com]

1. Ghandi often said it took great courage to be a true satyagraha,
standing up to attackers in non-violent protests. One example of
Ghandi's great courage is in Document 2 through his honesty in
pleading guilty to sedition charges. He wasn't going to plead innocent
like a coward, but he was going to take the blame and accept the
punishment. He also admitted that he didn't regret his decisions and
although there was a risk that his people would engage in violent acts
as seen in Chauri Chaura, he would still take that risk again. This
shows great courage because he's not afraid to admit his beliefs and
is willing to sacrifice anything. Another example in Document 2 is
when he asks to receive "not a light penalty, but to the highest
penalty. I do not ask for mercy." Ghandi fully takes the blame for the
violent acts of his followers and in stating that he will take the
greatest of penalties demonstrates to me great courage on his part. A
third example of courage is when he tells the German Jews that he
would step in front of a bullet to protect is home. Although these are
just words, I do see the courage in these statements because of his
other courageous duties.
2. Besides the personal danger a satyagraha might face, there are
other issues. One concern is not giving in to the violent ways of the
attackers. The British often instigated violence like at the Salt
raids in Dharasana, therefore it is very difficult to remain non-
violent and not retaliate. If a group of satyagrahas get violent, then
the whole non-violence aspect is ruined and the British have reason to
heavily fire back at the India protestors.
3. When Ghandi stated, "Never forget that he and the attacker are
one," he was referring to the idea of ahimsa or intense love. I think
that Ghandi is trying to say that both sides are human and we're all
one. Therefore we should not attack each other violently, but
peacefully work problems out. Also, retaliating against the attackers
is only going to provoke more violence and less of a resolution.
Therefore, peacefully demonstrating against the attackers helps to get
their point across while not harming the attacker who are people too.
Ahisma is seen in the Salt protests where Ghandi's followers were
brutally beaten, but they remained non-violent because ahisma was the
key and attacking your own kind won't solve problems.
4. I think that so many Indians supported Ghandi's satyagraha campaign
because Ghandi's movement was the main movement in India and was
gaining momentum against the British. If an Indian wanted to be free
from British control, they could easily make a difference by
supporting Ghandi's prtoests. i think people saw potential in Ghandi's
peaceful protests because they were doing no harm in their protests
and therefore it was difficult for the British to fire back. They
believed that ultimately this strategy would bring them to
independence instead of violent acts which could lead to civil war
which would be a burden against the powerful British miilitary,
5. The effectiveness of satyagraha could be effective or ineffective
compared to the opponent and their tactics to defend the protests. In
South Africa, a more lenient government, the issue was settled in a
compromise after Ghandi's protests against the Asiatic Law Amendment
Act. Here, neither side used violence against each other. However when
the opposing side pursues in violence against the satyagraha
protestors, is when the problems start to brew. This was seen in the
Salt protests when the attackers brutally beat Ghandi's followers, who
could't retaliate violently in order to follow ahimsa. Since they were
being beaten, no amount of non-violent protests could continue their
battle against the salt tax. Therefore, the protests were unhelpful
and the attackers shut down the satyagraha campaign. Therefore, in
some cases, peaceful protests could be helpful, but in other cases
they could be self-destructing.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Preeya D'mello]

1.One example of how Gandhi felt that it took a lot of courage to be a
satyagrahi is shown in the statement “the true satyagrahi is not
afraid of entering any conflict for the sake of those around him” This
shows that a satyagrahi must be brace and unafraid of going into a
fight or argument. Another example of courage is the courage that
Gandhi exhibited when he was arrested. As a satyagrahi he was able to
peacefully accept his arrest, and move forward from that. A third
example of courage is shown through the fact that during the raid of
the salt works at Dharasana the marchers did not resistant the police
men who violently beat them down with sticks. The fourth example of
courage used by the satyagrahis is shown through Gandhi’s explanation
of how he would react as a Jew in Germany. He said that he would stand
up against the discrimination and the German oppression even if he was
standing alone. This proves that being a satyagrahi requires great
bravery and how Gandhi felt that courage was a key part of being a
satyagrahi.
2.Another concern that Gandhi faced as he led the satyagraha movement
is the responsibility of the actions of his followers. For example,
when twenty-three policemen were killed because of the Indian
protesters, Gandhi took full responsibility for that and also said
that he should have “known that consequences of every one” of his acts
showing that as a leader of the satyagraha movement, he is responsible
for his people’s actions.
3.I think that Gandhi meant that he and the attacker are one because
when all the violence is gone, there is only room for intense love,
which is ahimsa. This means that after all the fighting between the
two groups is done, the attacker and Gandhi are not all that different
and therefore he and the attacker are like one person or being.
4.I think that people supported Gandhi and his satyagraha movement
because they both wanted similar things. Gandhi’s satyagraha movement
was to try and overthrow the British rule over India. Since that was
what the people wanted to, they were very supportive of his movement.
Also, during the salt march many people were against the British
monopoly on salt and therefore the people of India were willing to
walk and follow Gandhi in his move to overthrow a section of the
British power. Another example is shown in the burning of the
certificates that Indians had to carry on them at all times. This
bonfire was symbolic of the beginning of a revolution against British
rule and therefore many people joined Gandhi at the fire.
5.Personally I agree with answer b: The effectiveness of satyagraha is

relative, depending on the type of opponent you’re facing. In some
circumstances this tactic would be effective. In others it would be

unwise and ineffective. I agree with this statement because I feel
that some of Gandhi’s smaller rebellions were not as successful. For
example, I don’t think that the satyagraha movement was very effective
at the salt march because the opponents were not at all afraid to use
violence against the peaceful crowd. Therefore many people were killed
and injured and not much was achieved on the rebellion’s side. I feel
the in order for a satyagraha movement to be effective, the two sides
have to be willing to have peaceful discussions to come to some sort
of a compromise. Therefore, such a movement may not be very effective
or successful against an oppressive dictatorship.

[Andrew Lin]

1. As one of the most famous satyagrahis in history, Mahatma Gandhi
needed immense bravery in order to stand up to the numerous attacks
that were perpetrated against him by the British. Even as early as
1908, when he was but a young lawyer in South Africa, Gandhi was brave
enough to organize a massive campaign to protest the Asiatic Law
Amendment Act, an act which forced Indians to carry citizenship papers
with them at all times. With over 30,000 Indians in attendance, the
bonfire Gandhi hosted could have easily turned into a riot, which
would have decidedly turned the legal tides against the Indian people.
Instead, Gandhi’s protests embodied the virtues of Satyagraha, and
succeeded in forcing the South African government to change the
provisions of the Asiatic Law Amendment Act. Some years after his
stint as a lawyer, Gandhi was jailed for writing “seditious” articles
about the British government. While most would normally attempt to
deny any connection with the crime, Gandhi instead pled not-guilty,
adhering to his vaunted principles of holding to the truth – the
definition of satyagraha. This, though, was only the beginning of
Gandhi’s bravery, as the tribulations he encountered as the figurehead
of the Indian resistance movement were far more trying. His ultimate
act of civil disobedience, however, was his planning of the raid on
the salt works at Dharasana. Under an imperial regime where protesting
could earn one a whacking on the head with a lathis or worse, Gandhi
had the courage and temerity to plan a full-scale raid with over 2,500
people; indeed, the only reason he did not attend said raid was
because he was trapped in jail. Gandhi, the codification of the
philosophy of satyagraha, required immense courage in order to face
down the intractable British government – and Gandhi had more than was
required.
2. Aside from concerns regarding his personal security, Gandhi, in
conducting a satyagraha campaign, had to fear for both the safety and
actions of his fellow protesters. While Gandhi had an amazing
resistance personally to physical and social castigation, his fellow
protesters did not have the same level of endurance. This is a concern
common to all non-violent protests, as the sheer numbers of protesters
are what make non-violent protests so effective. If the collective
behind the individual does something violent or is taken away from
under the leader of the movement, then the entire satyagraha movement
collapses. To this end, leaders of non-violent protests must make sure
that their constituent protesters do not become violent, no matter how
nasty the treatment they receive becomes. Leaders also must ensure the
safety of their protesters to a certain extent, as horror stories of
how protesters are injured or worse can drive away members from the
protesting force, thereby weakening the strength of the collective.
3. In his statement that one must never forget “that he and the
attacker are one”, Gandhi does a twofold service, reminding his
protesters not to strike back while also stating higher truths about
the nature of protest. His statement also displays how Gandhi never
particularly used revenge or other negative emotions to inflame his
protesters to action, instead preferring non-violent action – and this
is the ultimate example. On a deeper level, Gandhi refers both to how
their attackers are Indian and how their attackers are still
fundamentally human, and therefore deserve all the treatment
commensurate for a sapient being. This concept, in Hinduism known as
ahimsa, is one of brotherly love, in which humanity exists to better
the state of the overall collective. The reminder that Gandhi provides
is most necessary as well, for it helps to prevent his protesters from
bursting into violence. As Gandhi himself fundamentally states, “I
wanted to avoid violence.” That is the purpose of Gandhi’s comparison
of the attacker vs. the attacked – to emphasize that the attackers,
though brutal, must be treated like people as well. After all, were
violence to break out in Gandhi’s ranks, the British would
instantaneously have an excuse to unleash military forces on the
unarmed protesters.
4. Gandhi had mass appeal, and not merely because of his
representation of the Indian will to throw off the yoke of British
imperialism. By dressing in traditional Indian garb and preaching
Hindu values, Gandhi skillfully maneuvered himself into the position
of figurehead/leader of the overall Indian insurrection, representing
the values of Indian culture. In addition, Gandhi’s message of social
equality and a return to Hindu values appealed to the lower classes,
who fervently supported Gandhi. As leader of the Congress Party, the
majority political party in India, Gandhi showed that he could attract
even more support nationally based on his ability to make consensus
and attract attention for his cause. Gandhi’s political popularity was
predicated on his excellent leadership of the non-violent movement,
his representation of Indian cultural values, and his skill at forcing
Great Britain to make concessions to the Indian people.
5. The effectiveness of non-violent protest is predicated on the
context in which it is used and on how well it is executed (option b).
Contextually speaking, non-violent protest is best used when its
likely opposition has at most the forcefulness of a police system.
Unlike a military, which can rapidly quash large-scale protests via
the use of “spray and pray” tactics, police forces are generally ill-
equipped for protests on a national scale; even riot police forces are
limited in their power, especially when attempting to deal with
peaceful protesters. As seen in Egypt, a police force alone cannot
hold the line against a national uprising, even if the uprising
displays little in the way of active violence. Egyptian protesters,
united primarily by their computer monitors and years of suffering,
were overall very similar in their methods to their Indian
counterparts some 90 or so years earlier. Both, being united by
grievances against autocratic regimes that ignored their needs,
eventually forced major changes in government – and both went through
a period of uncertainty afterward. This was because neither movement
had a figurehead after the revolution ended; Gandhi had been shot
shortly after independence had been declared and no single individual
led the entire overall movement for Egyptian liberation. Even a
leaderless daze, however, is preferable to the outcome of a non-
violent protest when faced against a military force. As demonstrated
time after time by protests in more repressive regimes around the
world, non-violent protests in totalitarian countries are not nearly
as effective as they are in slightly more liberal nations. The police
forces in the totalitarian countries are not merely police; they are
active military members merely donning the police name. Therefore,
these military forces can also easily quash most non-violent
protesters by killing and shooting them, which then stifles the
protest movement via fear. Worst of all, foreign governments, while
outwardly condemning these offenses, do not show the same shock they
would for more liberal countries, as it is “expected” from the
dictatorships. Examples of this, sadly, abound in modern history: the
way the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Rwanda, Uganda, and many
other latter-century dictatorships dealt with their non-violent
protestors was (and still is) reprehensible. What must be also noted,
however, is that those non-violent movements either were quashed or
are still fighting for the recognition of their aims today. The
success of non-violence as a protest form is predicated on three
factors: the probability that the protesters will not turn violent,
the overall oppression the government inflicts on the people, and the
force that the government is willing to use on the people. Non-
violence might be the highest moral form of protest – practically
speaking, however, it is necessary to analyze the situation thoroughly
before considering non-violence as a form of inciting revolution or
significant governmental change.

On Apr 7, 10:43 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
> 1.  Gandhi often stated that it took great courage to be a
> satyagrahi.  Find at least three examples in the documents to support
> his view.
> 2.  Besides the personal danger that a satyagrahi might face, list
> some other concerns one should have while conducting a satyagraha
> campaign?
> 3.  What did Gandhi mean by this statement, that the satyagrahi
> "...never forget that he and the attacker are one"? Please be
> specific.
> 4.  Why do you think that so many Indians supported Gandhi's
> satyagraha movement?  Please be specific.
> 5.  Which of the following statements is closest to your view of the
> satyagraha?
> a. I believe whole-heartedly in satyagraha.  This type of civil
> disobedience based on moral force not only shows great courage, but
> it
> truly has the power to change the world for the better.

> b. The effectiveness of satyagraha is relative, depending on the type

> of opponent you're facing.  In some circumstances this tactic would
> be
> effective.  In others it would be unwise and ineffective.

[Matt Ming]

1. I feel that it took great courage for Gandhi to be able to march in
opposition to the British, such as during the Salt March described in
packet two. In this instance, Gandhi and his followers marched 240
miles to collect a handful of salt from the sea. This was a symbolic
act of defiance against the salt tax and the British monopoly on
salt. The British had dealt forcefully with dissenters in the past,
sending them and their families to jail, or violently strapping them
to cannons and blowing them apart. Faced with such punishment and
death, it must have taken great courage for Gandhi and his followers
to defy the British. The march on the salt works was further evidence
of the determination of the satyagrahi to stand up to the British.
They again protested the salt monopoly, but this time the British
responded with physical beatings. Lathis, metal-tipped sticks, were
used to slash at the protesters. However, according to the Satyagraha
philosophy, the protesters were not allowed to fight back. Tolerating
the blows without retaliation was a courageous act. Gandhi also
stated that a “true satyagrahi is not afraid of entering any conflict
for the sake of those around him,” meaning that a true satyagrahi must
be able to jump into the fray without concern for his own safety, only
looking to the future and how he can benefit the community. It takes
great courage to selflessly sacrifice one’s own safety in favor of the
larger community. People have a natural instinct of self-
preservation, so placing themselves in harm’s way takes great personal
courage and altruism.
2. Satyagrahi face being labeled as passive or cowardly, especially in
totalitarian dictatorships. The satyagraha movement advocates peaceful
protest. However, strict governments that put little value on human
life may simply choose to squash the protests rather than respect or
yield to their interests. Further, satyagrahi may find it difficult
to gather followers who don’t prefer more direct or forceful forms of
protest.
3. I think that Gandhi meant that it is necessary for the satyagrahi
to understand the opposition. The satyagrahi must remember that the
opposition is also trying to uphold its way of life. The satyagrahi
must remember that the opposition is entitled to its perspective but
should not impose its will on others. I think that this statement
could also mean that to attack the “attacker” would amount to
displaying the same traits that the satyagrahi despised. Satyagrahi
would rather remain firm to their ideology of peace and non-violence
than stoop to the level of the attacker and fight back.
4. Gandhi’s movement took into account many of the interests of the
common Indian people, such as allowing lower-classes to at least hear
Vedas so they could have a chance to advance in the reincarnation
chain. He also advocated Indian independence by protesting the
enforcement of the salt tax, which prohibited Indian citizens from
producing salt in their own factories. Also, I think that the idea of
staying true to one’s beliefs, including non-retaliation and peaceful
resistance, would have appealed to Indian religious values. Indian
culture follows the teachings of Dharma and the importance of duty.
Therefore, one is obliged to uphold the Dharma and divine command of
Hinduism.
5. I agree most with statement B. I think that if one is dealing with
a government that heeds public opinion and is willing to modify its
policies accordingly, satyagraha will be very effective. The
government will understand that the people want change and work with
their representatives to compromise and revise their programs. In
addition, the government will set policies that promote the well-being
of the entire population, in order to maintain stability and civil
obedience, rather than instituting unreasonable rules that favor an
elite group within the society. However, in a dictatorial government,
I feel that satyagraha will fail. Such a government will not tolerate
any unrest and may even consider pacifism as a sign of weakness. The
government may thus decide to simply crush any uprisings immediately,
without delay, in order to prevent the protesters from organizing and
gaining momentum and followers. Satyagraha will not work in every
situation, only when the government is open to debate and change.

[Hannah North]

1) The amount of strength and courage that Ghandi would have had to
have summoned in order to serve as a true satyagraha is undoubtedly an
incredibly feat. Britain during this time period was a very
influential world power, and taking a stand against their oppressive
policies could not have been easy. One of the most obvious examples of
Ghandi's bravery is in document 3, when he and his followers are
brutally attacked by police, despite the fact that their demonstration
was entirely peaceful. It had to have taken a large amount of courage
to not react with violence, and to encourage this followers to do the
same. Another example occurs in document 4, where Ghandi spoke out
adamantly against the Nazi propaganda against the Jews. Criticizing
the Nazi regime got many an activist in hot water before, and he had
to have been aware that doing so could likely result in him becoming a
target of the Nazi's persecution. A third example of Ghandi's bravery
is demonstrated in document 2, when Ghandi is arrested for writing
lucrative articles that have the potential to start a rebellion. When
he is accused of being responsible for violence that broke out in the
village of Chuari Chuara, instead of defending these actions, he takes
full responsibility for them. He does not ask for mercy, and instead
indicates that he is prepared to accept a fierce penalty. He stays
true to the values that being a satyagrahi entails in each and every
one of these instances, and by doing so exemplified these core values

2) Besides the obvious danger to oneself that a satyagraha must
inevitably face, there is always the issue of the behavior of others
that you cannot control. While you can preach non violence to your
followers all you want, the fact remains that there are many out there
that do not have it in them to be a true satyagraha, and may ignore
these teachings when provoked. This can lead to the unspeakable loss
of life, as evidenced by the death of twenty three police men that
happened in the village of Chauri Chaura as a result of the satyagraha
campaign.

3) By claiming that he and the attacker are one, Ghandi expresses a
sort of admiral tolerance towards those with different ideas. He is
acknowledging that both he and the other side are both fighting for
things they are passionate for, despite the fact that they are using
different means to acheive their goals. By using violence against the
enemy, it would disrupt ahimsa. By using violence against the enemy,
it would also be hurting themselves.

4) One of the main reasons the satyagraha campaign gathered such
momentum was the resentment that the people of India felt towards the
British. The British had seized control of India more or less through
the East India Company beginning in the 1600s. By the mid-ninteenth
century, the Britished controlled most of the subcontinent politically
and their cultural influence could be felt all around. Christian
missionaries bombarded the Indian people, attempting to convert many
Hindu's and Muslims to a "more civilized" way of life. English became
the official language in terms of education in India, and the practice
of Sati was outlawed. These cultural in-sensitivities angered many
Hindu's and Muslims, leading to the mutiny of 1857. The British
responded to these acts of outrage by the people with horrific acts
against townspeople and those directly involved in the rebellion. This
rightfully outraged many people across the country, so when the
stayagraha campaign came about, people were ready and willing to show
the British government who really had the power.

5) While each of these choices has good aspects, choice B is closest
to by view of stayagraha. This can be an incredibly effective method
in certain cases, however as unfortunate as it is, sometimes peace can
only be achieved if you utilize violence. When facing ruthless and
blood thirsty enemies, simple words and demonstrations cannot defeat
an army. That said, depending on the situation, stayagraha can also be
incredibly effective, and a positive way to enforce a point without
having to raise your guns.

[Grace]

1. Gandhi believed that it took great courage to be a satyagrahi.
Activism through non-violence and truth often placed him in danger’s
path. It must have taken great courage to blatantly defy the
government in the Black Act. The possible repercussions for burning
government certificates could have been great. Knowing this and still
continuing with the rebellion took a lot of bravery. Another example
of the courage needed to be a satyagrahi is when Gandhi was jailed
after writing seditious articles. Gandhi said, “I knew I was playing
with fire. I ran the risk, and if I was set free I would still do the
same.” (The Great Trial) He knew that he could very possibly be
arrested for his actions but continued on in the name of truth
anyway. It takes great courage to knowingly accept jail time for your
actions. A last example of Gandhi’s courage was when he wrote an
article about the holocaust. He wrote advice for the Jews, to defy
the Germans, to refuse to be expelled, and to be asked to be shot in
the hopes to start a resistance. Not only did it take courage to
stand up to Germany and openly defy them in print, but the actions
that Gandhi is advising would take an unimaginable amount of bravery.
I have confidence that these are not empty words and that Gandhi would
not hesitate to do what he advised if the situation came.
2. I think the largest concern of a satyagraha who is conducting a
campaign would be his people. As the leader of a peaceful movement
you are responsible for the actions of your followers. If one person
acts out against the opposition in forms of violence, the entire
movement could be ruined and the commander criticized. Gandhi was
sometimes accused of leading violent campaigns because of the actions
of one, or a few people who went against his wishes and used
violence. As the leader of a peaceful movement you are also
responsible for the lives of your followers. If the opposition
chooses to act harshly and massacre the protestors than the
satyagrapha is responsible for the lives lost. When non-violence is
not met with non-violence it can mean dastardly results for those who
do not fight. When people were killed it was not only a tragedy, but
it questioned the successfulness of non-violence and Gandhi’s plan to
action.
3. I think that when Gandhi said that “he and the attacker are one”
he meant that they both are part of mankind, and by harming the
opponent he is also harming himself. Gandhi says that he must treat
the opponent with the dignity and love that every human should
receive. By harming the opponent he is only harming himself; creating
hatred and violence within himself that would further destroy him.
This relates to the idea of treating others the way you would like to
be treated. Gandhi treats all others as he would treat himself and
therefore creates peace within him, hopefully spreading this message
of peace and love to the attacker so that violence will end.
4. I think the belief about satyagrapha that most relates to what I
think would be option B, but I think my beliefs differ slightly. I
really think that satyagrapha is a fantastic method to begin a
reaction of peace throughout the world, but I also think that it is
sometimes a bit idealistic. In Gandhi’s case non-violent activism had
great results, with minimum casualties and a lot of attention brought
to the issues at hand these protests were a success. But in the world
today I think you may come across a more formidable opponent than the
British, an opponent who are willing to go to any length necessary to
destroy all opposition. Take Libya for example, the government is
opening fire and bombing their own people and show no signs of letting
up. In cases where the opposition has no decency and abides by not
moral code of conduct is it logical to believe that the truth and love
you show them will carry through to victory?

[Julia Bryck]

1. It is an understatement to say that being a satyagrahi requires
courage. The amount of courage and unconditional trust in the cause is
unfathomable. There are several examples of the type of courage one
must possess found in the documents provided. In the second document
discussing the trial of Gandhi on the subject of his involvement in
the Chauri Chaura violence, Gandhi he pleads guilty to writing
articles that triggered the violence. His bravery is demonstrated when
he says, 'I am therefore here to submit not to a light penalty but to
the highest penalty. I do not ask for mercy." This is not an ordinary
human reaction. He is completely selfless and unafraid of any
punishment for his actions in order to benefit the greater good. In
the third document, an American reporter describes the violent scene
during a peaceful protest against the salt tax. The way the British
men brutally beat the Indian protestors, yet the protestors merely
stood and took each blow without even raising an arm to defend
themselves. Fighting the human instinct to defend oneself and
voluntarily allowing oneself to be abused is truly an act of
unimaginable bravery. In the fourth and final document, Gandhi
expresses his views on the persecution of the jewish population pre-
WWII. He says that they must have confidence that if one person
refuses to be pushed around and fights the treatment non-violently,
that others will follow. Having such a significant amount of faith,
not knowing that others will follow, acting out alone - all of these
things are tremendous acts of courage by a satyagrahi.

2. There are certainly a lot of risks that a satyagrahi faces besides
individual risks. There is always the possibility that not enough
people will join in the movement for it to take effect. What good is a
non-violent protest if no one notices or cares? Also, there is a
chance that whatever group you are opposing will take advantage of
your peacefulness as an opportunity for retaliation. If protestors are
willing to not fight back or defend themselves at all, it makes it a
whole lot easier for opposition to severely injure the group. There is
nothing for them to fear - the protestors are practically sitting
ducks. Another concern might be the elimination of an important
leader. The impact of the satyagraha is almost entirely strategy and
motivation. Without the words of wisdom from a leader or the ideas and
plans of such a leader, the entire movement could crumble, leaving
absolutely no impact.

3. When Gandhi said that a satyagrahi must never "forget that he and
the attacker are one" i believe he meant that, to use another more
common phrase, they are in the same boat. The attacker and him
connected in that moment and through their passion about their
particularly cause. Regardless of the individual's views, they are
both only human beings in the end. They both need water to survive and
die the same. Whatever differences lie between them is never enough
cause for violence or hate. Each person is connected through Brahman
and therefore each life should be valued. He and the attacker are
connected by a common life force and, hence, are "one" in a sense.

4. I could predict that many Indians joined the satyagraha movement
because there was already a great dislike of the British rule
throughout most of the native population. With such widespread
unhappiness, it does not seem so far fetched that there would be
equally widespread support. The population was united with a common
enemy. In addition, I think it was a simple task for people to follow.
You did not need any skill, talent, or exceptional ability in order to
participate in the non-violent protests. All a participant needed to
do was stand among the crowd. This seems like a simple enough request.
This combined with the motivational and powerful words of Gandhi, the
movement had a profound impact on Indian history.

5. While I have observed that nearly all of my classmates agree with
statement B, I personally must side with statement A. I fully believe
in the power of satyagraha. While you could make the argument that
against certain foes, peaceful protest is simply a tool to be abused
by dictators and makes it far easier for such people to kill off any
rebellion, I think that any organized protest, if it gains enough
momentum and support, is practically unstoppable. In the clip we
watched in class, Gandhi said himself that even if the government
arrested hundreds of protestors, the movement would not stop. They
truly do hold the power. Also, when the rest of the world sees
significant umbers of people rising up peacefully, it sends a very
powerful message. Any violence towards these people make the attacks
look undoubtedly in the wrong and can spur the world to helping the
protestors. I truly admire the courage required to be a satyagrahi,
and I hope more people will recognize its power.

[Katherine Singh]

1) Gandhi and his satyagraha campaigns to 'reach for the truth'
against enemies with weapons all took tremendous courage and
fearlessness. Document 2 described how despite Gandhi's best efforts,
there were still protestors using violence. As the satyagraha leader,
Gandhi took full responsibility for their mistakes, saying "I do not
ask for mercy" and "I [will not] submit to a light penalty but to the
highest penalty". Gandhi showed immense courage by fully accepting
the repercussions, however severe they were. Document 3 most overtly
shows the courage required of a satyagrahi. Marchers willingly walked
up to policemen to be beaten with bathis without resistance.
Knowingly and willingly putting yourself in harm requires a huge
amount of courage. Document 4 describes how Gandhi openly wrote
agaisnt the Nazi's supression of German Jews, and although the
concentration camps weren't in use yet, the Nazis still had a
reputation for their severe punishments. Gandhi openly criticized the
Nazis' laws, being so bold to say "the German Jew will score a lasting
victory over the German gentiles". Gandhi criticizing the Nazi laws,
like his other actions, directly threatened his life, and took immense
courage.

2) One concern is whether the risk outweighs the reward. You should
gauge whether a satyagraha movement is appropriate depending on what
type of leader/power you are protesting. If the leader is notorious
for shooting down citizens without concern for an international
response, a satyagraha campaign would be like sending lambs to
slaughter. You must take into consideration if the power you're
protesting doesn't feel bound by moral laws, because in that case the
protesters would be killed. Your message could be ignored if your
opponent doesn't take you seriously because you aren't using
violence. Finally, you must be wary of things that could undermine or
discredit the movement. Especially in the case of India, the number
of protesters is so massive and theres bound to be smaller groups that
form within the larger one. The danger comes when those groups get
more radical and forget the importance of nonviolence, because once
one satyagrahi uses violence, the whole movement is taken less
seriously.

3) On a religious level, Hinduism is a nondualistic religion. This
means that normal divisions like male and female aren't as present in
Hinduism, which is clearly seen with how the Gods aren't one gender or
the other. Everything is part of everything, so Gandhi is saying that
he and his attacker are one on a spiritual level. On a more literal
level, he may be saying that we are all human beings and are all
equal. We all deserve equal respect and compassion, and although you
may be fighting against someone in a battle, they are really very
similar to you. They could be a daughter or mother just as you are,
and that the only thing 'separating' you are the circumstances. This
goes along with how Gandhi thought everyone could live peacefully and
that we should try to see what we have in common with others rather
than the differences.

4) The satyagraha movement had appeal for all Indians of different
walks of life because it would be a solution to everyone's suffering.
The movement didn't isolate one group of people from the rest as
Gandhi was tolerant of all religions. Furthermore, Gandhi tohught the
one flaw of Hinduism was the caste system and the concept of the
pariah, so he made sure that the satyagraha movement would reach out
even to the lower caste members. Similar to the communist ideals, the
satyagraha movement may have also given people a sense and pride of
unification and working together for the betterment of everyone.
Although his inclusion of the lower cate levels may have also gotten
him opponents, Gandhi recruited a huge number of people by appealing
to all religions and castes.

5) I choose option B because satyagraha can work well like in India,
it can also lead to more harm than good. The success and wisdom of
using satyagraha all depends on the pureness of purpose, the devotion
and number of protesters, and most of all the opponent. Satyagraha
depends on all participants to employ nonviolence to reach the truth,
so if either the message is corrupted or large groups of people begin
using violence the profanity and impact of the movement will be gone.
Satyagraha in India led to it's independence but not without
sacrifice. Many protesters died in the process and they were rebelling
against a country that cared greatly about its international
reputation. Gandhi and the movement also received worldwide attention
throughout the protesting, which added further pressure on the
British. The protests may not have succeeded even with the
overwhelming majority of Indians participating without the global
attention as one of Britain's greatest concerns was their image. The
point is even against civilized countries the satyagraha movement
doesn't happen without lives lost. In a different situation with a
harsher leader, the protesters would be massacred. For instance, if
the rebels in Libya decided to take up a satyagraha movement now and
still urge Qaddafi to resign, most of them would be killed before the
international community could do anytihng to stop it. Even with the
24 hour coverage of Libya and how Qaddafi is killing Libyans, he is
not letting up, and therefore wouldn't think twice about killing
unarmed protesters. Satyagraha can be a useful and impactful protest
method if used wisely, but otherwise could lead to massive
slaughtering.