Satyagraha combines two Sanskrit words—satya, meaning truth, and agraha, meaning firm adherence or insistence. As Gandhi later wrote in his work Satyagraha in South Africa: “Truth (Satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force.
I thus began to call the Indian movement ‘Satyagraha’, that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence.” (See ch. 12.) Elsewhere, he wrote: “Its root meaning is holding on to truth, hence truth-force.
I have also called it love-force or soul-force.” Thus, Gandhi and others began using the term satyagraha, rather than the term they had earlier employed—“passive resistance”—which seemed to imply weakness and an exclusively English derivation.
As for South Africa Apartheid and India under British colonization in Mahatma Gandhi’s times, the current coup using a fake pandemic to impose a global dictatorship, Civil Disobedience and Satyagraha (“Passive Resistance”) can and must be used to defeat the coup and preserve our rights and freedom.
It doesn’t require any skills or knowledge, just to disobey totalitarian, insane and absurd rules that our consciences disagree with.
Excerpts from : https://www.mkgandhi.org/hindswaraj/chap17_passiveresistance.htm
Reader : Is there any historical evidence as to the success of what you have called soul-force or truth-force? No instance seems to have happened of any nation having risen through soul-foree. I still think that the evil-doers will not cease doing evil without physical punishment.
Editor : The poet Tulsidas has said: “Of religion, pity, or love, is the root, as egotism of the body. Therefore, we should not abandon pity so long as we are alive.” This appears to me to be a scientific truth. I believe in it as much as I believe in two and two being four. The force of love is the same as the force of the soul or truth.
We have evidence of its working at every step. The universe would disappear without the existence of that force. But you ask for historical evidence. It is, therefore, necessary to know what history means. The Gujarati equivalent means: “It so happened.” If that is the meaning of history, it is possible to give copious evidence. But, if it means the doings of kings and emperors, there can be no evidence of soul-force or passive resistance in such history, You cannot expect silver ore in a tin mine.
The fact that there are so many men still alive in the world shows that it is based not on the force of arms but on the force of truth or love. Therefore, the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of the success of this force is to be found in the fact that, in spite of the wars of the world, it still lives on.
Thousands, indeed tens of thousands, depend for their existence on a very active working of this force. Little quarrels of millions of families in their daily lives disappear before the exercise of this force.
Hundreds of nations live in peace. History does not and cannot take note of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption of the even working of the force of love or of the soul.
Reader : According to what you say, it is plain that instances of this kind of passive resistance are not to be found in history. It is necessary to understand passive resistance more fully. It will be better, therefore, if you enlarge upon it.
Editor : Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms.
When I refuse to do a thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soul-force. For instance, the Government of the day has passed a law which is applicable to me. I do not like it.
If by using violence I force the Government to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force.
If by using violence I force the Government to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force.
If I do not obey the law and accept the penalty for its breach, I use soul-force. It involves sacrifice of self.
Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is infinitely superior to sacrifice of others. Moreover, if this kind of force is used in a cause that is unjust, only the person using it suffers. He does not make others suffer for his mistakes.
Reader : You would then disregard laws, this is rank disloyalty. We have always been considered a law- abiding nation. You seem to be going even beyond the extremists. They say that we must obey the laws that have been passed, but that if the laws be bad, we must drive out the law-givers even by force.
Editor : Whether I go beyond them or whether I do, not is a matter of no consequence to either of us.
We simply want to find out what is right and to act accordingly.
The real meaning of the statement that we are a law-abiding nation is that we are passive resisters.
When we do not like certain laws, we do not break the heads of law-givers but we suffer and do not submit to the laws.
That we should obey laws whether good or bad is a newfangled nation. There was no such thing in former days. The people disregarded those laws they did not like and suffered the penalties for their breach.
It is contrary to our manhood if we obey laws repugnant to our conscience. Such teaching is opposed to religion and means slavery.
If the Government were to ask us to go about without any clothing, should we do so? If I were a passive resister, I would say to them that I would have nothing to do with their law.
COMMENT: Likewise if a corrupt government tells us to wear masks, shall we do so? Of course not, as their demands are repugnant to our conscience and absolutely justified by nothing else than social manipulation disguised as ‘welfare’.
But we have so forgotten ourselves and become so compliant that we do not mind any degrading law.
A man who has realized his manhood, who fears only God, will fear no one else. Man-made laws are not necessarily binding on him.
Even the Government does not expect any such thing from us. They do not say: “You must do such and such a thing,” but they say: “If you do not do it, we will punish you.”
We are sunk so low that we fancy that it is our duty and our religion to do what the law lays down. If man will only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man’s tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to self- rule or home-rule.
It is a superstition and ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority.
Many examples can be given in which acts of majorities will be found to have been wrong and those of minorities to have been right.
All reforms owe their origin to the initiation of minorities in opposition to majorities.
If among a band of robbers knowledge of robbing is obligatory, is a pious man to accept the obligation?
So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust laws exists, so long will their slavery exist.
And a passive resister alone can remove such a superstition.
Reader : From what you say I deduce that passive resistance is a splendid weapon of the weak, but that when they are strong they may take up arms.
Editor : This is gross ignorance. Passive resistance, that is, soul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms.
How, then, can it be considered only a weapon of the weak?
Physical-force men are strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do you believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes?
Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute force. Why do they, then, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can say nothing else. When they succeed in driving out the English and they themselves become governors, they will want you and me to obey their laws. And that is a fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive resister will say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of cannon.
What do you think? Wherein is courage required- in blowing others to pieces from behind a cannon, or with a smiling face to approach a cannon and be blown to pieces? Who is the true warrior – he who keeps death always as a bosom-friend, or he who controls the death of others? Believe me that a man devoid of courage and manhood can never be a passive resister.
This however, I will admit: that even a man weak in body is capable of offering this resistance.
One man can offer it just as well as millions. Both men and women can indulge in it. It does not require the training of an army; it needs no jiu-jitsu.
Control over the mind is alone necessary, and when that is attained, man is free like the king of the forest and his very glance withers the enemy.
Passive resistance is an all-sided sword, it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used.
Without drawing a drop of blood it produces far-reaching results. It never rusts and cannot be stolen. Competition between passive resisters does not exhaust. The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard. It is strange indeed that you should consider such a weapon to be a weapon merely of the weak.
Those who defy death are free from all fear. For those who are labouring under the delusive charms of brute-force, this picture is not overdrawn. The fact is that, in India, the nation at large has generally used passive resistance in all departments of life. We cease to co-operate with our rulers when they displease us. This is passive resistance.
Reader : From what you say, then, it would appear that it is not a small thing to become a passive resister, and, if that is so, I should like you to explain how a man may become one.
Editor : To become a passive resister is easy enough but it is also equally difficult. I have known a lad of fourteen years become a passive resister; I have known also sick people do likewise; and I have also known physically strong and otherwise happy people unable to take up passive resistance.
(…) Pecuniary ambition and passive resistance cannot well go together. Those who have money are not expected to throw it away, but they are expected to be indifferent about it. They must be prepared to lose every penny rather than give up passive resistance.
(…) Passive resistance cannot proceed a step without fearlessness. Those alone can follow the path of passive resistance who are free from fear, whether as to their possessions, false honour, their relatives, the government, bodily injuries or death.
Full text here : https://www.mkgandhi.org/hindswaraj/chap17_passiveresistance.htm
The Advent of Satyagraha in South Africa
Satyagraha—the term and the first implementation of it as such—developed in South Africa out of resistance to the government’s proposed Asiatic Registration Act of 1906. Gandhi was a lawyer in South Africa at the time. He later wrote, “I have never known legislation of this nature being directed against free men in any part of the world.” (Satyagraha in South Africa, ch. 11.) The act, as proposed, would have required fingerprinting and registration of every individual of Asian descent eight years or older living in the Transvaal region of South Africa. Severe penalties accompanied the act. As Gandhi explained the law:
The certificate of registration issued to an applicant must be produced before any police officer whenever and wherever he may be required to do so. Failure thus to produce the certificate would be held to be an offence for which the defaulter could be fined or sent to prison. Even a person walking on public thoroughfares could be required to produce his certificate. Police officers could enter private houses in order to inspect certificates. Indians entering the Transvaal from some place outside it must produce their certificates before the inspector on duty. Certificates must be produced on demand in courts which the holder attended on business, and in revenue offices which issued to him a trading or bicycle licence. That is to say, if an Indian wanted any government office to do for him something within its competence, the officer could ask to see his certificates before granting his request. Refusal to produce the certificate or to supply such particulars or means of identification as may be prescribed by regulation would be also held to be an offence for which the person refusing could be fined or sent to prison. (Satyagraha in South Africa, ch. 11.)
The day after reading the proposed law, Gandhi and others began organizing opposition. Understanding the critical need for solidarity, at a meeting of nearly 3,000 members of the Indian community, “all present, standing with upraised hands, took an oath with God as witness not to submit to the Ordinance if it became law.” (Satyagraha in South Africa, ch. 12.)
Nevertheless, a revised version of the law, substantively the same but exempting women, was enacted and implemented in 1907. In response, the Indian community pursued a path of nonviolent resistance against the law, as well as related unjustly discriminatory laws, for nearly seven years. Gandhi was arrested and briefly imprisoned in January 1908. Many others were arrested and imprisoned or deported. He was arrested again in November 1913, after marching with a group of over 2,000 from Newcastle to Charlestown, and then crossing the border into the Transvaal province in violation of another law. This time he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment.
However, with workers going on strike and the world increasingly watching, after serving only six weeks of his nine-month sentence, Gandhi was released from prison, and the South African government agreed to the appointment of a commission to consider the grievances of the Indian community. In early 1914, the commission ruled in favor of all the Indians’ demands. Notably, the registration act was repealed, Hindu marriages would be recognized again, an annual £3 tax was repealed, and an immigration law was moderated.
Gandhi returned to India in 1915 where he would protest British rule until India was granted independence in 1947. The Salt March was an act of civil disobedience in March and April 1930 designed to reveal the injustice of Britain’s Salt Act of 1882 and, by extension, of British claims to India more broadly. The Act prohibited Indians from collecting or selling salt. Instead, they had to purchase it from British merchants, with a heavy tax added as well.
On March 2, 1930, Gandhi sent a letter to British Viceroy Lord Irwin announcing his intention to initiate a campaign of civil disobedience unless his requests, including abolition of the Salt Tax, were granted. His letter explained, “My ambition is no less than to convert the British people through nonviolence and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India.”
Receiving no response, on March 12, 1930, Gandhi began the march from his ashram near Ahmedabad some 240 miles to Dandi on the Arabian Sea where he would illegally harvest salt that deposited naturally on the shore. He was accompanied by almost eighty others from the start. However, by the time he reached Dandi on April 5, 1930, tens of thousands had joined the march. On the beach, Gandhi defied the Salt Act by reaching down and lifting up a lump of natural salt from the mud. “With this,” he said, “I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.”
Civil disobedience soon spread to other parts of India, and over 60,000 people were arrested. Gandhi was arrested on May 5. But peaceful demonstrations continued. Peaceful protesters marched on the Dharasana Salt Works 150 miles north of Bombay where they were assaulted and beaten by police. Reports of the assaults by American journalist Webb Miller led to international condemnation.
Gandhi was released from prison in January 1931. In exchange for agreeing to call off the satyagraha, he was given a role in negotiations at a London conference considering the future of India.
Gandhi’s teaching and example yield several principles associated with satyagraha. Various enumerations have been suggested. But a few basic principles can be discerned at a minimum.
• First, satyagraha seeks to remedy not trivial errors but specific laws or power exercises that are significantly and demonstrably unjust.
• Second, satyagraha is designed to reveal truth, to reveal the presence of injustice resulting from application of unjust law.
• Third, satyagraha is not passive, but active, firm, and courageous, willing to bring about “creative tension” and face risk.
• Fourth, satyagraha is nonviolent in method, anticipating and even accepting punishment for civil disobedience.
• Fifth, satyagraha refuses to treat opponents as enemies, as it seeks to convert opponents and foster a reconciled relationship.
The influence of Gandhi’s concept has been broad but immeasurable. His influence on Martin Luther King, Jr. has already been mentioned above. Beyond Dr. King, echoes can be heard in the words of other prominent figures of the last century.
Russian Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn alluded to Gandhi’s example in his historic 1974 essay “Live Not by Lies.” He admits that in the totalitarian system of the Soviet Union (where freedom of association and the traditions of English constitutional law did not exist) people were too afraid, too controlled, to rise to the level of “the sort of civil disobedience that Gandhi advocated.” However, appealing to an element of the concept of satyagraha, he writes:
Let us admit it: we have not matured enough to march into the squares and shout the truth out loud or to express aloud what we think. It is not necessary. It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say what we do not think. This is our path, the easiest and the most accessible one, which allows for our inherent, well-rooted cowardice
Further, he writes:
[S]ince violence can conceal itself with nothing except lies, and the lies can be maintained only by violence (today, state violence, fines, jail, media collaboration in police and state violence).
Violence does not lay its paw on every shoulder every day: it demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies.
And this submissiveness is the crux of the matter.
The simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation is this: personal non-participation in lies.
Though lies may conceal everything, though lies may control everything, we should be obstinate about this one small point: let them be in control but without any help from any of us.
This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing for us to do and the most destructive for the lies.
Because when people renounce lies it cuts short their existence.
The manuscript of “Live Not by Lies” was dated February 12, 1974, the same day he was arrested by secret police. The next day he was expelled from the Soviet Union. The essay was published in The Washington Post on February 18, 1974. (THE SAME Washington Post now owned by Jeff bezos, THAT TODAY WOULD CENSOR SUCH A TEXT AS THEY HAVE BECOME ONE THE LIES ENFORCERS).
Four years later, in his 1978 essay “The Power of the Powerless,” the Czech playwright Václav Havel echoed Solzhenitsyn’s essay when he wrote on the theme of “living in truth.” He wrote in the context of what he called a post-totalitarian system in communist Czechoslovakia. The essay explicitly references Solzhenitsyn and calls to mind “Live Not by Lies.” Havel wrote:
Why was Solzhenitsyn driven out of his own country? Certainly not because he represented a unit of real power, that is, not because any of the regime’s representatives felt he might unseat them and take their place in government. Solzhenitsyn’s expulsion was something else: a desperate attempt to plug up the dreadful wellspring of truth, a truth which might cause incalculable transformations in social consciousness, which in turn might one day produce political debacles unpredictable in their consequences.
And so the post-totalitarian system behaved in a characteristic way: it defended the integrity of the world of appearances in order to defend itself. For the crust presented by the life of lies is made of strange stuff. As long as it seals off hermetically the entire society, it appears to be made of stone. But the moment someone breaks through in one place, when one person cries out, ‘The emperor is naked!’—when a single person breaks the rules of the game, thus exposing it as a game-everything suddenly appears in another light and the whole crust seems then to be made of a tissue on the point of tearing and disintegrating uncontrollably.
Even in his use of metaphor, Havel echoes Solzhenitsyn, who had written: “If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and would subside. That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world” (emphasis added).
In apparent agreement with Gandhi, Havel wrote of the exemplary, luminous, centrifugal power of living within truth. He speaks of living in truth as an act with “moral dimension” and “singular, explosive, incalculable political power.”
[A]s long as appearance is not confronted with reality, it does not seem to be appearance.
As long as living a lie is not confronted with living the truth, the perspective needed to expose its mendacity is lacking.
As soon as the alternative appears, however, it threatens the very existence of appearance and living a lie in terms of what they are, both their essence and their all-inclusiveness. And at the same time, it is utterly unimportant how large a space this alternative occupies: its power does not consist in its physical attributes but in the light it casts on those pillars of the system and on its unstable foundations.
After all, the greengrocer [who began living in truth] was a threat to the system not because of any physical or actual power he had, but because his action went beyond itself, because it illuminated its surroundings and, of course, because of the incalculable consequences of that illumination. In the post-totalitarian system, therefore, living within the truth has more than a mere existential dimension (returning humanity to its inherent nature), or a noetic dimension (revealing reality as it is), or a moral dimension (setting an example for others). It also has an unambiguous political dimension.
If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth. This is why it must be suppressed more severely than anything else.
After arrest and imprisonment, Václav Havel would soon become President of the newly free Czech Republic, following the Velvet Revolution.
Gandhi called his overall method of non-violent action Satyagraha. This translates roughly as “Truth-force.” A fuller rendering, though, would be “the force that is generated through adherence to Truth.”
Gandhi practiced two types of Satyagraha in his mass campaigns.
The first was civil disobedience, which entailed breaking a law and courting arrest.
When we today hear this term, our minds tend to stress the “disobedience” part of it. But for Gandhi, “civil” was just as important. He used “civil” here not just in its meaning of “relating to citizenship and government” but also in its meaning of “civilized” or “polite.” And that’s exactly what Gandhi strove for.
Gandhi and followers break a law-politely. Public leader has them arrested, tried, put in prison. Gandhi and followers cheerfully accept it all. Members of the public are impressed by the protest, public sympathy is aroused for the protesters and their cause. Members of the public put pressure on public leader to negotiate with Gandhi. As cycles of civil disobedience recur, public pressure grows stronger. Finally, public leader gives in to pressure from his constituency, negotiates with Gandhi.
That’s the general outline. Notice that there is a “change of heart,” but it’s more in the public than in the opponent. And notice too that there’s an element of coercion, though it’s indirect, coming from the public, rather than directly from Gandhi’s camp.
But the basic principle was the same: Gandhi’s most decisive influence on his opponents was more indirect than direct.
Gandhi set out a number of rules for the practice of civil disobedience. These rules often baffle his critics, and often even his admirers set them aside as nonessential. But once you understand that civil disobedience, for Gandhi, was aimed at working a change of heart-whether in the opponent or the public – then it’s easy to make sense of them.
One rule was that only specific, unjust laws were to be broken. Civil disobedience didn’t mean flouting all law.
In fact, Gandhi said that only people with a high regard for the law were qualified for civil disobedience. Only action by such people could convey the depth of their concern and win respect. No one thinks much of it when the law is broken by those who care nothing for it anyway.
Other rules: Gandhi ruled out direct coercion, such as trying to physically block someone. Hostile language was banned. Destroying property was forbidden. Not even secrecy was allowed.
All these were ruled out because any of them would undercut the empathy and trust Gandhi was trying to build, and would hinder that “change of heart.”
The second form of mass Satyagraha was non-co-operation.
This is just what it sounds like. Non-co-operation meant refusing to co-operate with the opponent, refusing to submit to the injustice being fought. It took such forms as strikes, economic boycotts, and tax refusals.
Of course, non-co-operation and civil disobedience overlapped. Non-co-operation too was to be carried out in a “civil” manner. Here too, Gandhi’s followers had to cheerfully face beating, imprisonment, confiscation of their property-and it was hoped that this willing suffering would cause a “change of heart.”
But non-co-operation also had a dynamic of its own, a dynamic that didn’t at all depend on converting the opponent or even molding public opinion. It was a dynamic based not on appeals but on the power of the people themselves.
Gandhi saw that the power of any tyrant depends entirely on people being willing to obey. The tyrant may get people to obey by threatening to throw them in prison, or by holding guns to their heads.
But the power still resides in the obedience, not in the prison or the guns.
Now, what happens if those people begin to say, “We’re not afraid of prison. We’re even willing to die. But we’re not willing to obey you any longer.”
It’s very simple. The tyrant has no power. He may rant and scream and hurt and destroy-but if the people hold to it, he’s finished.
Gandhi said, “I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their co-operation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill.”
Because Ghandi’s struggle for freedom, human rights and India’s independance teaches us that whatever the lies an ‘alledged’ ‘majority’ (or the perception of a majority through media manipulation) try to force on us, if we know in our hearts and our minds that this is wrong and we know about the truth, we must reveal this truth and not shut-up, not shy away and not be afraid to tell the truth in the face of those who comply out of ignorance, cowardice or vested interest.
Ghandi ‘s life also show us that the fight must go on as long as it needs to go on. from 1913 in South Africa to the end of his life, he never stopped to fight, to advocate non-cooperation and civil disobedience for the rights of humans and he won, because the truth won.
Civil disobedience, non-cooperation, Satyagraha are essential to resist the onslaught on our lives, but Gandhi’s aslo advocated to boycott the products sold by the British like we must boycott the products made by the enemies of Humanity who are behind the coup (all big techs without any exception starting by amazon, google, apple, microsoft, twitter, etc..) and many others like shops and retailers who ban people from their premises because they don’t wear submission muzzles.
Gandhi taught us to refuse lies and live in the truth, this is why, we must close the TV, boycott mainstream media who are the main forces behind the constant and gross lies served about this manufactured ‘pandemic‘.
Gandhi was a strong advocate of self-sufficience and Independance, the Spinning-Wheel strategy is the best example of what he meant by it:
It means to rely on our own hands and ingenuity for susbsitance and industry. Human history has proven that there is nothing human beings can’t do. The criminals behind the coup and their puppet politicians want to control evry aspect of our lives, our minds and bodies. this is why we must become self-sufficient, make our own clothes, our own food, our own energy and live outside of their sick ‘societies’ where slavery is the norm and fascism the ‘law’.
Ghandi believed in the power of DECENTRALIZATION, where life and societies are sustained by villages and totally opposed to megacities, centralization and urbanism disfiguring our lands and destroying our souls.
Again, he was in advance over his time. He saw that DECENTRALIZATION was the solution to escape tyranny and create small units of real democracy at the local level. It is also the only way to preserve the planet by growing natural food, be self sufficient and respect traditional agriculture ways that save nature and our environment. The globalists on the other hand, want a centralized dictatorship, deciding what you should think, do, eat, wear and swarm the planet with GMO, 5G, digital surveillance, pesticides, chemicals and destructive ‘vaccines’ to better control and destroy us.
The message and methods employed by Mahatma Ghandi are more important than ever and as we now have our back to the wall because of parasitic ‘elites’, their servants and ignorant, coward and credulous people.
We must put them in practice by disobeying, refusing to comply, not cooperating, boycotting their corporations and products, become 100% self sufficient and so decentralized that even if they manage to stop one cell, million others will still keep thriving and resisting.
It requires dedication, courage, motivation, fearlessness and efforts, but it is the only way out of this totalitarian nightmare and the price for liberty. Out of this struggle a new wolrd might emerge, one totally opposed to their ‘nwo great reset’, one where humanity triumph.