September 11. A day we should all imprint eternally in our hearts and minds.
For on September 11, 1906, Mohandas Gandhi's life changed, and so as well did he change the lives of hundreds, then thousands, and they together changed the lives of millions, and the course of the planet.
Every day, every single one of us is granted the same miraculous gift to act solely from our deepest selves, and so as well can each of us similarly change the lives of millions.
In these days of greed and murder, willful self-destruction, and mendacity for profit, the greatest gift we can give ourselves and others is hope, and hope can arise solely from a profound belief that we can effect change.
Hope is contagious, and much more powerful than vengeance or gluttony.
And it is our gift to use. Every single one of us.
There is no magic wand. We need to believe, then we need to decide, then we need to ACT.
But bro- ya better HURRY UP.
"...None of us knew what name to give to our movement. I then used the term ‘passive resistance' in describing it. I did not quite understand the implications of ‘passive resistance' as I called it. I only knew that some new principle had come into being. As the struggle advanced, the phrase ‘passive resistance' gave rise to confusion and it appeared shameful to permit this great struggle to be known only by an English name. Again, that foreign phrase could hardly pass as current coin among the community. A small prize was therefore announced in Indian Opinion t o be awarded to the reader who invented the best designation for our struggle. We thus received a number of suggestions. The meaning of the struggle had been then fully discussed in Indian Opinion and the competitors for the prize had fairly sufficient material to serve as a basis for their exploration. Shri Maganlal Gandhi was one of the competitors and he suggested the word ‘Sadagraha,' meaning. ‘firmness in a good cause.' I liked the work, but it did not fully represent the whole idea I wished it to connote. I therefore corrected it to ‘Satyagraha.' 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..."
M.K. GANDHI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TRANSNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR PEACE AND FUTURE RESEARCHOn August 22, 1906, the Transvaal government in South Africa under the British Empire gave notice of a new legislation requiring all Indians, Arabs and Turks to register with the government. Fingerprints and identification marks on the person's body were to be recorded in order to obtain a certificate of registration. Those who failed to register could be fined, sent to prison or deported. Even children had to be brought to the Registrar from their fingerprint impressions. At the time, there were less than 100,000 Indians in South Africa. But in Transvaal, there was an Indian lawyer working with a Muslim company, and his name was Mohandas K. Gandhi.
On September 11, 1906, Gandhi called a mass meeting of some 3,000 Transvaal Indians to find ways to resist the Registration Act. He felt the Act was the embodiment of "hatred of Indians" which if accepted would "spell absolute ruin for the Indians in South Africa", and therefore resisting it is a "question of life and death."
Among these 3,000 people attending the meeting was one Sheth haji Habib, an old Muslim resident of South Africa. Deeply moved after listening to Gandhi's speech, Sheth Habib said to the congregation that the Indians had to pass this resolution with God as witness and could never yield a cowardly submission to such a degrading legislation. Gandhi wrote in his Satyagraha in Africa (1928), that " He then went on solemnly to declare in the name of God that he would never submit to that law and advised all present to do likewise." Though Sheth Habib was known to be a man of temper, his action on September 11 was significant because of his decision to act in defiance of an unjust law and willingness to suffer the consequences in a spiritually-endowed fight for justice in the name of God.
Gandhi was taken aback by the Muslim's suggestion. He wrote, " I did not come to the meeting with a view to getting the resolution passed in that manner, which redounds to the credit of Sheth haji Habib as well as it lays a burden of responsibility upon him. I tender my congratulations to him. I deeply appreciate his suggestion, but if you adopt it you too will share his responsibility.
On that day, September 11, 1906, in South Africa, the Indian nonviolent movement was born. Gandhi later called his Indian movement: "Satyagraha" or " the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence." This movement went on to free 300 million people from the power of the British Empire and gave the twentieth century a most remarkable demonstration of the power of nonviolent struggle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 10, 2006
George Houser: Remembering a Sept. 11 that occurred 100 years agoThe tragic World Trade Center attack is used as an excuse for policies of our government in Iraq that many of us oppose and threaten civil liberties in our own country. It is most appropriate to also recall an event that happened on Sept. 11, 1906 that spawned movements leading to positive changes in the way injustice is confronted worldwide.
This month, South Africa commemorates the event 100 years ago when minority Europeans ruled over the majority of nonwhite Africans, so-called "coloreds," and people of Indian origin. Since the 1860s, thousands of Indians had worked in sugar-cane fields there. A young lawyer, Mohandas Gandhi, already 13 years in South Africa, was well acquainted with indignities suffered by the majority of the people. Legislation proposed in 1906 would require permits granted only by the white government for Indians to move around the country or across borders.
Gandhi described a mass protest meeting in Johannesburg on Sept. 11, 1906, where thousands of Indians "solemnly determined not to submit ... in the event of [the permits] becoming law, and to suffer all the penalties attached to such non-submission ... ." This began Gandhi's transformation from lawyer to "Mahatma" or Great Soul. After the laws were adopted, the opposition gathered momentum. "None of us knew what name to give our movement ... Thus the word 'satyagraha' was coined ... the Force which is born of Truth and love or nonviolence." This "9/11" was the conscious beginning of a creative, nonviolent means of struggle against injustice.
In Chicago in 1941, a group of us began a study of nonviolence, including Gandhi's autobiography. We asked how all this applied to our lives and found out through our own experience. In a restaurant one day, our interracial group was refused service. The "sit down" was born, taking a leaf from the notebook of UAW strikes in Detroit. If no satisfactory resolution was reached with management, we would sit in a restaurant until everyone was served. And it worked! But not without difficulty. Sometimes police were called and occasionally arrests occurred.
The national organization, the Congress of Racial Equality CORE, was also born. The idea of nonviolent direct action, an adaptation of satyagraha, spread to other cities. The lesson of 9/11, 1906, became real for us as we challenged segregation in swimming pools, theaters, housing and all kinds of public facilities.
Another major step was initiated in 1946. Eleven years before Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was "an undue burden on interstate commerce." The 1947 interracial Journey of Reconciliation tested bus and train adherence to the court decision for two weeks in Jim Crow states of the Upper South; 26 tests were made and 12 freedom riders arrested. The much more highly publicized Freedom Rides of 1961 extended the challenge into the Deep South, with arrests and brutal violence demanding the attention of the whole country and even the reluctant Kennedy administration. The Freedom Rides led to subsequent mass actions, voting rights legislation, the march on Washington, and the campaign for voting registration in the summer of 1964. This all had a major effect on the pattern of race relations in this country and is part of the legacy of the Gandhi event of 9/11/1906.
The Defiance Campaign, sponsored by the African National Congress of South Africa in 1952, also had a major effect on my life. In the tradition of Gandhi, the ANC carried out its nonviolent defiance of the apartheid laws of South Africa with over 8,500 arrests. CORE raised funds for legal defense and aid to families whose breadwinners were spending time in prison. The American Committee on Africa became part of one of the great movements of the 20th century — the struggle against apartheid and colonialism. I am reminded of Margaret Mead's truth: "Never doubt that a small group of dedicated and committed people can change the world. Indeed, nothing else ever has."
What relevance has this to us in our world today?
Even as protests against the war in Iraq have grown, so also has the American people's fear. The possibility of terrorism is used as a threat to keep people in line.
William Sloane Coffin, former pastor of Riverside Church in New York, outstanding preacher, peace and civil rights activist, wrote, "Hope has nothing to do with optimism. Its opposite is not pessimism, but despair. ... Hope criticizes what is, hopelessness rationalizes it. Hope resists, hopelessness adapts."
We are given hope because there was a Rosa Parks who refused to give up her seat in Montgomery, Alabama.
We can take hope because Cindy Sheehan called attention to the evil of the war in Iraq.
We can take hope because 1st Lt. Ehren Watada faces a court martial because he refused to go to Iraq in what he calls an illegal war.
On Sept. 11, it is well to remember not only a tragic attack in New York, but the inauguration of a positive method of struggle against injustice and for peace with universal application. The struggle continues and we must always be looking for the next step, the next challenge.
Maybe it is with ourselves.
I think of A.J. Muste, long the head of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. One day when picketing the White House in opposition to the Vietnam war, a journalist asked, "Why do you demonstrate in the rain. Do you think you will change the country this way?"
"No," replied Muste, "I don't do this to change the country. I do this so the country won't change me."
George Houser is a former executive director of the Congress of Racial Equality, a founder and executive director of the American Committee on Africa and a retired United Methodist clergyman. He lives in Pomona, N.Y.
Print Article
You can find this story online at:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/September/10/edit/stories/03edit.htm
Copyright © Santa Cruz Sentinel. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Advent of Satyagraha *
Gandhi, M. K.
Satyagraha in South Africa, Navajivan Trust, Ahmedabad, India Seventh Reprint, April 2003, pp. 95-102.The meeting was duly held on September 11, 1906. It was attended by delegates from various places in the Transvaal . But I must confess that even I myself had not then understood all the implications of the resolutions I had helped to frame; nor had I gauged all the possible conclusions to which they might lead. The old Empire Theatre was packed from floor to ceiling. I could read in every face the expectation of something strange to be done or to happen. Mr. Abdul Gani, Chairman of the Transvaal British Indian Association, presided. He was one of the oldest Indian residents of the Transvaal , and partner and manager of the Johannesburg branch of the well-known firm of Mamad Kasam Kamrudin. The most important among the resolutions passed by the meeting was the famous Fourth Resolution by which the Indians solemnly determined not to submit to the Ordinance in the event of its becoming law in the teeth of their opposition and to suffer all the penalties attaching to such non-submission.
I fully explained this resolution to the meeting and received a patient hearing. The business of the meeting was conducted in Hindi or Gujarati; it was impossible therefore that any one present should not follow the proceedings. For the Tamils and Telugus who did not know Hindi there were Tamil and Telugu speakers who fully explained everything in their respective languages. The resolution was duly proposed, seconded and supported by several speakers one of whom was Sheth Haji Habib. He too was a very old and experienced resident of South Africa and made an impassioned speech. He was deeply moved and went so far as to say that we must pass this resolution with God as witness and must never yield a cowardly submission to such degrading legislation, He then went on solemnly to declare in the name of God that he would never submit to that law, and advised all present to do likewise. Others also delivered powerful and angry speeches in supporting the resolution. When in the course of his speech Sheth Haji Habib came to the solemn declaration, I was at once startled and put on my guard. Only then did I fully realize my own responsibility and the responsibility of the community. The community had passed many a resolution before and amended such resolutions in the light of further reflection or fresh experience. There were cases in which resolutions passed had not been observed by all concerned. Amendments in resolutions and failure to observe resolutions on the part of persons agreeing thereto are ordinary experiences of public life all the world over. But no one ever imports the name of God into such resolutions. In the abstract there should not be any distinction between a resolution and an oath taken in the name of God. When an intelligent man makes a resolution deliberately he never serves from it by a hair's breadth. With him his resolution carries as much weight as a declaration made with God as witness does. But the world takes on note of abstract principles and imagines an ordinary resolution and an oath in the name of God to be poles asunder. A man who makes an ordinary resolution is not ashamed of himself when he deviates from it, but a man who violates an oath administered to him is not only ashamed of himself, but is also looked upon by society as sinner. This imaginary distinction has struck such a deep root in the human mind that a person making a statement on oath before a judge is held to have committed an offence in law it the statement is proved to be false and receives drastic punishment.
Full of these thoughts as I was, possessing as I did much experience of solemn pledges, having profited by them, I was taken aback by Sheth Haji Habib's suggestion of an oath. I thought out the possible consequences of it in a moment. My perplexity gave place to enthusiasm. And although I had no intention of taking an oath or inviting others to do so when I went to the meeting, I warmly approved of the Sheth's suggestion. But at the same time it seemed to me that the people should be told of all the consequences and should have explained to them clearly the meaning of pledge. And if even then they were prepared to pledge themselves, they should be encouraged to do so; otherwise I must understand that they were not still ready to stand the final test. I therefore asked the President for permission to explain to the meeting the implications of Sheth Haji Habib's suggestion. The President readily granted it and I rose to address the meeting. I give bellow a summary of my remarks just as I can recall them now:
"I wish to explain to this meeting that there is a vast difference between this resolution and every other resolution we have passed up to date and that there is a wide divergence also in the manner of making it. It is a very grave resolution we are making, as our existence in South Africa depends upon our fully observing it. The manner of making the resolution suggested by our friend is as much of a novelty as f a solemnity. I did not come to the meeting with a view to getting the resolution passed in that manner, which redounds to the credit of Sheth Haji Habib as well as it lays a burden of responsibility upon him. I tender my congratulations to him. I deeply appreciate his suggestion, but if you adopt it you too will share his responsibility. You must understand what is this responsibility, and as an adviser and servant of the community, it is my duty fully to explain it to you.
"We all believe in one and the same God, the differences of nomenclature in Hinduism and Islam notwithstanding. To pledge ourselves or to take an oath in the name of that God or with him as witness is not something to be trifled with. If having taken such an oath we violate our pledge we are guilty before God and man. Personally I hold that a man, who deliberately and intelligently takes a pledge and then breads it, forfeits his manhood. And just as a copper coin treated with mercury not only becomes valueless when detected but also makes its owner liable to punishment, in the same way a man who lightly pledges his word and then breaks it becomes a man of straw and fits himself for punishment here as well as hereafter. Sheth Haji Habib is proposing to administer an oath of very serious character. There is no one in this meeting who can be classed as an infant or as wanting in understanding. You are all well advanced in age and have seen the world; many of you are delegates and have discharged responsibilities in a greater or lesser measure. No one present, therefore, can ever hope to excuse himself by saying that he did not know what he was about when he took the oath.
"I know that pledges and vows are, and should be, taken on rare occasions. A man who takes a vow every now and then is sure to stumble. But if I can imagine a crisis in the history of the Indian community of South Africa when it would be in the fitness of things to take pledges that crisis is surely now. There is wisdom in taking serious steps with great caution and hesitation. But caution and hesitation have their limits, and we have now passed them. The Government has taken leave of all sense of decency. We would only be betraying our unworthiness and cowardice, if we cannot stake our all in the face of the conflagration which envelopes us and sit watching it with folded hands. There is no doubt, therefore, that the present is a proper occasion for taking pledges. But every one of us must think out for himself if he has the will and the ability to pledge himself. Resolutions of this nature cannot passed by a majority vote. Only those who take a pledge can be bound by it. This pledge must not be taken with a view to produce an effect on outsiders. No one should trouble to consider what impression it might have upon the Local Government, the Imperial Government, or the Government of India. Every one must only search his own heart, and if the inner voice assures him that he has the requisite strength to carry him through, then only should he pledge himself and then only will his pledge bear fruit.
"A few words now as to the consequences. Hoping for the best, we may say that if a majority of the Indians pledge themselves to resistance and if all who take the pledge prove true to themselves, the Ordinance may not be passed and, if passed, may be soon repealed. It may be that we may not be called upon to suffer at all. But if on the hand a man who takes a pledge must be a robust optimist, on the other hand he must be prepared for the worst. Therefore I want to give you an idea of the worst that might happen to us in the present struggle. Imagine that of us present here numbering 3,000 at the most pledge ourselves. Imagine again that the remaining 10,000 Indians take no such pledge. We will only provoke ridicule in the beginning. Again, it is quite possible that in spite of the present warning some or many of those who pledge themselves may weaken at the very first trial. We many have to go to jail, where we many be insulted. We many have to go hungry and suffer extreme heat or cold. Hard labour may be imposed upon us. We may be flogged by rude warders. We may be fined heavily and our property may be attached and held up to auction if there are only a few resisters left. Opulent today we may be reduced to abject poverty tomorrow. We may be deported. Suffering from starvation and similar hardships in jail, some of us may fall ill and even die, In short, therefore, it is not at all impossible that we may have to endure every hardship that we can imagine, and wisdom lies in pledging ourselves on the understanding that we shall have to suffer all that and worse. If some one asks me when and how the struggle may end, I may say that if the entire community manfully stands the test, the end will be near. If many of us fall back under storm and stress, the struggle will be prolonged. But I can boldly declare, and with certainty, that so long as there is even a handful of men true to their pledge, there can only be one end to the struggle, and that is victory.
"A word about my personal responsibility. If I am warning you of the risks attendant upon the pledge, I am at the same time inviting you to pledge yourselves, and I am fully conscious of my responsibility in the matter. It is possible that a majority of those present here many take the pledge in a fit of enthusiasm or indignation but may weaken under the ordeal, and only a handful may be left to face the final test. Even then there is only one course open to some one like me, to die but not to submit to the law. It is quite unlikely but even if every one else flinched leaving me alone to face the music, I am confident that I would never violate my pledge. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying this out of vanity, but I wish to put you, especially the leaders upon the platform, on your guard. I wish respectfully to suggest it to you that if you have not the will or the ability to stand firm even when you are perfectly isolated, you must not only not take the pledge yourselves but you must declare your opposition before the resolution is put to the meeting and before its members begin to take pledges and you must not make yourselves parties to the resolution. Although we are going to take the pledge in a body, no one should imagine that default on the part of one or many can absolve the rest from their obligation. Every one should fully realize his responsibility, then only pledge himself independently of others and understand that he himself must be true to his pledge even unto death, no matter what others do."
I spoke to this effect and resumed me seat. The meeting heard me word by word in perfect quiet. Other leaders too spoke. All dwelt upon their own responsibility and the responsibility of the audience. The President rose. He too made the situation clear, and at last all present, standing with upraised hands, took an oath with God as witness not to submit to the Ordinance if it became law. I can never forget the scene, which is present before my mind's eye as I write. The community's enthusiasm knew no bounds. The very next day there was some accident in the theatre in consequence of which it was wholly destroyed by fire. On the third day friends brought me the news of the fire and congratulated the community upon this good omen, which signified to them that the Ordinance would meet the same fate us the theatre. I have never been influenced by such so-called signs and therefore did not attach any weight to the coincidence. I have taken note of it here only as a demonstration of the community's courage and faith. The reader will find in the subsequent chapters many more proofs of these two high qualities of the people.
The workers did not let the grass grow under their feet after this great meeting. Meetings were held everywhere and pledges of resistance were taken in every place. The principal topic of discussion in Indian Opinion now was the Black Ordinance.
At the other end, steps were taken in order to meet the Local Government. A deputation waited upon Mr. Duncan, the Colonial Secretary, and told him among other things about the pledges. Sheth Haji Habib, who was a member of the deputation, said, ‘I cannot possibly restrain myself if any officer comes and proceeds to take my wife's finger prints, I will kill him there and then and die myself.' The Minister stared at the Sheth's face for a while and said, ‘Government is reconsidering the advisability of making the Ordinance applicable to women, and I can assure you at once that the clauses relating to women will be deleted. Government have understood your feeling in the matter and desire to respect it. But as for the other provisions, I am sorry to inform you that Government is and will remain adamant. General Botha wants you to agree to this legislation after due deliberation. Government deem it to be essential to the existence of the Europeans. They will certainly consider any suggestions about details which you may make consistently with the objects of the Ordinance, and my advice to the deputation is that your interest lies in agreeing to the legislation and proposing changes only as regards the details.' I am leaving out here the particulars of the discussion with the Minister, as all those arguments have already been dealt with. The arguments were just the same, there was only a difference in phraseology as they were set forth before the Minister. The deputation withdrew, after informing him that his advice notwithstanding, acquiescence in the proposed legislation was out of the question, and after thanking Government for its intention of exempting women form its provisions, it is difficult to say whether the exemption of women was the first fruit of the community's agitation, or whether the Government as an afterthought made a concession to practical considerations which Mr. Curtis had ruled out of his scientific methods. Government claimed that it had decided to exempt women independently of the Indian agitation. Be that as it might, the community established to their own satisfaction a cause and effect relation between the agitation and the exemption and their fighting spirit rose accordingly.
None of us knew what name to give to our movement. I then used the term ‘passive resistance' in describing it. I did not quite understand the implications of ‘passive resistance' as I called it. I only knew that some new principle had come into being. As the struggle advanced, the phrase ‘passive resistance' gave rise to confusion and it appeared shameful to permit this great struggle to be known only by an English name. Again, that foreign phrase could hardly pass as current coin among the community. A small prize was therefore announced in Indian Opinion t o be awarded to the reader who invented the best designation for our struggle. We thus received a number of suggestions. The meaning of the struggle had been then fully discussed in Indian Opinion and the competitors for the prize had fairly sufficient material to serve as a basis for their exploration. Shri Maganlal Gandhi was one of the competitors and he suggested the word ‘Sadagraha,' meaning. ‘firmness in a good cause.' I liked the work, but it did not fully represent the whole idea I wished it to connote. I therefore corrected it to ‘Satyagraha.' 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, and gave up the use of the phrase ‘passive resistance,' in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the work ‘Satyagraha' itself or some other equivalent English phrase, This then was the genesis of the movement which came to be known as `Satyagraha, and of the word used as a designation for it. Before we proceed any further with our history we shall do well to grasp the differences between passive resistance and Satyagraha, Which is the subject of our next chapter.
Gandhi, M. K., Satyagraha in South Africa, Navajivan Trust, Ahmedabad, India Seventh Reprint, April 2003, pp. 95-102.
Read more!!
Posts
