Gandhi’s Views of Nonviolent Conflict Resolution

Introduction

Gandhi is well known for his campaign of nonviolent conflict resolution. He focused on violence and nonviolence in conflict resolution with an emphasis on concepts of autonomy and truth. He believed that embracing nonviolence ensures that autonomy and integrity of all the parties involved in a conflict are upheld. This lays a basis for appropriate settlements of conflicts in any other instances that the parties may be involved in a conflict as the parties are able to respect each other and to live in peace.

His views are based on the argument that violence as a conflict resolution method only offers short-term solutions and does not address the core of the problem. In addition, a conflict resolution method that promotes rather than minimize animosity cannot be considered effective. Instead, it puts the subjects who are fighting to more violence anytime an “opportunity” arises. Past disagreements are also used as a basis for accusation in the future, according to Gandhi’s views. This paper focuses on the reasoning of Gandhi’s ideas of autonomy and integrity and how they affect human relations and conflict resolution.

Gandhi’s View of Nonviolent Conflict Resolution

In his writings, Gandhi criticized violence through providing a nonviolence theory, which he believed could very effective in ensuring sustainability of conflict resolution. He believed that human beings had varied perceptions of the truth, which build a wall of differences between them. This is worsened by the availability of violence, because it denies the integrity of individuals in a given society, hence compromising the peaceful coexistence of such individuals (Terchek, 2001). Gandhi believed that nonviolence was superior to violence as it challenges the various brutalities and injustices that dominate the world. His views of nonviolence revolved around his theories concerning autonomy and truth and his ideas of courage and love.

Gandhi believed that there exists truth in the society, but human beings are limited such that they cannot efficiently grasp the entire truth. The way human beings grasp the truth is always affected by their version and perception of truth (Majeed, 2006). Gandhi believed that the way in which human beings conceived truth was very important in determining their direction and identity. As such, whatever a given individual considers as truthful may not be the case for someone else. However, both versions may be linked to the same subject matter. Thus, it is not wrong for individuals to stick to their version of the truth.

However, these different expressions of the truth have an impact on the way people interact in the society and should be highly considered in the studies of violence. According to Gandhi’s ideas, the fallibility of human beings shows that the actions that they take against others, whether intentional or unintentional, may not have a firm and complete rationale as they are biased and fragmented and thus may be costly to the victims of such actions (Terchek, 2001). Apart from showing tolerability of the differences in conception of truth among human beings, it is important to note that every individual requires respect regardless of their perceptions.

In addition, each person should be free to live in accordance with their truths. Gandhi engaged in a survey of the various traditions and religions in the world, from which he detected various similarities among their practices and believes, regardless of their different interpretations of the truth (Terchek, 2001). For one, he realized that all religions and traditions recognized and spoke to beings of a transcendent nature.

They also agreed on one idea that human satisfaction of material needs would not determine if human beings are at their best. Moreover, they all warned their followers against being proud, in the sense of assuming that they are the perfect beings and referring to themselves while judging other people. Gandhi also found that most of the traditions upheld each and every person’s dignity and worth and that each individual was held accountable for their actions among these communities.

By observing such practices among different religions, Gandhi maintains that truth defines the autonomy of each individual. The partiality of an individual’s truth does not mean that they are less committed to the morals of the society but should facilitate humility and the recognition of reality and the importance of diversity (Mantena, 2012). According to Gandhi, such humility is defined by an individual’s commitment to the truth and how much they are determined to protect it. He does not view humility as a weakness in this case, but an important feature that mitigates pride and respects the different expressions of truth and other differences among human beings that define society.

Gandhi’s ideas identify humility as the need for human beings to self-limiting power and not absolute power. In most cases, those individuals who believe that they own the entire truth are prompted to justify themselves in imposing it on different people without considering any restraints. In this case, such moral self-confidence does not involve dialogue with others but instead embarks on revealing itself among them.

In politics, application of Gandhi’s ideas is important as they foster political dialogue, which is more efficient in discovering the whole truth as it involves the opinions of different moral equals who uphold respect for each other (Mehta, 2002). According to Gandhi, the means is more important than the ends, in that, he proposes that once the means has been adequately taken care of, the end is bound to be perfect. By this, he was aiming at developing an understanding of the effect of moral constraints on the resolution of conflicts in his nonviolence discussions.

It is important to note that individuals cannot foresee the consequences of all the actions they engage in on the future, but they can be able to determine the means as they are directly involved in it. The ends can be anticipated, but they are prone to subversion by the power as exercised by others, the objectives of others, can be transformed by competing ends and time, can be compromised by the pride and fallibility of different individuals, and they can also be achieved by sacrificing some of the things that are so important to the involved parties.

When individuals involve each other in the determination of the means, they are bound to recognize the cost and the good they ought to achieve, both for themselves and for others. For individuals to effectively identify the opportunities available for involvement in dialogue, they should focus on the means and not the ends (Terchek, 2001). When individuals focus on the means, they limit their conduct and create boundaries that they ought not to cross.

Due to the kind of corruption that bogs down the society, many at times individuals develop impatience with the means that appear to be slow in mitigating injustices in the society and delaying attainment of the good the individuals are seeking. However, Gandhi believes that when individuals become impatient, they ignore the means and concentrate on the ends, without considering that they may trample upon the autonomy of other persons in the society.

Human autonomy was a concept of major focus in Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj. He highly upheld the integrity and worth of each human being in his discussions of nonviolence, equality, in his critiques of modernization, and even in cases where he defended tradition. He emphasized the need for individuals to rule themselves (Bijker, 2013). As he links truth to autonomy, he believes that for an individual’s life to be identified as worthy, nit should be honest in conceiving truth.

Thus, people should use their conscience as a point of reference in for their lives and not to embrace certain actions out of fear or blindly. Gandhi believes that human beings have limitations that they cannot escape from, and in some cases, such limitations may assert themselves when they are delivering limitations. However, they should not be tied to these limitations, because they will make them incomplete through ignoring their moral nature (Terchek, 2001).

Gandhi identifies institutional practices as obstacles in attaining a society that upholds mutual cooperation and equality. However, regardless of such institutions painfully and costly making moral choices, individuals should still be responsible for the choices they make. He maintained that institutional practices have an impact on the autonomy of individuals, thus contributing to the coherence or fragmentation of life and further affecting personal control.

Individuals should not surrender their autonomy even as they recognize the debilitation of institutional practices (Morris, 2010). Gandhi’s ideas were aimed at getting rid of institutional domination in the society, which he saw had been embedded in the daily lives of the individuals that they no longer recognized it as domination. When the victims of domination in the society fatalistically accept the status to which they have been assigned in the society, they approve their domination, making it legitimate.

Human beings are interconnected through a cosmological link to each other. As such, the lives lived by the members of a given village or neighborhood can be defined as a minicosmos, where such individuals have duties towards each other and that it is from these duties that they derive their rights. From this view, Gandhi develops the theory of unity of life, where he suggests that life is interconnected in the sense that all individuals have to participate in the success of life and in case one part fails, then the entire connection is bound to suffer. In this case, each individual is a moral equal of others, and thus, they cannot harm each other without imposing suffering on the entire society (Terchek, 2001). Such a realization of unity can be effective in promoting peace in the society. It can be well achieved by embedding it in the traditions of the society as they shape the lives of individuals.

Gandhi criticizes modern individualism, which he terms as an obstacle in conception of autonomy (Chimni, 2012). It goes without saying, due to individualism; people are isolated socially, psychologically, and even economically. Individuals are thus left with no sense of purpose besides production and consumption. In this case, individuals remain rudderless, and thus they fall victims of the powerful forces in the society as they lack the ability to counter such forces as individuals. Individuals in this case are only concerned with themselves and not the entire community. If they were to form a coherent force, they would easily defeat such forces.

In reference to Gandhi’s ideas, it is evident that conflict is important in the society as it defines the rights of individuals to resist assaults on the autonomy and domination. As such, conflict can be either nonviolent or violent. His ideas were aimed at promoting nonviolent conflict resolution. He engaged in a criticism of untouchability, British colonialism, and women’s status in the society among other forms of domination (Ocko & Gilmartin, 2009).

In his view, human beings often fall for their biological limitations, and they engage in practices that could compromise the integrity and autonomy of others. Thus, he does not look forward to a society that is free of conflict. Contrary to this, he believes that the causes of conflict can be minimized, and the occurrence be effectively handled in a nonviolent manner. Nevertheless, he maintains that violence cannot be entirely mitigated in the society. In case of injustices in the society, conflict should be initiated, but rather in a self-limiting manner. As such, nonviolence builds more on the means rather than on the ends, whereby engaging in dialogue could lay a basis of future trust.

Gandhi believed that violence does not have ascertained causes and that it is instead dependent on the dual nature of people, formed by the biological nature and the transcending nature (Terchek, 2001). In most cases, individuals are dominated by their biological nature, which subject individuals to daily routines with the promise of certain ends. Thus, individuals tend to expend any individuals that may stand in the way as they aim for the ends.

In addition, Gandhi believes that the major cause of violence in the modern society is the fact that modernity has placed itself in a position that disregards tradition, looking upon it as inferior, offering its new form of rationality. Modernity disregards the fact that tradition may be carrying fragments of truth, which speak to the transcendent human nature. Instead, it observes tradition as fatalism that obstructs efforts of progress. Thus, as modernity continuously takes over the world, it breaks the interconnection between human beings, because they lose the sense of purpose provided for by tradition (Terchek, 2001). People are left with promises of material things, and thus they develop individualism, aiming at meeting certain ends without regarding the means.

Conclusion

It is evident that Gandhi was an individual of great influence through his ideas. His campaigns about nonviolent conflict resolution are well recognized and honored. The focused on the difference between violence and nonviolence conflict resolution strategies such as the Satyagraha strategy for nonviolence, with an emphasis on concepts of autonomy and truth, are considered rare in today’s society, but important for a harmonious co-existence in the society. Embracing nonviolence conflict resolution method, from Gandhi’s perspective, ensures that autonomy and integrity of all the parties involved in a conflict are upheld. If this is achieved in a society, it will be a basis for appropriate settlements of conflicts in a respectable and peace supporting manner.

His ideas prove to be of great importance in facilitating human relations. If well embraced, they would promote the development of a society that has reduced levels of conflict and violence. This is because his views are in support of a society that individuals can look out to each other and thus they can promote coherence and equality within the society. With a society that has upheld equality, it goes without saying that individuals would regard the means other than the end in conflict resolution, and thus they would engage in dialogue to promote the opinion of each individual in order to come up with the whole truth that would assure them of sustainability of their decisions.

It is important to note that violence would only solve conflicts in short-term and also develops animosity among individuals, thus subjecting them to the risk of engaging in further violence to solve future conflicts. Nonviolence is thus a very important way of solving conflicts as it involves the diverse conceptions of truths among different individuals in the society, thus ensuring that nobody’s opinions are ignored or excluded.

References

Bijker, W. E. (2013). Good fortune, mirrors, and kisses. Technology and Culture, 54 (3), 600-618.

Chimni, B. S. (2012). The self, modern civilization, and international law: Learning from Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's Hind Swaraj or Indian home rule. European Journal of International Law, 23 (4), 1159.

Majeed, J. (2006). Gandhi, 'truth' and translatability. Modern Asian Studies, 40, 303-332.

Mantena, K. (2012). Another realism: The politics of Gandhian nonviolence. The American Political Science Review, 106 (2), 455-470.

Mehta, P. B. (2002). Political theory: Gandhi, freedom, and self-rule. The American Political Science Review, 96 (4), 810-811.

Morris, R. (2010). Remembering Asian anticolonialism, again. The Journal of Asian Studies, 69 (2), 347-369.

Ocko, J. K., & Gilmartin, D. (2009). State, sovereignty, and the people: A comparison of the "rule of law" in China and India. The Journal of Asian Studies, 68 (1), 55.

Terchek, R. J. (2001). Gandhi: Nonviolence and violence. Journal of Power and Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Review, 2 (3), 213-242.