Author: mxmadmin

 

 

By Avik Chattopadhyay

 

This is the fifth [and last] in my series on India@75 where I have tried to explore some indelible brands associated with the journey of our young nation. Having discussed brands like Democracy, Congress, Secularism and Doordarshan, I felt it most appropriate to bid goodbye to an eventful year with a discussion on brand ‘Non-Violence’.

 

As a nation, this is one brand value we are most associated with given our freedom struggle since the early 1900s that was led by the principle of ‘Non-violence’. History describes the Indian ‘freedom struggle’ as the world’s first and largest ever at this scale. Its success against a particularly repressive colonialist became an inspiration to many others since then like the Civil Rights movement in the US, the freedom movement in South Africa, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Mass Action for Peace in Liberia, and the February Revolution in the Philippines. Petra Kelly formed the Green Party in Germany based on non-violence. The Semai tribe in Malaysia have adopted non-violence as an active form of socio-political life. Morihei Ueshiba founded the martial art Aikido based on non-violence!

 

US theologian and activist Walter Wink had said that in 1989 alone, 1.6 billion people across 16 nations had used non-violence as the means of demonstrations and protest. If one were to add the populations of India and South Africa, by then close to 65% of the world’s population would have attained freedom through non-violence.

 

Twenty twenty-one will be a watershed year in Indian history as yet another non-violent movement succeeded when the central government decided to roll back the three Farm Laws. The Farmers’ Protest of 11 months was another demonstration that the route of non-violence still works, as long as one can be patient enough. While vested interests vilified the campaign and tried all tricks to destabilise it, the world actually saw it in positive light, not so much for the cause but more so for the means. Farmer protests typically end up being violent and ugly as seen in Europe and US where both protestors and enforcers use physical force. India, on her 75^th birthday, once again told the world how it is to be done!

 

Brand ‘Non-violence’ is beyond books of faith and the way of life of certain religious communities like the Buddhists and Jains. It is a greater purpose of how to subsist and sustain as a people and a nation. Like all enduring brands, it has a clear purpose, promise and personality. Over centuries it has kept evolving itself in its application and manifestation as well as adoption by an increasing number of people across nations.

 

Interestingly, authoritarian governments have always been at loggerheads with non-violent protests for the latter neutralises the former’s ability to mete out physical harm. The autocrat is looking for a physical fight and some blood-spilling as a natural expression of power and hegemony. That is his / her comfort zone. The moment the protestor shifts the game to another playground, the autocrat is confounded. Revenge and retribution in the traditional sense make no sense here. And due to the inherent intellectual deficiency of the autocrat, mental torture is never a primary mode of offense.

 

This is precisely why non-violence has become the most popular and powerful route of activism and protest. The tool-down and sit-down strike at a factory is far more effective than the days of the Luddites. The core operating principle that nothing should be harmed be it an object, a structure, a human being, or society’s interest is just too powerful to counter. And this makes non-violence so sustainable and adaptive as a brand ethic.

 

The authoritarian state always builds a narrative against the non-violent protest by propping up ‘nationalist’ symbols of order, discipline, and masculinity like the army and law enforcing bodies. The soldier is typically positioned against the protestor as being the true nationalist while the latter is a renegade. Protecting land and borders is always more important than protecting rights and social sanity.

 

There are some misgivings and myths about non-violence as a brand that I wish to dismantle here.

 

 

Not peaceful or pacifist

A non-violent movement need not be peaceful at all. Actions like non-cooperation, sit-down strikes, public addresses, marches, civil disobedience, economic boycotts, public assemblies, and petitions are all forms of non-violent protests.

 

Non-violent interventions are some of the more incisive and powerful methods of protest using tools like public scrutiny, hunger strikes, occupation, blockades, and parallel governments. Since its coinage by Gandhi, ‘Satyagraha’ has become one of the most powerful ever. The Total Revolution of 1974 led by Jayprakash Narayan and the India Against Corruption movement of 2010 are telling examples of how interventions were used to weaken a government finally making it collapse.

 

Hence, non-violence is neither peaceful nor pacifist, like any successful brand cannot.

 

 

Not only reactionary

Non-violence as a way of life is fundamentally proactive. In fact, it has brought disruptions in society that has led to far-reaching reforms. The Vedic revisionism around 500 BC was an outcome of the birth and rise of Buddhism and Jainism.

 

Similarly, as a form of protest, non-violence can be institutionalised in civil society and tools put in place that ensure a totally proactive role in keeping the state in check and under constant vigil. The emergence of non-violent bodies like Greenpeace, Amnesty and Albert Einstein Institution makes up a unique eco-system of checks and measures that transcend borders to neutralise the ability of power-centres to harm.

 

 

Not unidimensional

Political scientist Gene Sharp, also called the ‘Machiavelli of Non-violence’, described 198 ways of non-violent action in his seminal 1973 book “Waging Nonviolent Struggle”. This is a handbook used by movements across the world right from the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian governments gaining independence from USSR in 1991 to Iranians protesting election fraud in 2009.

 

There is no single route nor any straight-line solution for a non-violent protest. Multiple actions have to be deployed concurrently to make a non-violent movement successful. Just like the stakeholder engagement strategies for any product or corporate brand, this brand too follows the same blueprint.

 

 

Not only political

The Chipko Andolan, the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the Anti AFSPA Movement are examples of non-political non-violent struggles. Non-violence as a means can be applied to any subject and any context. School children marching across streets of Gurgaon or Bengaluru holding placards and singing songs to protect the Aravalis or the Ulsoor Lake have no political agenda. For them this non-violent form of protest is demonstrative of the life they wish to live, challenging the wrongs and protecting the right without causing any harm to anyone.

 

Non-violence has to be accepted as the means of life for the maximum good of maximum people.

 

 

Not only on charity

Like all good brands, non-violence cannot be invoked only during the bad days or when the chips are down. It needs to be ‘invested in’ and nurtured at all times. In fact, the role that non-violence plays in the good times has a positive bearing on overall governance as it helps keep a constant eye on the state. This allows for lesser instances of mis-governance or mal-governance ensuring lower friction levels even during bad days.

 

Every mature democratic nation needs to have a non-violent apolitical parallel governance mechanism operating 24×7 as a moral shadow of the political system in power. This mechanism needs to be owned by the man and woman on the street while its leaders ensure collaboration and co-creation. And this means that proper financial funding is needed to allow specific movements to sustain. There is nothing unethical about the same whatever the state might try to make one believe.

 

Accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace on December 11, 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. had said: “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.” Countering him, George Jackson of the Black Panther movement commented, “The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one’s adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.”

 

To me, non-violence is a unifying concept and holds huge relevance in a country like India with our diversity of opinion and multiplicity of issues. We won our freedom not merely by non-violent means as is made out by mainstream historians, but by use of multiple means with non-violence playing the lead role. The struggles of a Gandhi would never have worked without the sacrifice of a Surya Sen. They co-existed and tactically collaborated to stretch the colonial administrator to the point it finally snapped.

 

The last 18 months have seen India go through two large non-violent movements – the Anti CAA and Anti Farm Laws. Both were successful in their own ways, the former forcing the state into inaction while the latter led to a reversal by the state.

 

Brands India and Non-violence will always enjoy a symbiotic relationship.

Whenever one mentions India, non-violence will be associated with her.

Whenever one studies non-violence, India shall always find a prominent mention.

As we look forward to the nation’s next 75 years, this will be one illuminating moment!

 

Jai Hind!

 

 

Avik Chattopadhyay is a senior brand strategist based in Gurugram. He writes on MxMIndia every other Tuesday and sometimes on other days as well. His views here are personal