A successful strike

“The conditions of a successful strike are simple. And when they are fulfilled, a strike need never fail.”
–M. K. Gandhi (Young India, February 16, 1921)

Would it be a surprise to learn that Gandhi was in favor of laborers and was on the side of strikers throughout his life? Of course not.
He knew, and wanted others to realize, that workers have a lot of power–it is their work that keeps the wheels of society moving. He was convinced that workers needed always to advocate for themselves to ensure dignity in their conditions and recognition of their rights. Strikes become an important tool to be used, he felt, as with any tool in the nonviolence toolkit: with discernment, which keeps the tool sharpened and powerful.
But how do you strike, according to Gandhi? Do you just stop going to work? What happens if those against whom you are striking just replace you at your job? A few years after resorting to fasting (one of the first of his career) to boost the flagging morale of striking workers in Ahmedabad in 1918, he came up with a few, energy-saving guidelines.
Here are his six rules for strike success:
1. The cause must be just.
2. There must be “practical unanimity” among all of the strikers (hence the 1918 fast).
3. No violence should be used against any non-strikers.
4. Strikers should not draw from union funds during the strike, but turn instead to some “useful and productive temporary occupation.”
5. If there is enough labor to simply replace the strikers, then a strike will not work. Resignation is the way forward, instead.
6. Follow all rules 1-5, without overlooking or ignoring any of these recommendations.
You have to love that last one.

Experiment in Nonviolence:
Based on his list about strikes, can you anticipate what might be some of Gandhi’s guidelines for resignation as a tool of nonviolent strategy?

Courtesy: www.mettacenter.org

Thought For The Day ( MAN )

Gandhi and Mother Cow

Gandhi and Mother Cow

“Cow protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution.”

–Gandhi (Harijan, January 1, 1925)

Cow protection. Why would Gandhi be concerned about this ancient duty to “Mother Cow”? Hint: it was about more than the cows. The practice, which he said he would “defend against the whole world,” represented, in essence, the height of ahimsa. Protection of the cow meant to him, really, the protection of all non-human life, of which the cow is only a symbol. But not an irrelevant one, given how much human beings seem to depend on her, even, he notes, more than their own mothers. But unlike our mothers, he points out, cows do not stop serving even when they die: their bones, skin, horns, intestines, every part, he notes, can be put to use. “I say this not to disparage the mother who gave us birth, but in order to show you the substantial reasons for my worshipping the cow.”

A gentle creature, Gandhi calls her, “the cow is a poem of pity,” because she relies on human goodness and care for her survival, and yet she cannot put up a protest against the demands that humans put on her, “expecting nothing but grass and grain in return.” He adds, “The appeal of the lower order of creation,” he said, “is all the more forcible because it is speechless.”

More than a superstition or passed-on folk belief, cow protection to him was one of “the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution.” All creatures can benefit from our increased sensitivity to the forces of consciousness that pervade all of life, which we come to know more and more through the daily practice of nonviolence. In the end we are as much the beneficiaries ourselves when we develop that fine sensitivity to the value of life around us.

Experiment in Nonviolence:

Apply “cow protection” to your own context. What would it look like?

Courtesy: www.mettacenter.org

Thought For The Day ( AHIMSA )

We often make terrible mistakes by copying bad examples.

"We often make terrible mistakes by copying bad examples.”
–Gandhi (Young India, February 16, 1921)
 
There, he said it and I’m glad.

People, especially if they’re new to activism, have a tendency to copy tactics that they see others have used, but it’s harder to look beneath those tactics to the strategy they are enacting. Why is that? Unfortunately, this inability to understand strategy, is due, quite often, to a lack of one. In place of clear long-term, nonviolent strategies, people in a rush to stop the latest atrocity find themselves just imitating tactics. Whenever we act without a strategy, we might be doing a disservice to our goals and weakening other movements who would try to copy our actions in turn. ‘See a problem? Protest!’ Is that what the situation calls for? How do you know?

The Occupy Movement did not have an overarching strategy. Occupying public spaces is a tactic. Even general assemblies (GAs), even People’s Mics — these were not strategies, but tools. That didn’t last. I’m not saying that Occupy didn’t accomplish anything; not at all. But imitation can’t keep a movement going for long, as we saw. Only a strategy can do that, and might I add, a strategy that is based in principled action where one never sacrifices one’s values or the well-being of others to secure one’s own. That formula pulls at the heartstrings, in a good way.

Let’s look at an extreme, but unfortunately very real example: self-immolation. I mean, not in Gandhi’s sense of immolating one’s self-will, but the death of the body. Unfortunately, it can often be a tactic to draw extreme attention to a specific cause. Without context and strategy, the brave person who sacrifices him or herself in this way sometimes merely commits public suicide. It might draw attention to a cause, or the frustration one feels in a seemingly hopeless situation, but it often draws attention to the spectacular tactic itself and not the issue.

Same goes with public fasting.

Instead of copying tactics, we can take the time to learn, really learn from other movements, whether successful or not. We can ask ourselves: What could they have done with a clearly articulated strategy? If they did have a strategy in place, when did they escalate? What was the signal to change tactics? Armed with a strategy, educate your coworkers about it: This is what we are doing, and this is how we are doing it. These are our principles. This is our Plan B. And Plan C. Even Plan D. Spell it out. Don’t be shy. Invite them to join you, and make that part of your strategy, too: give people a way to opt-in and maintain nonviolent discipline when they do.

It’s time for more good strategies in for nonviolence, is it not?

Experiment in Nonviolence:
Articulate the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

Courtesy: www.mettacenter.org

Thought For The Day ( PRAYER )