How important is it for nonviolent movements to have a commitment to nonviolence as a moral principle that must be adhered to at all costs? Is in fact their real appeal a pragmatic one – namely that they when the opponent commands the instruments of violence, opponents have to adopt a different strategy, that of mass nonviolent confrontation and protest?

Outline Theory- Prosch, Rucker and Bharadwaj Robert Burrowes - dimensionality of nonviolence Gandhi King The role of leadership Exceptions Exam questions

Moral grounds of civil disobedience and its limits Debate Prosch vs Rucker in the 1960s Prosch sees moral grounds of civil disobedience as being limited by its lack of a coercive aspect If non-violent actions spill over into violence they can no longer be considered non-violent Rucker sees Prosch’s view as too restrictive- Prosch only looks at political and legal actions

Principled versus pragmatic Bharadwaj Importance of charismatic leadership If non-violence is only treated pragmatically then it is dooming itself to self-defeat from the beginning Better to be violent than to be a coward

Robert Burrowes The Strategy of Nonviolence Defence Two sets of continuum: the principled- pragmatic continuum and the reformist- revolution continuum Five criterion Burrowes uses to distinguish principled from pragmatic nonviolence: 1.Principled practitioners choose nonviolence for its ethic; pragmatic practitioners choose nonviolence because it is the most effective or only method available. 2.Principled practitioners maintain the indivisibility between ends and means, pragmatists hold that they are separable. 3.Principled practitioners view the conflict as a shared problem. As a result, opponents become partners in the struggle. Pragmatic practitioners, on the other hand, view conflict as a relationship between antagonists with incompatible interests. 4.Since opponents are seen as partners, principled practitioners of nonviolence choose to endure suffering. Pragmatic practitioners, on the other hand, believe suffering inflicted on the opponent short of physical injury is acceptable. 5.Principled practitioners view nonviolence as a way of life; pragmatic practitioners do not

Gandhi Religious commitment to nonviolence A way of life, a universal principle and a transcendent value. Satyagraha – endurance through suffering, adherence to the consistency between means and ends and the exercise of noncooperation when facing an unjust social or political system Bharadwaj

Gene Sharp Gandhi as a Political Activist “Being a practical man, I do not wait until India recognizes that the spiritual life in the political world is a practical necessity. India considers herself powerless and paralyzed …and takes up non cooperation via her weakness. It must still serve the same purpose, namely: bring her delivery from the crushing weight off British injustice if a sufficient number of people practice it.”

Joan Bondurant Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy 1.The Vykom Temple road satyagraha in the Bardoli campaign of peasants against the government of Bombay in the Ahmedabad labour campaign in the nationwide campaign against the Rowlatt Bills in the Salt Satyagraha in

Martin Luther King Jr 1.Nonviolence is a way of life, 2.it seeks to win friendship and understand 3.it seeks to defeat injustice, not people 4.it holds that suffering can educate and transform 5.it chooses love instead of hate 6.it believes that the universe is aligned with justice

James Colaiaco “Martin Luther King Jr ranks among the greatest political strategists of all time.” “apostle of militant nonviolence in America” The Birmingham campaign in 1963 ‘principled’ and ‘pragmatic’ are not necessarily separate and independent paths

Leadership Nonviolence around the World: the Triumph of Gandhi, Ralph Summy ‘triumph’ – ability to mobilise to popular opinion “King and Gandhi were successful because they realised that nonviolent protest was basically an art – and they were quintessential artists” – Colaiaco Potent leadership/charisma/ability as politicians

Conclusion The line between principled and pragmatic nonviolence is illusionary It is possible to have moral nonviolence which is strategic and pragmatic The ability of King and Gandhi to be pragmatic and principled is why both were at the forefront of two of the most important nonviolent movements

BUT… There are examples of nonviolent protest that does not rely on strong individual charismatic leadership. Nazi resistance in Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.

A pragmatic adherence to the principle of nonviolence: Lacking military strength Need for nation-wide support Knowledge of Nazi ideology that would work in their favour

Not the charisma of leaders that created these nonviolent movements: Emphasis on national identity Controlled by groups not individuals

Exam questions ‘In the final analysis, successful nonviolent resistance is all a matter of strategy.’ Discuss ‘Although ostensibly a moral stance, in practice nonviolent resistance is highly pragmatic.’ Discuss. Should nonviolent resistance be seen primarily as a pragmatic strategy or moral stance?

‘Although ostensibly a moral stance, in practice nonviolent resistance is highly pragmatic.’ Discuss. Chartism- only managed to stay non-violent up to the point that it was no longer seen as having the potential for success The same can be said for the anti-Apartheid movement Las Madres de Playa de Mayo- inherent morality to their movement