Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1: Scientific Roots and Development [1st ed.] 9783030568641, 9783030568658

Citation preview

Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1

Scientific Roots and Development V. K. Kool · Rita Agrawal

Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1 “Vinod Kool has once again provided us with groundbreaking new understandings of sides of nonviolence in the Gandhian tradition few have paid attention to. These two volumes cover an impressive wide range of topics and each of them combines thorough studies of the sources with recent scientific discoveries in psychology and medicine. Both volumes of Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence must be obligatory reading for anyone who wants to understand how the Gandhian “experiments with Truth” have developed into the most important force in societal conflicts globally. All engaged citizens, activists, politicians, researchers, and students should include these books in their curriculum. Kool and Agrawal provide food for thought on most of the important questions humanity is facing today, including the 2020 pandemic. Reserve space in your book shelves for these books. When you have read them you will achieve a more nuanced view on Gandhi and nonviolence than you can imagine.” —Jørgen Johansen, Deputy Editor, Journal of Resistance Studies, Sweden “Those of us in peace psychology take pride in how our field covers almost all approaches in psychology. In these two volumes, this is done with a focus on Gandhian psychology. The wide range and depth of coverage offers a must read for everyone who wants to be familiar with Gandhi or who wants to be well-versed in peace psychology.” —Rachel MacNair, Director of the Institute for Integrated Social Analysis for Consistent Life, USA, President of the American Psychological Association’s Division of Peace Psychology (2013), and author of Religions and Nonviolence: The Rise of Effective Advocacy for Peace (2015)

V. K. Kool • Rita Agrawal

Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1 Scientific Roots and Development

V. K. Kool SUNY Polytechnic Institute Utica, NY, USA

Rita Agrawal Harish Chandra Postgraduate College Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

ISBN 978-3-030-56864-1    ISBN 978-3-030-56865-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Doug Armand / Stone / Getty Images This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

While the life and work of Gandhi impressed people ranging from scholars like Albert Einstein to common human beings around the globe, films such as Attenborough’s Oscar Award winning film, Gandhi, or veteran Bollywood film producer Shyam Benegal’s The Making of Mahatma, visually recreated history to show that Gandhi taught us that there are no limits to our capacities. On November 28, 1982, the New York Times, in its review of Attenborough’s film, reported that it had been successful, helping us to realize what to make of ourselves and to make others feel as being a “long-lost friend.” Gandhi’s life and work must be understood in terms of an indivisible whole, as Eswaran puts it, because it is not easy to understand this super human being if we, simply and unnecessarily, focus on some isolated event of his life. Fortunately, through our meetings with Gandhi’s grandchildren and activists in India, now in their 80s or even above, we were fortunate enough to be party to some of the intimate moments that he spent with his family members and direct narrations of events which revealed Gandhi’s philosophy and way of life. Additionally, it brought us closer to the scenes captured for posterity by the celluloid world and to the time frame of the yesteryears, helping us to experience it with unbelievable reality. Our contentions are that great human beings do not become par excellence overnight. They learn from experiences as they navigate through their lives, experimenting with and learning from the new challenges thrown up at them, leading to both upward and downward spirals of development. Sooner or later, some might even reach sainthood, bestowed on them formally or not, unlike the clergy who are mostly confined to the v

vi 

PREFACE

technical interpretations, traditionally stipulated, and who are supposed to lead a socially desirable and prescribed life. Saints, in contrast, have been known for their heroic efforts for and becoming catalysts of change in the community. From the perspective of psychology, it would not be wrong to profess that Gandhi displayed several qualities worthy of a saint. In fact, according to Harvard University scholar Kolhberg, Gandhi had attained the highest stage of moral development, namely, that of post-conventional growth. Additionally, the people of India address him as Mahatma (the great soul) and have declared him the Father of the nation. Overall, an effort has been made in this manuscript to describe and analyze the extent to which Gandhi helped us to not only realize our potential but also to delineate what he had to offer to modern psychology—the science of human behavior. Even more specifically, an attempt has been made to demonstrate the ways in which many concepts of psychology could be better understood with exemplification from his life and work. At the outset, our interest in tracing the applications of psychology to the life and work of Gandhi was rooted in the findings of experiments conducted by Professor Stanley Milgram, reported in almost every textbook of psychology. While Milgram analyzed the obedient behavior of his participating subjects in continuing to deliver electric shocks to the erring learner, he completely ignored those who simply walked away from his experiments at its inception or quit soon after. Why were they disobeying the instructions of the experimenter, delivered in the context of promoting knowledge in the prestigious setting of a laboratory at Yale University? While Milgram’s quest was genuinely scientific, we wondered what Gandhi could offer regarding our understanding of these subjects who disobeyed and defied Milgram (Kool 2008, 2013; Kool and Agrawal 2013), in the light of the fact that Gandhi taught millions of people around the globe how to draw a fine line in choosing between when to obey or when not to obey. In fact, scholars like Gene Sharp at Harvard University, Kenneth Boulding known as half Mahatma Gandhi and half Milton Friedman, Galtung as peace maker and many more spent almost their entire career in seeking and applying the lessons learned from Gandhi’s quest for obeying—and yet not obeying—behavior during his sustained effort to bring home the elusive freedom for India or to seek justice in South Africa. The key element in understanding this ability to obey or not is rooted in our capacity to apply self-control, known as Satyagraha at the mass level.

 PREFACE 

vii

However, as far as modern psychology is concerned, it has remained a relatively poorly studied concept. Considerable has been written about the life and work of Gandhi, encompassing as it does, almost 5000 books. Yet, after our survey of literature, we were disappointed to find that the psychological underpinnings of his behavior have been viewed only scantily. No doubt that scholars such as Gregg, Eswaran, Weber, Fischer and many others had analyzed Gandhi’s life and work, but it was Erikson (1969), in his Pulitzer award winning book Gandhi’s Truth, who first sought to aim directly at Gandhi’s identity using a psychoanalytic framework. Ever since the publication of this book about five decades ago, not much has been done to highlight the life and behavior of Gandhi in developing the sub-field of psychology of nonviolence, per se, or to augment our understanding of behaviors in the domains of work, industry, education, human evolution and cognition, religion and other areas using Gandhian ideas (Kool and Agrawal 2018). Murray and coworkers (2014) were disappointed that while psychology has paid considerable attention to the study of human aggression, little has been done as far as exploring the psychology of nonviolence is concerned. Both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society have been encouraging research in promoting this positive feature of human behavior, but its history has been relatively very short. When we looked at a recent book on 100 years of psychology in India (Bhushan 2017), we noticed that even in the home country of Gandhi, namely, India, research on Gandhi has been scant, both in quantity and quality. “While little has been written about Gandhi’s relevance to psychology as an academic discipline,” wrote chancellor Rao of India’s GITAM University, “there is an increasing awareness of the Gandhian model of conflict resolution and its relevance. A recent issue of Gandhi Marg, (2013) is devoted to highlight the psychological aspects of Gandhi’s thought and practices” (p. 239). We are happy to inform the readers that both of us contributed articles to this special issue of Gandhi Marg (Kool and Agrawal 2013), and Kool was given the responsibility to be the Guest Editor. Additionally, through her base in Varanasi, India, it was possible for Rita Agrawal to keep contacting the members of Gandhi family and fellow freedom fighters, with perseverance and diligence, to craft the psychological inputs that were necessary in preparing the range and scope of our project, consisting of two volumes. Together, we agreed and felt that

viii 

PREFACE

there was a need to prepare a book on the theoretical and applied aspects of psychological significance with the life and work of Gandhi as the base. Earlier, sensing such a lack of interest and research on Gandhi in particular and psychology of nonviolence in general, Kenneth Boulding, in his keynote address at a conference on nonviolence at SUNY Institute of Technology in 1992, had invited psychologists to do more and to engage in publications. In addition to preparing this manuscript as a tribute to Gandhi around his 150th birth anniversary, the present book also honors Professor Boulding for his constant encouragement and extremely cogent suggestions, helping us in reaching this stage of our work. This book is developed on the central theme of Gandhi as a practical psychologist, in spite of the fact that he was a barrister by profession and had no credentials as a psychologist. The turning point in such an argument is based on a very succinct comment by Stricker (2000) that was published in the American Psychologist, an official journal of the American Psychological Association. Stricker wrote that Gandhi’s approach would be helpful in understanding the controversial Boulder practitioner model that required each clinical psychologist to be placed in a psychiatric center for training to help him/her better understand the organic nature of diseases. Further, when unarguably the most popular psychologist, Skinner, mentioned Gandhi in the context of his reinforcement theory in his classic article, “Whatever happened to the science of behavior,” published in the American Psychologist in 1987, we felt that it had become imperative to focus on the life and work of Gandhi and what it has to offer to modern psychology. Further and very importantly, we also believe that in line with our understanding of two evolutions—biological and technological, Gandhi’s life and work offers psychological underpinnings that fan across several sciences in a most formidable manner. For Gandhi, material worth was minimal, which, in turn, under cuts both technological and biological evolutions. While Gandhi was not against the development and use of technology, he cautioned against its phenomenal growth and harmful impact. He also defied the basic tenets of biological evolution rooted in the survival of the fittest and the selfish nature of genes. With no bank balance for himself and his children and no animosity even toward his adversary, he defied the tenets so typical of both technological and biological forces that guide our behavior. Gandhi offered a third evolution, namely, a cognitive evolution, which was not solely rooted in the survival of mere organic material but which guides

 PREFACE 

ix

human behavior, instinctively, or in its absence, in conjunction with an external prosthesis composed of artificial intelligence, gifted to us through technological sources. He sought to disentangle human cognition and to understand its role in seeking one’s identity, first, in the context of our coexistence with the conglomeration of machines around us, including our own body (which according to him was also a machine), and, second, with the all-encompassing elements of nature surrounding us. He never denied the existence of the myriad inherent ways in which we automatically learn to satiate our needs. Yet, at the same time, he was also aware of the perils such behavior creates for the existence of others, and cautioned us not to overstretch ourselves in our use of technology. Standing at the cross road, between our god-gifted biological heritage and the man-made artifacts, is the youth of our time who is searching for his or her identity, often displaced by its own personal narcissism. We believe that while expanding the range of human cognition and depressing or mending biological and technological forces surrounding human beings, Gandhi, definitely, championed the cognitive revolution which was established by the likes of luminaries such as Bruner, Miller and others in changing the course of modern psychology and navigating it away from the classic behaviorism that dominated most parts of the twentieth century. Gandhi was relevant, then, and, is more so now, as we continue to face the impact of the technological evolution vis-a-vis the biological evolution that would challenge, and possibly reshape, our cognition to create new realities with the advent of robots and spiritual machines around us (we ask the reader to also refer to our book, Psychology of Technology by Kool and Agrawal 2016). Through this book, we seek to present to you a road map of psychology that is based on psychology of nonviolence, in general, and Gandhi, in particular. For scholars such as UC Berkeley professor, Nagler (1990), the science of nonviolence has laws tougher than those of physics. For Gandhi, his experiments with life were exercises in searching for the truth, which is also the creed of a science. While basic sciences and technology focus on some objectively demonstrated existence of material, for Gandhi the understanding of human cognition, or the lack of such understanding, is the ultimate goal for defining our survival. It invites us to evaluate what we have been doing so far and to envision the course of civilization that would, in conjunction with advances in both biological and technological domains, need an “applied psychologist” like Gandhi, to whom distinguished psychologists like Skinner or Bandura were looking for support,

x 

PREFACE

as an exemplar, in understanding and explaining human behavior as well as its management. Our contention has been further reinforced by recent research and comments of two leading psychologists, Robert Sternberg (2019) and Howard Gardner (2018), both of whom are well known for their landmark work on human intelligence. They are of the firm belief that the concept of intelligence, though important, is not sufficient for providing solutions to problems of the twenty-first century and that psychology would do well to look beyond. One such concept is wisdom, about which, Sternberg and Gardner are of the view that psychology could learn much from the life and work of Gandhi. This book is a humble tribute to one of the wisest human beings of the twentieth century, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who helped us to understand our psychological strength in the context of our positive communal relationships, and we appreciate the support of his grandchildren and fellow coworkers who provided us material for this manuscript and virtually, more than a film, placed us in a slice of time, enabling us to experience Gandhi in a manner, so lively, as we had neither known nor imagined. We would like to thank Gandhi’s family, including his grandchildren whose interviews are narrated in Chap. 3, Volume 1 of this book: Ms. Sumitra Kulkarni at Bangalore; Ms. Usha Gokani at Mani Bhavan, Mumbai; and Nilam Parikh at Navsari. We are grateful to everyone who provided valuable information to us during our meetings and specially to Gandhi’s close coworker Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari at Mumbai; Ms. Niranjana Kalarthi at Bardoli; Mr. Bhawani Patnaik, MP, recipient of Padma Shree national award and nonviolent freedom fighter of Gandhi era, at Bhubaneswar; veteran Gandhi scholar Nagin Das Sanghavi; Chancellor Ela Bhatt of Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad (founded by Gandhi); and Ms. Radha Bhatt for providing information on Sarala Behn (original name Catherine Mary Heilemann), daughter of a British Army officer, and who worked closely with Gandhi and settled in India after his death. We are grateful to Dr. Pragna of Bardoli and Professors Lodhi and Herbert Blumberg for their support. Professor Kool also acknowledges and thanks the Fulbright program for awarding him Fulbright Specialist status (2011–2015) and grants to visit India; the American Psychological Association for providing financial support by selecting this book proposal in a global competition (2015); and to Andrew Russell, Dean of School of Arts and Sciences, SUNY

 PREFACE 

xi

Polytechnic Institute for the travel grant to interview Gandhi’s relatives and coworkers. Last, but not the least, we would like to acknowledge the continuous support of our families, especially our spouses (Aditi Kool, wife of V. K. Kool and Rai Anil Kumar, husband of Rita Agrawal) for bearing with us throughout this project. While we were aiming to write only one volume, experts and our publisher suggested that we prepare the manuscript in two volumes. As a result, our work stretched to more than what we had targeted for. However, with the continuous and enthusiastic support from our publisher, and particularly from Madison Allums, Beth Farrow, Tikoji Rao and the entire publication team, the process of publication became somewhat smoother than we had projected. We are grateful to them for all their help. Los Angeles, CA Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 

V. K. Kool Rita Agrawal

References Bhushan, B. (Ed.) (2017). Eminent psychologists of India: 100 years of psychology in India. New Delhi: Sage. Erikson, E. (1969). Gandhi’s Truth. New York: Norton. Gardner, H. (2018). Interview with Harvard Gazette, May, 9th. www. news.harvard.edu. Kool, V. K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K. (2013). Applications of Gandhian concepts in psychology and allied disciplines. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 235‑238. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2013). Whither Skinner’s science of behavior, his assessment of Gandhi, and its aftermath? Gandhi Marg, 35, 487‑518. Kool, V.  K., & Agrawal, R. (2016). Psychology of Technology. Switzerland: Springer. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2018). Gandhian philosophy for living in the modern world: lessons from the psychology of satyagraha. In S. Fernando & R. Moodley (Eds.), Global Psychologies: Mental health and the global South. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Murray, H., Lyubansky, M., Miller, K., & Ortega, L. (2014). Toward a psychology of nonviolence. In E. Mustakova-Possardt, m. Lyubanski,

xii 

PREFACE

et  al, (Eds.), Toward socially responsible psychology for a global era, 151‑182. New York: Springer. Nagler, M. N. (1990). Nonviolence as New Science. In V. K. Kool (Ed). Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer Verlag. 131‑139. Rao, K. R. (2017). Foundations of yoga psychology. Singapore: Springer. Skinner, B. F. (1987). Whatever happened to psychology as the science of behavior? American Psychologist, 4, 780–786. Sternberg, R. J., Nusbaum, H. C. & Gluck, J. (2019). Applying wisdom to contemporary problems. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Stricker, G. (2000). The scientist practitioner model: Gandhi was right again. American Psychologist, 55, 254.

Contents

1 The Beginning: From Resisting Violence to Promoting Nonviolence  1 Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiments   2 Recent Replications of Milgram’s Experiments   8 Disobedience to Authority  10 Personality Characteristics of the Disobedient, Nonviolent Individual and the NVT  12 The Roots of Psychology of Nonviolence  15 Contributions of Other Social Scientists to the Science of Nonviolence  20 Gene Sharp  20 Johan Galtung  22 Kenneth Boulding  23 Milgram’s Experiments, Disobedience and Gandhi  25 References  28 2 The Disobedient Gandhi 33 The Turning Point  35 The People Who Influenced Gandhi  35 Gandhi’s Parents  36 Leo Tolstoy  37 Raychand  40 John Ruskin  41 Henry David Thoreau  42 Gandhi and Religion  44 xiii

xiv 

Contents

The Length and Breadth of Gandhi’s Influence  46 David Cortright  47 Martin Luther King Jr.  49 Nelson Mandela  50 The Burma Gandhi: Aung San Suu Kyi  51 The Frontier Gandhi: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan  53 Protesters from Around the World  55 References  59 3 Interviews with Survivors from the Gandhi Era 61 Interviews with Survivors from the Gandhi Era  62 Sumitra Kulkarni  64 Niranjana Kalarthi  67 Ela Ramesh Bhatt  71 Nilam Parikh  73 Bhawani Charan Patnaik  75 Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari  77 Nagin Das Sanghavi  79 Usha Gokani  82 Radha Bhatt  84 Conclusions  87 References  91 4 The Building Blocks of Gandhi’s Nonviolence 93 Gandhi’s Truth  95 Gandhi and the Relationship Between Means and Ends  96 Gandhi’s Ahimsa or Nonviolence  97 Cultivating Ahimsa 102 Tapasya 102 Vows 105 Attributes of the Nonviolent Individual 109 Anasakti and Aparigriha 111 Sarvodaya and Antodaya 112 The Dynamics of Nonviolence: A Moral Jiu-Jitsu 113 Satyagraha and Duragraha 115 Constructive Program 118 References 121

 Contents 

xv

5 The Evolution of Nonviolence and Its Neurological Basis125 Cooperation Among Animals 127 Empathy: Its Evolutionary Roots 134 Genetic Underpinnings of Empathy 135 Altruistic Cooperation, Altruistic Punishment and Its Neural Basis 135 Gandhi and Empathy 137 The Neurophysiological Basis of Empathy: The Role of Oxytocin 138 Oxytocin and Sociability 139 Techniques for Measuring the Effects of Oxytocin 142 The Neuroanatomical Basis of Empathy: The Role of Mirror Neurons 145 The Social Brain and the Social Brain Hypothesis 148 Adversarialism-Mutualism and the Social Brain 153 The Scientific Basis of Gandhian Nonviolence: Some Conclusions 154 References 158 6 Measurement of Nonviolence167 The Construct of Nonviolence: Its Meaning and Definition 170 On Measuring Nonviolence 172 The Pacifism Scale (Elliott 1980) 174 The Nonviolence Test—NVT (Kool and Sen 1984) 175 The Teenage Nonviolence Test (Mayton et al. 1998) 180 Other Scales of Nonviolence and Related Concepts 183 Appendix: The NVT with Scoring Key 184 References 191 7 The Psychology of Nonviolence: Models and Their Validation195 Need for a Comprehensive Model of Nonviolence 196 The Beginnings of Psychology of Nonviolence 198 Scientific Research on Attributes of Nonviolence 199 Love, Compassion and Nonviolence 199 Compassionate Love 202 Justice, Morality and Nonviolence 203 Justice and Care: The Nonviolent Approach 207 Self-Control and Nonviolence 210

xvi 

Contents

Areas of Self-Control 213 The Dynamics of Self-Control 213 Ego Depletion and Training 216 Ego Depletion and Shifting Priorities 217 The Neurological Basis of Self-Control 218 Self-Control and Self-Restraint by Gandhi 223 Tapasya, Self-Sacrifice and Nonviolence 225 The Evolutionary and Psychological Basis of Self-­Sacrifice 227 Measuring Self-Sacrifice 228 The Dynamics of Self-Sacrifice: The 3 N Theory 228 Identity Fusion and Its Role in Producing Self-Sacrifice 230 Self-Sacrifice as Counterfinality of Means 232 The Role of the Leader in Self-Sacrifice 233 Self-Control and Self-Restraint by Gandhi 234 Power and Nonviolence 235 Kenneth Boulding 237 Rollo May 238 Gene Sharp 239 Models of Nonviolence 241 The 4 P Theory (Summy 2009) 241 The Diamond Model of Nonviolence (Mayton 2014) 244 Three-Dimensional Model of Nonviolence (Kool 1993) 247 References 253 8 Cognition of Nonviolence265 The Psychology of Human Cognition 266 Prospect Theory 267 Framing 268 Framing Nonviolence 268 Framing and Psychological Numbing 270 Two Systems of Thinking: System I and System II 271 System I/System II and Nonviolence 271 System I/System II and Disobedience 272 Schemas and Scripts 273 Schemas, Scripts and Gandhi 274 Priming 277 Priming Nonviolence 278

 Contents 

xvii

Nudges and Nudging 281 How Does a Nudge Work?  282 Nudges and Gandhi 284 Boosts 285 Social Identity Theory (SIT) 287 Functions of Social Identity 288 Social Identity and Framing 289 Social Identity and Social Categorization 291 SIT and Nonviolent Cultures 292 SIT and Gandhi 292 References 297 9 Epilogue: Summing Up on the Science of Gandhi’s Psychology of Nonviolence303 Milgram and Gandhi: Obedience Versus Disobedience 304 The Neural Basis of Nonviolence 306 The Building Blocks of Nonviolence 310 The Science of Gandhi’s Nonviolence: A Vision for the Future 317 References 320 Author Index323 Subject Index331

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 2.1 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2 Fig. 9.1

Graph showing obedience levels in variations of Milgram’s study 5 Influences on Gandhi and Gandhian nonviolence 46 How vows guard us against temptation 108 Overlapping area between violence and nonviolence 170 The 4 P Theory (Summy 2009) 242 A simplified figure of the diamond model of nonviolence (based on Mayton 2014) 245 A three-dimensional model of nonviolence (Kool 1993) 248 Aggression levels of nonviolent and violent subjects 250 The three-dimensional model in terms of obedience/disobedience251 Process and content in two cognitive systems (Adapted from Kahneman 2003) 272 Difference between a nudge and a boost 285 A protester from Tunisia at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin in the year 2012 309

xix

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 7.1 Table 8.1

Percentage of subjects who delivered shocks of varying levels Stages of moral development according to Kohlberg (1976) Differences between nudge and boost (based on Hertwig and Grüne-­Yanoff 2017)

4 205 286

xxi

List of Boxes

Box 1.1 Box 1.2 Box 2.1 Box 4.1 Box 5.1 Box 5.2 Box 5.3 Box 5.4 Box 5.5 Box 6.1 Box 7.1 Box 7.2 Box 7.3 Box 7.4 Box 8.1

An Example from Prospect Theory 6 Thoughts of a Protester 11 Thoreau (1854), On the Duty of Civil Disobedience42 Gandhi: A Law Student in England 99 How Animals Engage in Cooperative Behavior 128 The Biochemistry of Love: An Oxytocin Hypothesis 141 The Trust Game 143 Mirror Neurons: Understanding the Emotions and Actions of Others145 Welcome to Your Social Brain 148 Attributions Made by High and Low Scorers on the NVT 178 The Case of Heinz 204 The Stanford Marshmallow Experiments 211 Neurosocial Psychology of Nonviolence as a Correlate of Self-Regulation and Self-Control 220 On Boulding and the Three Faces of Power 237 Aim for the fly 283

xxiii

CHAPTER 1

The Beginning: From Resisting Violence to Promoting Nonviolence

Opening Vignette

Can you believe that the following happened when a participant in an experiment was asked to deliver electric shocks to another human being? They agreed and continued to administer shocks, that too, at dangerous levels. For details, please continue to read below. 75 volts 90 volts 105 volts 150 volts

Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! (louder) Ugh!!! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out. 210 volts Ugh! Experimenter! Get me out of here. I’ve had enough. I won’t be in the experiment any more. 270 volts (Agonized scream) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Do you hear? Let me out of here. (continued)

© The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_1

1

2 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

(continued)

300 volts (Agonized scream) I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can’t hold me here. Get me out. Get me out of here. 315 volts (Intensely agonized scream) I told you I refuse to answer. I’m no longer part of this experiment. 330 volts (Intense and prolonged agonized scream) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out. I tell you (hysterically). Let me out of here. Let me out of here. You have no right to hold me here. Let me out! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out! (Abridged from Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram. New York: Harper & Row, 1974, pp. 56–57.)

Most of us have often wondered what caused people, who are normally morally correct, to follow the extreme orders delivered during the Holocaust. Why is it that these soldiers from the German army were ready to incinerate thousands of innocent Jews and that too, not only adult males but also women and children? Did they show this compliance willingly? Did they not face conflicts while obeying such shocking orders from the Fuhrer?

Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiments In the early 1960s, a University of Yale professor of psychology started thinking deeply about questions such as the above. That professor was none other than Stanley Milgram, whose classic experiments on what has come to be known as the obedience to authority experiments “remain one of the most inspired contributions to the field of social psychology” (Russell 2011) and through which he attempted to find out what happens when one faces a conflict between personal values and demands to be obedient and why is it that people are ready to inflict pain to strangers. So great can be said to be the impact of these studies that it has been written that “few psychological studies can claim a legacy as imposing as the obedience studies of Milgram. Their impact was of notable consequence

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

3

in the separate spheres of research ethics, research design and theory in psychology and they changed the ways in which psychologists conceptualize and conduct their research” (Benjamin and Simpson 2009). They also became one of the most controversial experiments and one of the most talked of experiments in the field of social psychology. Or, as Lee Ross (1988, cf. Myers 1999) puts it, “they have become part of our society’s shared intellectual legacy.” What was the experiment devised by Milgram (1974)? Creative artist that he was, Milgram devised an extremely ingenious situation which he presented to a group of 110 psychiatrists, college students and middle class adults. The situation was as follows: two men walk into the psychology laboratory where Milgram stands stern and forbearing, explaining to them that he is undertaking an experiment on the effects of punishment on learning. The two men draw lots, and one (who is a confederate of the experimenter) pretends that his slip says “learner” and is taken into the adjoining room. The other who is actually a subject having volunteered to take part through a newspaper advertisement is told to act as “teacher,” who sees the “learner” being strapped to a chair and an electrode attached to his wrist. The “teacher” is then shown the “shock machine” that has various switches to deliver electric shocks ranging from mild shock to 435 and 450 volts. He is also instructed that the “learner” has to learn a list of words and that, whenever he makes a mistake, the “teacher” must press one of the buttons on the shock machine to deliver a shock to the erring learner. The experiment is then started. As soon as the “learner” makes a mistake, a small shock is administered by the “teacher.” How does the “learner” respond? The initial low-level shocks are responded to by grunts from the “learner.” With more mistakes, the “teacher” has been told to increase the amount of the shock. As the size of the shock increases, the grunts soon change into a shout at 120 volts and cries to let him out at 150 volts. By 270 volts, the “teacher” hears screams of agony, while after 330  volts the “learner” becomes silent. The experimenter continues to prod the “teacher” to continue delivering shocks, saying that “you have no option; you must go on.” When Milgram described the above “experiment” to 110 psychiatrists, college students and middle class adults, people from all three groups said that they would disobey by about 135 volts and that none would go beyond 300 volts. When asked how they thought other people would go, none expected that people would go to the 435–450-volt level. Yes, this is what they felt they would do or others would do! But when Milgram

4 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Table 1.1 Percentage of subjects who delivered shocks of varying levels

Level of shock 300 volts (intense shock) 315 volts (extreme intensity shock) 330 volts (extreme intensity shock) 345 volts (extreme intensity shock) 350 volts (extreme intensity shock) 375 volts (danger: severe shock) 450 volts (extremely dangerous)

Percentage of subjects 12.5% 10% 5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 65%

actually conducted the experiment on 40 men from varying vocations and of the age group 20 to 50 years, he was surprised to find that actually 25 of them (a whopping 63%) delivered shocks to the extent of 450 volts to the erring “learner” (see Opening Vignette). Though the “learner” received no shock, Milgram and many other social psychologists were upset and extremely perturbed. How could people electrocute innocent people for almost no reason? Table 1.1 reveals the percentage of people who showed obedience. The results seem to point to the same answer as that given by officers, such as Eichmann, of the Holocaust: “we were simply following orders.” Should we call such people who comply with destructive orders accomplices? The most surprising finding is that the experiment has been repeated many times around the globe, with fairly consistent results. Milgram, vexed though he was, did not stop here. He went on next with other variants of the experiment (results summarized in Fig. 1.1) in order to discover the conditions under which such obedience to instructions is manifested. In his later experiments, he found four determining factors: the victim’s emotional distance, the authority’s closeness and legitimacy, the institutional authority of the experimenter and last but not the least, the liberating effect of a disobedient fellow subject. These factors were validated not only by a large body of empirical research but were also brought to the fore by everyday experience in our ability to harm someone or to be compassionate toward someone. For the purpose of clarity, let us now look at the first four experimental variations in which there were the least number of people who were ready to administer 450-volt shocks, starting with the variation # 9, in which there were the least number of subjects (refer to Fig. 1.1).

Percentage administering shock (450 volts)

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

5

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 9

11

12

8

14

10 5 4 3 7 2 Experimental variations

1

6

13 10a 15

S. No Experimental variations

S. No Experimental variations

9.

Learner demands to be shocked

3.

Proximity

11.

Authority as victim— an ordinary man commanding

7.

Institutional context

12.

Two authorities—contradictory commands 2.

Voice feedback

8.

Subjects free to choose shock level

1.

Remote victim

14.

Two peers rebel

6.

Women as subjects

10.

An ordinary man gives orders

13.

Two authorities—one as victim

5.

Remote authority

10a.

The subject as bystander

4.

Touch proximity

15.

A peer administers shocks

Fig. 1.1  Graph showing obedience levels in variations of Milgram’s study

. # 9. Learner demands to be shocked 1 2. # 11. Authority as victim, an ordinary man commanding 3. # 12. When two authorities offer contradictory command 4. # 8. Subjects free to choose shock level

6 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Looking at Fig. 1.1 in this way, one finds that as conditions changed, the number of subjects, who were ready to administer high levels of shock, declined considerably, with compliance levels dropping to less than 10%. This data provides, in the process, interesting insights regarding ways of reducing aggression. Unfortunately, Milgram had not paid much heed to this aspect, preoccupied as he was, with the investigation of the dynamics of obedience to authority in terms of aggressive behavior. However, we see exciting possibilities in this part of Milgram’s data and take this opportunity to extend this monumental research on the psychology of aggression to understand more about nonviolence. Further, in this book and elsewhere, we have emphasized that such a limited approach in understanding aggression or its counterpart, nonviolence, is detrimental to the understanding of our own survival, in general, and to the applications of psychology in real life, in particular (Kool 1993, 2008; Kool and Agrawal 2013, 2018). Kool (2008) was, particularly, perturbed and concerned regarding the reasons for Milgram’s not going beyond the experimental framework of his hypotheses concerning obedience to authority. In particular, Kool and his associates were of the view that the developments in prospect theory (Kahneman 2011; Kahneman and Tversky 1979) offer a more scientific explanation for the differences between the behavior of those who choose violence vis-à-vis those who choose nonviolence.

Box 1.1   An Example from Prospect Theory

Please consider the following example based on prospect theory: A bat and a ball cost $110. The cost of the bat is $100 more than the ball. What is the cost of the ball? Did you answer $10? Wrong. You are not alone; even elite students at Princeton made the same error. The correct answer is $5 (the cost of the bat is $105; add $5 for the ball and you get $110). Source: Adapted from Kool 2008, p. 23

What is the learning from the example in Box 1.1? The ways in which we have been primed to think color our perception and our ways of thinking. The same is true for all forms of behavior, including violence and nonviolence. With violence being constantly primed by the mass media

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

7

and the prevailing social order placing us in settings which have compliance and obedience to authority as the standard norm, it is much easier to toe the line of the prevailing paradigm even in scientific disciplines such as psychology. But when the situation changes, as in the first four experimental variations in Fig. 1.1, the scenario is, apparently, different from those that people are generally faced with. Considering the above in terms of prospect theory, it is clear that in each of the four conditions mentioned above, the subjects had to stop and think, rather than simply obey orders and comply with them. They had to delay their decision regarding whether they should comply or not. As far as condition 9 is concerned, in which the learner demands to be given a shock, the subject is forced to think, “why is this so?” How can a sane person demand that she/he be given an electric shock? Similarly, in the next condition, # 11, how can one deliver a shock to a Yale University professor? In the same way, # 12 was a variation in which there were two people giving contradictory commands, and in # 8, the subject had to choose the level of shock to be administered. These last two are of especial relevance as far as the psychology of nonviolence and Gandhi are concerned. While #12 reveals the dilemma faced by people even during the Holocaust and why many were ready to obey the dictum of the church rather than that of the Fuhrer, # 8 reveals what Gandhi called the inner voice, the conscience of the person. In contrast to the above, when one considers the last six experimental variations in Fig. 1.1, in terms of prospect theory, obeying the orders and complying with the instructions would be comparatively easier than in the first four variations discussed above. We will come back to these and many more such situations in the course of this book, but let it suffice to say, at this point, that Milgram’s experiments had exciting lessons for not just the psychology of aggression and violence but also for the psychology of nonviolence. At the same time, the findings regarding subjects ready to deliver shocks to another individual, in general, reveal that compliance to an authority figure can take precedence over moral sense. They also sensitize us to the moral dilemmas we face in our mundane lives and how we get entrapped into situations, leading to disastrous behavior, forcing Staub to draw the conclusion that, “human beings have the capacity to come to experience killing other people as nothing extraordinary” (Staub 1989, p.  13). However, this drift toward evil is usually incremental, starting with small

8 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

acts that are performed without any intention of being cruel leading to a gradual lessening of cognitive dissonance as the individual moves on to bigger and bigger acts of cruelty. Recent Replications of Milgram’s Experiments Following these experiments and the controversy that ensued regarding the ethicality of subjecting human beings to a high degree of stress and moral conflict, such experiments came to be banned. However, some replications have been conducted with certain variations. Probably the most well-known is that conducted by Jeremy Burger in 2009 which revealed that participants were ready to go beyond a low level of electric shock (150  volts, a legally permissible level) forcing Burger to conclude that even 45 years after Milgram, people reacted to the instructions in much the same way as those in Milgram’s study in 1965 and 1974. Another interesting replication was conducted in France by Beauvois and his colleagues (2012) in which the experimental paradigm of Milgram was presented as a TV game show in an attempt to see the power (authority) wielded by the TV host. This was the first time an attempt was made to demonstrate that the TV host has considerable prescriptive power for ordering people’s behavior, including cruel and immoral acts, and the results show a compliance rate of 81%. More recently, the experiments have been replicated in the Eastern European country of Poland, and the authors note that even “half a century after Milgram’s original research into obedience to authority, a striking majority of subjects are still willing to electrocute a helpless individual” (Dolinski et al. 2017). Over the years, results such as the above are being used to help explain why people become ready to torture prisoners (Fiske et  al. 2004) or even become a suicide bomber (Atran 2003). Do these results demonstrate that humans have a universal propensity to destructive obedience? So perturbed were social psychologists by results such as those obtained by Milgram that efforts continue unabated to explain the reasons for this seemingly unnatural behavior. So powerful are the effects that similar results have been obtained even when the “learner” was a virtual one (Slater et al. 2006). The explanations range from what has been called the good follower effect to more recently to that of the engaged follower effect, wherein the behavior of the perpetrators is said to ensue from “identification with and commitment to the in group cause that is

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

9

supposed to be noble and worthwhile” (Haslam et al. 2016). Moreover, Milgram’s results seem to reveal much more than a blind obedience. Rather, the participants seem to go through deep moral conflict. As Shermer (2012) writes, Contrary to Milgram’s conclusion that people obey blindly because of environmental conditions, I saw in our subjects a great behavioral reluctance and moral disquietude. While one subject quit on merely hearing the protocol, a second quit at 75  volts and the third also quit soon after. Human moral nature includes a propensity to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow kin and group members plus an inclination to be xenophobic, cruel and evil to tribal others. The shock experiments reveal these conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within.

Thus, one cannot say that all humankind is of the type who is ready to deliver 450-volt shocks to others. Even in Milgram’s experiment, only a total of 63% complied with the instructions. As Fig. 1.1 above clarifies, the remaining dropped out at various intermediate levels of shock. That there are many who will listen to their conscience and disobey authority of even the highest level is borne out by the countless who were saved by common people from being tortured during the Holocaust. These were people who had been taught to “resist whenever our adversaries will demand of us obedience contrary to the orders of the Gospel” (Rochat and Modigliani 2010). These resistors made an initial commitment and then supported by their own belief and by the acts of others, remained defiant till the end. Akin to destructive acts, such acts of compassion are also incremental, with escalation of commitment after initial acts of compassion, leading to acts that show even greater compassion. This was true with one of Milgram’s experiments, too, wherein he attempted to study the force of the noncompliant peer. When two confederates defied the experimenter, 90% of the subjects liberated themselves by conforming to the disobedient confederate. Thus, if authority is overpowering and can cause one to comply with demands of violence, one also stands witness to the fact that group influence can make people resist such destructive demands. Such is the power wielded not only by authority but also by an in-group. The experiments threw up a number of issues, one being that while the majority conceded to act according to the instructions, there were some who refused, on the ground that they simply could not administer electric shocks to individuals, as punishment for failure in a simple act of learning.

10 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Disobedience to Authority However, throughout, from the original experiments and explanations offered by Milgram and to the replications carried out from time to time, the focus has been on the obedient participant. Efforts to understand why some people left midway have been scant. Why were they disobedient? What were their personality and other characteristics? Basically, the question being raised is, “who were these people, psychologically?” Such results paved the way for a different line of scientific inquiry, away from compliance and obedience to an inquiry into noncompliance and disobedience to authority, otherwise not paid much heed to for various reasons. We see a move, though small, from the study of aggression and violence to the study of nonaggression and nonviolence. It is not as if disobedience to unjust authority was being manifested for the first time when Milgram coerced his participants to administer shocks to innocent learners. History bears witness to the fact that people, at large, have shown resistance, especially when faced with instructions that go against their values. Then, there have been stalwarts, one of the tallest among them being an Indian, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, fondly referred to as the Mahatma by his countrymen. Following in his footsteps, we have people such as Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu and many others. What was it that made them different from the rest? It was the ability to motivate thousands to resist unjust state practices, each in their own homeland, yet resist in a manner that was totally devoid of violence. In the process they were highly successful and were able to bring about justice for their followers. And, then there were ordinary people: from Rosa Parks, the young seamstress from Alabama who publicly disobeyed and refused to give up her bus seat to a white person because she was sitting in the space reserved for Black people and, who, in the process, became an icon for protest against injustice, to the countless number of protesters from Egypt to Syria, from Greece, Russia and the USA, to whom the Time magazine dedicated their Person of the Year Award in 2011. In them we stand witness to disobedience against unjust authority as much as we see obedience in all walks of life (Box 1.2). So powerful were these protesters that rather than nominating a particular person as the Person of the Year, the Time magazine dedicated the award to these countless protesters. The citation itself says it all:

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

11

For capturing and highlighting a global sense of restless promise, for upending governments and conventional wisdom, for combining the oldest of techniques with the newest of technologies to shine a light on human dignity and, finally, for steering the planet on a more democratic though sometimes more dangerous path for the 21st century, the Protester is TIME’s 2011 Person of the Year. (Rick Stengel 2011)

Box 1.2  Thoughts of a Protester

“Massive and effective street protest” was a global oxymoron until— suddenly, shockingly—starting exactly a year ago, it became the defining trope of our times. And the protester once again became a maker of history. In the end, the differences between them may turn out to be more important than their similarities, however. And the common thing about all these protests is the number of young people who really want to bring changes to their country. That’s what’s most incredible. We have a new generation of people who are sick and tired of what’s going on. Call it the Jasmine Revolution, the Arab Spring or the Facebook Revolution, there’s a powerful Sirocco blowing across the world, and young people realize there’s another life and they want to live differently. (Yuri Kozyrev: My Year On Revolution Road)

Source: Kozyrev, Time (December 14, 2011)

As Rick Stengel wrote in the Introduction of the issue of the Time dedicated to the Protester, History often emerges only in retrospect. Events become significant only when looked back on. No one could have known that when a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire in a public square in a town barely on a map, he would spark protests that would bring down dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and rattle regimes in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Or that that spirit of dissent would spur Mexicans to rise up against the terror of drug cartels, Greeks to march against unaccountable leaders, Americans to occupy public spaces to protest income inequality, and Russians to marshal themselves against a corrupt autocracy. Protests have now occurred in countries whose populations total at least 3 billion people, and the word protest has appeared

12 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

in newspapers and online exponentially more this past year than at any other time in history. Is there a global tipping point for frustration? Everywhere, it seems, people said they’d had enough. They dissented; they demanded; they did not despair, even when the answers came back in a cloud of tear gas or a hail of bullets. They literally embodied the idea that individual action can bring collective, colossal change. (Rick Stengel 2011, Time, Person of the Year, Introduction)

Yes, as Stengel mentions, history does emerge in retrospect. So it was for Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments, too. Milgram himself focused on the unexpected high rate of compliance to instructions, and so did psychologists and, for that matter, the fourth estate whose concern was with the ethicality of the experimental conditions. It was only in retrospect that psychology and other related disciplines started to think about that small minority that refused to obey Milgram’s instructions, simply because they felt that it would be unjust to electrocute an innocent human being. After all, it was only 65% of subjects who were ready to deliver the highest level of electric shock (see Fig. 1.1). What about the remaining 35%? What caused them to detract from the experiment? And, even more interestingly, when Milgram had two confederates who disobeyed, almost 90% of the subjects followed suit. This certainly demanded further inquiry.

Personality Characteristics of the Disobedient, Nonviolent Individual and the NVT One of the early studies in this context was by Kool which led to not only a series of studies (Kool 1988, 1990, 1992a, b, 1993; Kool and Keyes 1990; Kool et al. 2002) but also to some landmark research in the nascent field of psychology of nonviolence, including the genesis of what has popularly been called the NVT (Nonviolence Test). In the early 1980s, Kool along with one of his doctoral students attempted to use the Milgram procedure to examine the psychological characteristics of people who refused to obey the experimenter by not being ready to deliver electric shocks to the erring “learner.” They developed a 36-item forced choice test of nonviolence (Kool and Sen 1984), on the basis of which the participants were divided into violent and nonviolent subjects. It was clear that those who disobeyed were subjects who scored high on the NVT, or manifested a nonviolent orientation. This was the first such scale to be

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

13

developed (further details are provided in a later chapter) and was soon followed by other tests (identified by Mayton et al. 2002), including the Pacifism Scale, the Teenage Nonviolence Test, the Gandhian Personality Scale and the Multidimensional Scales of Nonviolence. Further, on the basis of a series of studies conducted by Kool and his colleagues, Kool (1993) presented a three-dimensional model of nonviolence, which in his own words would have to suffice till the time when psychology is able to put forth a theory of nonviolence much as we have theories of aggression and violence. Both the NVT and the model presented by Kool have been discussed in later chapters (refer to Chaps. 6 and 7 in Volume 1). Other notable efforts to identify the psychological characteristics of the disobedient have been conducted almost half a century after Milgram. Thus, Packer (2008) attempted to conduct a meta-analysis of Milgram’s results and concluded that a system is clearly noticeable in the ways in which the participants showed their noncompliance (Packer 2008). Similarly, Hollander and his colleagues (Hollander 2015; Hollander and Turowetz 2017) have attempted to understand what they called the “repertoire of resistance,” going into a detailed analysis of the variety of ways through which participants in a Milgram type of task manifested resistance. The majority did cave and follow the experimenter’s orders, but a good number of people resisted and I’ve found particular ways they did that, including ways of resisting that they share with the people who ultimately complied…It appears that the disobedient participants resist earlier and resist in a more diverse way. …what this shows is that even those who were ultimately compliant or obedient had practices for resisting the invocation of the experimenter’s authority. It wasn’t like they automatically caved in…it wasn’t a blind kind of obedience. (Hollander 2015)

More importantly, analyses such as the above point to the practical ways through which people can be trained so that “they may be better equipped to stand up to an illegal, unethical or inappropriate order from a superior.” Other findings reveal important differences in the values upheld by people who disobey and those who obey. Those who only recognize the value of obedience are authoritarian and individualistic. On the other hand, people who attach importance to both obedience and disobedience recognize the importance of democratic values in the society (Passinin and Morselli 2010). One of the most extensive experimental studies of the

14 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

defiant has been conducted by Bocchiaro and Zimbardo in 2017. They attempted to understand the dynamics of disobedience and concluded that not only were people who were low on authoritarianism more likely to disobey but also in the absence of sufficient time, people used available heuristics and drew cues from the social environment in which they had been placed. The results clearly point to the power of the social situation in producing a “ripple effect” in promoting social change. Doing the wrong thing, the evil action, impacts observers to follow suit and do harm. However, doing the right thing, the moral action, impacts the observers to do the right thing, inspiring them to act heroically. (Zimbardo 2007)

Zimbardo calls this the Lucifer effect, and in his book of the same name, he writes, “we should encourage obedience to just authority while promoting defiant disobedience against all forms of unjust authority” (Zimbardo 2007). Does obedience/disobedience have anything to do with the brain? Are some of us hard wired for compliance and others for noncompliance? In recent years, with advancement in brain imaging techniques, there have been efforts to understand the neurological basis of disobedience. On the basis of research, Caspar and his colleagues (Caspar et al. 2016) have concluded that the sense of coercion produces brain effects similar to that obtained for passive movement as against that obtained for voluntary action. In other words, compliance to orders is similar to a passive movement, as far as the brain is concerned. Moreover, though Milgram professes them to be so, were these experiments really and truly experiments in obedience? A look at the way obedience has been defined in social psychology will help clarify the issue. According to a recent and well-known text of social psychology, “obedience is a behavior change produced by the commands of authority” (Kassin, Fein & Marcus 2017, p. 292). And, what is a command? Milgram (1974) very aptly defines it in terms of its two parts, namely, a definition of an action and the imperative that the action be executed. It is the latter that is being questioned. Can the verbal prods from the experimenter (generally, “please”), urging the subject to continue administering electric shocks to the learner, be termed as an imperative, as an order? Many researchers, including Gibson (2019), have questioned this, being of the view that Milgram’s prods can, at best, be seen as prods, not as orders.

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

15

Remember, these were subjects who had voluntarily enrolled for an experiment in psychology and were there in a psychology laboratory. Is it not natural that they obey the experimenter? If this was the case, why and what were the subjects obeying? Many a time, the situation itself is so structured that it conveys the message, leading to “obedience without orders.” According to Gibson (ibid.), it is mandatory that we expand our very definition of obedience to include situations where obedience is embedded in the fabric of everyday life (e.g., when we obey the laws of a nation or, the rules of an organization).

The Roots of Psychology of Nonviolence But, these are efforts made in the twenty-first century. Why is it that we know so much about the dynamics of violence, yet, much less about nonviolence? What about the early psychologists? Why is it that psychology seems to abound in theories of aggression and violence and hardly any for nonviolence? Did the psychologists of the nineteenth and early twentieth century fail to recognize that humans are as prone to compassion and altruism as they are to aggression and violence? One reason for this one-­ sided focus could be that violence draws a much stronger reaction than nonviolence. From the days of yore, when man had to fight against the odds of nature, it was aggression and violence that came to his rescue. Not only did man kill animals but man killed man in his fight for supremacy over scant natural resources. This, according to William James, has in a way inbuilt pugnacity in the very blood of mankind. Nonviolence, on the other hand, is simply taken for granted (just something that we all engage in) much like the good child in the classroom to whom the teacher pays hardly any attention, reserving it all for the naughty. Even in everyday life, the honest, the compassionate, the helpful, fail to attract newspaper reporters. What do you find when you open the newspaper every morning. Needless to say, it is filled with reports of murders, looting, road rage, and so on. Do we find photographs of the persons who follow traffic rules? Violence is accorded a much greater space in reporting by the fourth estate as compared to acts of nonviolence. This same logic seems to apply to psychological analyses also. One finds ample theories of violence and its sister, aggression, with a passing reference, often only cursorily made, to nonviolence. Looking at the two words, violence and nonviolence, one may get the impression that the latter is merely the opposite of the other. Or one may

16 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

see them as two ends of a single continuum. But, as we go on with our discussions, it will become increasingly clear that neither of the above is true. An all-encompassing definition, spelling out the many nuances of nonviolence, has been provided by Herman (1993) and is as follows: Nonviolence is both an attitude and a course of action that leads both an individual and a group of people to resist tyranny and injustice other than by physical force, and to build a community of caring by the reconciliation of adversaries. It also has a positive meaning as people strive to remove the causes of violent conflict, both human and environmental. (p. 269)

It has been written elsewhere (Kool 2008) that: The reader need not look into the annals of the history of the psychology to find out the extent to which psychology has neglected the field of nonviolence. Open most textbooks on social psychology and you are bound to find a chapter on aggression but hardly anything on nonviolence. You may find something on the control of aggression, the chapter often ending with a picture of Martin Luther King or maybe Gandhi at the end or references to conflict resolution. (Kool 2008, p. 8)

This seems surprising since from the beginnings of modern psychology, including the work of the Father of modern psychology, William James, to that of Skinner and Tolman, not to mention Erikson, Maslow and Rollo May, psychologists have made contributions to the psychology of nonviolence in some form or the other—sometimes directly, at other times in a more indirect fashion. Let us start with William James, well-known for his work on emotions and memory, but sadly, not so regarding his contributions to the psychology of nonviolence. In at least two of his writings, William James has written at length about ways of counteracting the tendency to war, namely, the Moral Equivalent of War and Talks to Teachers. In the former essay, James is of the view that: History is a bath of blood. Our ancestors have bred pugnacity into our bone and marrow, and thousands of years of peace won’t breed it out of us. (James 1910)

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

17

He seems to be implicitly referring to Darwin and the process of natural selection in the evolution of mankind in addressing the issue of why human beings manifest pugnacity. At the end of the essay, James professes that since simply urging for peace will not get us anywhere, we have to think of alternatives, and his suggestion is to provide a moral equivalent to war by turning the youth away from warring on mankind to working with Nature. This “war against war is going to be no holiday excursion or camping party” according to James but it can be done. He, in fact, shows us the way: he advises governments to conscript youth to labor armies against nature rather than to military armies against other nations. In this way, They would have paid their blood tax, done their own part in the immemorial human warfare against nature; they would tread the earth more proudly, the women would value them more highly, they would be better fathers and teachers of the following generations. (James 1910)

In the process, character building would also take place and that “the martial type of character (embodying concepts of order, discipline, service, devotion and universal responsibility) can be bred without war.” At the end of the essay, he puts into words his meaning of a moral equivalent of war. James writes, We should get toughness without callousness, authority with as little criminal cruelty as possible, and painful work done cheerily because the duty is temporary, and threatens not, as now, to degrade the whole remainder of one’s life. I spoke of the “moral equivalent” of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until and equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skillful propogandism, and of opinion-­ making men seizing historic opportunities. (James 1910)

Thus, even while not even using the term nonviolence, James has spelt out the very characteristics of the nonviolent person outlined much later by Gandhi when talking about Satyagraha (Gandhi’s technique of nonviolent resistance) and satyagrahis (people who joined the Satyagraha). One

18 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

sees the similarities between blood tax and bread labor as also between the characteristics outlined by James and those upheld by Gandhi. In his other essay, Talk to Teachers, William James exalts the works and writings of Tolstoy, writing about how leveling takes place in the world, so that sooner or later, all men are equal and how we can become morally inclusive, much before mainstream psychologists were discussing this term. In a lecture delivered at Harvard University in 1900, entitled, What makes life significant, James said, There are compensations: and no outward changes of conditions in life can keep the nightingale of its eternal meaning from singing in all sorts of different men’s hearts. That is the main fact to remember. If we could not only admit it with our lips but really and truly believe it, how are convulsive insistencies, how our antipathies and dreads of each other, would soften down! If the poor and the rich could look at each other in this way, sub specie æternatis, how gentle would grow their disputes! What tolerance and good humour, what willingness to live and let live, would come to the world. (James 1900)

From the Father of modern psychology we can move to the psychoanalysts, especially to Freud and Erikson. Just as few people know about James’ work on the Moral Equivalent of War, so is the unfortunate case of Freud. While we all seem to associate Freud with psychoanalysis and his discussions of aggression and the death instinct, we find in his letters to Einstein, an elucidation of not only the destructive forces but also of the life giving forces, the Eros, along with the very important role that culture could play in the prevention of war. In the early 1930s, 1931 to be exact, Einstein wrote a letter to Freud, asking a simple question, “Why War?” In his extremely lucid reply, Freud wrote back: How long have we to wait before the rest of men turn pacifist? Impossible to say, and yet perhaps our hope that these two factors—man’s cultural disposition and a well-founded dread of the form that future wars will take— may serve to put an end to war in the near future, is not chimerical. But by what ways or byways this will come about, we cannot guess. Meanwhile we may rest on the assurance that whatever makes for cultural development is working also against war. (Freud 1964/1933, p. 218)

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

19

To Erikson, we owe one of the greatest and explicit analyses of a nonviolent person, Gandhi, through his Pulitzer award winning book, Gandhi’s Truth, published in 1969. For the first time in the history of Western psychology had any individual focused on discovering how one person was able to mobilize people both spiritually and politically, and in so doing, Erikson wrote at length about not only Gandhi but also about nonviolence. In the Archives of General Psychiatry, reviewing Gandhi’s Truth, Roy Grinker (1969) writes about how it all came by. Serendipity of the highest order seems to be at the root of it. Erikson was invited to lead a seminar in the home town of Gandhi, Ahmedabad, and in the process got to meet a large number of people who were working with Gandhi. With that as the starting point, he conducted countless interviews, pored over newspaper articles, even Gandhi’s own writings and from all the material so collected, he extrapolated one of the finest descriptions, unparalleled even to this day. As Grinker writes, “out of this has come the fascinating story of a man who tried to change his world through love and nonviolent dissent” (Grinker 1969). Erikson uses his theory of the stages of humankind to understand the many facets of Gandhi and Satyagraha. So intense did he become in his analysis of one episode (the Ahmedabad event) that he could not help writing at the end of his book, Gandhi’s truth (1969): “…I sensed an affinity between Gandhi’s truth and the insights of modern psychology” (Erikson 1969, p. 440). Following the psychoanalytical school of thought, we saw a paradigmatic change in psychology and the advent of behaviorism: a move from mentalistic concepts of the workings of the human mind to one which clearly advocated that psychology must limit itself to observable phenomena. While the majority of the behaviorists had little to do with issues of war and peace, Skinner’s (1948) book, Walden Two, comes close to examining how an ideal society sans violence and encompassing peaceful forms of behavior may be programmed through the use of the concept of reinforcements and schedules of reinforcement. A community was even established at Twin Oaks, Virginia, based on Skinner’s concepts but failed to survive for too long. More on why other communities, say those established by Gandhi, have survived even long after his death has been discussed in detail by Kool and Agrawal in their article “Whither Skinner’s science of behavior, his analysis of Gandhi and the aftermath” in the journal Gandhi Marg (Kool and Agrawal 2013). Another paradigmatic shift was seen in the mid-1900s, in the form of a return to mentalistic concepts though in a manner different from that of

20 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Freud, to what has been called cognitive psychology. While Tolman, regarded as the leader of the cognitive revolution in psychology, was not able to contribute to the psychology of war, peace and nonviolence in any significant manner, there were others in the twentieth century, for example, Kohlberg, who with his theory of moral development, certainly, furthered the understanding of how people develop a moral perspective which goes a long way in behaviors which are not aggressive but are compassionate, altruistic and empathetic. Further impetus to the positive aspects of human behavior was provided by the group of psychologists who have been termed humanistic psychologists such as Maslow, Rogers and May. Positive psychologists such as Csikszentmihalyi and Frederickson have added their own contributions. Carol Gilligan through her research and writings emphasized the gender aspect of positive behaviors, while Rest provided psychology with an analysis of the complex ways through which humans react to moral dilemma (Kool 2008).

Contributions of Other Social Scientists to the Science of Nonviolence Let us now consider the ways in which scientists and thinkers from other social sciences have contributed to our understanding of nonviolence in more recent times. We will focus briefly on the contributions of three individuals, namely, Gene Sharp, Kenneth Boulding and Johan Galtung. Gene Sharp The contributions of Gene Sharp have been brought to the fore perhaps most aptly by Jamila Raqib, Head of the Einstein Institution, when Gene Sharp passed away in 2018. Jamila Raqib wrote in her obituary: Widely recognized by scholars, practitioners, organizers, and activists worldwide as the greatest theoretician of nonviolent action since Mohandas K. Gandhi, Sharp founded the field of academic research on the theory and strategic practice of nonviolent action. A four-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee and the winner of the 2012 Right Livelihood Award, Sharp devoted his life to studying nonviolent struggle, deeply researching and documenting its use in human history, analyzing how the technique operates cross-culturally, and sharing the results of his research with other scholars, practitioners, organizers, government

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

21

i­nstitutions, and citizens and civil-society groups on every continent. His numerous books and articles on the subject have been translated into more than 50 languages, and are disseminated worldwide. His work continues to inspire and enable people engaged in struggle to wield social power by building on and learning from the experience, results, bravery, and sacrifice of those who have come before them. (Pratt 2018)

Gene Sharp, the son of a preacher and a political scientist from the USA, came to be known the world over as the “Machiavelli of nonviolence.” The source of his ideas was Gandhi along with Muste and Thoreau on the basis of which he founded a philosophy of nonviolence which can be reduced to two axioms. First, “dictators are never as strong as they tell you they are, and people are never as weak as they think they are.” And second, violence only provokes more violence and, thus, it fails to serve the purpose. He, therefore, advocated peaceful resistance, drawing on the theme that power is not monolithic; rather, it derives from the followers. If the followers choose to disobey, the leader becomes powerless. He has written extensively, a  popular book being, Gandhi Wields the Weapon of Moral Power: Three Case Histories (Sharp 1960) with a foreword by Einstein. It was this foreword that so impressed him that he named his institute for the study and promotion of nonviolence as the Albert Einstein Institution. Through his writings, he soon became to be known as the Father of peaceful resistance and influenced resistance movements around the world, from Serbia to Egypt and to many of the eastern European nations, arming these protesters with a battery of 198 nonviolent weapons of protest. Sharp did more than anyone else to pioneer the idea that the practice of nonviolent action can be, and often is, separate from pacifism. He emphasized the importance of strategic thinking in nonviolent movements, whose leaders often have to make tough choices, and sometimes fail to do so. And, he was always aware of the fact that such movements will not always be successful. According to Gene Sharp, nonviolence is multidimensional in nature and as such is not an easy term to define. However, to state it very simply, he writes that we can think of it as “non-injury in thought, word and deed to all forms of life” (Sharp 1973, p. 134). One can easily perceive the similarity between this simple definition and that professed by many religions, including the Buddhists, Jains and Quakers who adopt nonviolence as a basic principle, rather than as a strategy for conflict resolution. He further

22 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

identified six types of behavior adopted by individuals who manifest such principled nonviolence and includes Gandhi’s Satyagraha as one of them. The others are nonresistance, active reconstruction, moral resistance, selective nonviolence and nonviolent revolution. In contrast, Sharp identifies three types of behaviors that are used mainly as techniques for conflict resolution as against being part of the belief systems of people. Included therein are passive resistance, peaceful resistance and nonviolent direct action, all of which are apparently action based and used to reach short-­ term goals. This is also what Jorgen Johansen (2007) calls the pragmatic tradition of nonviolence as against the pacifist tradition. The former has been used by many modern and social networks including women’s rights groups, trade unions, environmentalists and peace organizations, in many or all of its nuances, ranging from trying to avoid killing humans to avoiding all disturbances to life, with most pragmatists toeing the middle path. Johan Galtung Another person who has made significant contributions to our understanding of peace and even the practice of peace is Johan Galtung, a Norwegian mathematician, sociologist, political scientist and often called the Father of peace studies because of his efforts to identify the necessary and sufficient causes of peace. In fact, so large is his contribution that economist and fellow peace researcher Kenneth Boulding has said of Galtung that his “output is so large and so varied that it is hard to believe that it comes from a human” (Boulding 1977, p. 75). Author of over 100 books, Galtung (1969, 1996, 1998) offers a threefold classification of violence, namely, direct violence, structural violence and cultural violence, with a nonviolent antithesis for each leading to a three-by-two matrix. In 1993, he founded a peace network, TRANSCEND based on four pillars: dissemination, action, research and education (DARE), and consisting of three major steps: 1. Dialogue, both direct and indirect with all conflict parties, to explore their goals and fears and to earn their confidence 2. Distinguish between legitimate goals, that is, those which affirm human needs, and illegitimate goals that violate human needs 3. Bridge the gap between all legitimate but seemingly contradictory goals through solutions that embody creativity, empathy and nonviolence, building a new reality

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

23

TRANSCEND has been used around the globe, from A (Afghanistan) to Z (Zimbabwe), and Galtung remains to be one of the most well-known academicians being consulted for conflict resolution, especially in the realm of, seemingly, intractable conflicts. In other words, Galtung has presented us not only with the theoretical underpinnings of peace and conflict resolution but has also provided us a toolkit for furthering the very important goal of reducing human and environmental suffering. Most importantly, much like Gene Sharp, Galtung’s first book was Gandhi’s political ethics, published in 1955 with his tutor and friend, Arne Naess, showing the extent to which he, too, was influenced by this half-­ clad Hindu leader from India. Kenneth Boulding The third person whose contributions we would like to put on record is that of Kenneth Boulding. How does one describe Kenneth Boulding? Basically an economist, his writings range from economics to that of political science, philosophy, sociology and social psychology. Raised as a Methodist, Boulding soon became not only an active Quaker but also a committed pacifist. His contribution to peace research includes the volume Conflict and Defense and the Journal of Conflict Resolution, with Boulding being convinced that war could only be eliminated by understanding why it occurs. He was instrumental in identifying three types of social systems, namely, exchange systems, threat systems and integrative or love systems, this last being driven by our passionate selfless behavior. All three are necessary for the society to flourish, and in one of his later works, Three Faces of Power (1990), he has shown how threat power is not effective without exchange and integrative power. In reading through Boulding’s work one is astonished at how far he anticipated ideas that were reinvented years later and that many social scientists have not yet stumbled on. Back in 1958, he took up ecological questions: “Are we to regard the world of nature simply as a storehouse to be robbed for the immediate benefit of man? … Does man have any responsibility for the preservation of a decent balance in nature, for the preservation of rare species, or even for the indefinite continuance of his race?” (Keyfitz 1996, p. 7). His spiritual and philosophical concerns ultimately led him to look far beyond economics. “Imagine someone who was half Milton Friedman,

24 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

half Mahatma Gandhi,” said Professor Olson, who knew Professor Boulding well and credits him for influencing his own work. Professor Boulding invented new areas of economics, including the economics of peace, and published a book of that title in 1945. It is probably in his book entitled Three Faces of Power (Boulding 1990) that one finds his most important contribution to the field of peace studies. He begins the book with a simple definition of power as the ability to get what one wants and then delineates its three faces: destructive power (the power to destroy), productive power (the power to create) and integrative power (the power to bring people together and to build interpersonal relationships through love and respect and the gaining of member loyalty). These three faces of power may be discerned at all levels, namely, at the individual level in terms of personal power and at the organizational level. In terms of the latter, destructive power may sometimes be a necessary factor in production as in the cleaning up of trees to make way for factories and offices, but it can also become a deterrent of peace as in the case of war. The ways in which productive power is used in organizations is self-explanatory, because that is the very raison d’être of organizations of all types including society. The final chapters of the book discuss the role of power in both biological and social evolution and how even biological evolution has always been cooperative since species have always been mutually dependent, which can be seen as an unconscious form of integrative power. At the social level, this same power is manifested at a more conscious level in the form of conscious cooperation. Moreover, Boulding argues that “the increase in the productive and integrative powers of the human race have been much more significant than the increase in its destructive powers, at least up to the present century (p. 226) and that “at least 90 percent of human activity even in the age of civilization was peaceful—plowing, sowing, and reaping, cooking, weaving, and building, making pottery and tools, eating, feasting, singing, worshiping, dancing, having and raising children, and so on” (p. 223). Although the problem is a complex one, Boulding identifies some of the factors which must be considered in arriving at an answer, concluding that this is only possible through a better understanding of the types, uses and dynamics of power. One of his principal contributions was his insistence on the fact that we can never prevent conflicts without being able to understand why they occur.

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

25

Looking at the above descriptions of the life and work of these three social scientists, Gene Sharp, Johan Galtung and Kenneth Boulding, one sees an uncanny similarity of thought. All three drew heavily from life and writings of Gandhi and all three were convinced that humankind cannot sustain itself without peace and harmony among themselves and with the environment. All three were prolific writers, and all three believed in peace and nonviolence not just for academic interest but as a basic life value. Thus, through the last century, we have arrived at some sort of understanding regarding nonviolence and nonaggression, especially regarding its dynamics and correlates but are still far from a comprehensive discipline of the science and psychology of nonviolence. As put by Kool (1993), I find now that from Skinner, a hard boiled psychologist, to May and Maslow, both soft boiled psychologists, and from William James to information processing in moral reasoning, there has been a direct or indirect, passive or active interest to develop and understand the psychology of nonviolence which, unfortunately, has not grown to any significant proportion as compared to the psychology of violence. (Kool 1993, p. 21)

While the above was written in 1993, even a quarter of a century later, not much headway has been made, despite the fact that the practice of nonviolence has yielded massive dividends the world over. A study by Chenoweth and Stephan (2011), a historical study of over 323 civil resistance campaigns occurring over the past 100 years, found that nonviolent campaigns were successful 53% of the times while only 26% of violent campaigns were successful.

Milgram’s Experiments, Disobedience and Gandhi At the same time, there stands one individual above all the rest: an individual who had a firm conviction that nonviolence works, at the personal level, at the societal level and at the political level. This man was no other than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the half-clad Indian, who has been held responsible for getting India her independence, and whom many other leaders from around the world have taken as their role model. This list includes the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, to name just a few. The methods of nonviolent action as used by Gandhi and King were real-life experiments which laid the foundation for the psychology of nonviolence. Unlike the academicians who

26 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

have been unable to delineate a clear science of nonviolence, Gandhi had been able to provide us with both the theory and the practice of nonviolence. Moreover, while he lived and worked in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (having been assassinated in 1947), the principles enunciated by him are proving to be of relevance even in the present twenty-first century. Not only that, as the next few chapters will reveal, there is an abundance of scientific validation of those principles, so much so, that, present-day scientists of eminence including Nobel laureates are turning to what Gandhi had advised to solve present-day problems. Coming back to what we started the chapter with—Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority. Milgram’s subjects and Gandhi had more than half the globe separating them in terms of distance, and, over half a century between them in terms of time. But, there was this uncanny similarity between the two: both were being disobedient, preferring to listen to their inner voice, the call of their conscience, rather than passively obeying an authoritative figure. In order to understand the dynamics of such disobedience, we need to analyze the question, “why do we obey authority?” Do we base our decision on indicative reasons inherent in the situation or do we attempt to analyze the intrinsic reasons relevant for our self-concepts (Regan 1990)? In a later chapter, we will go into the nitty-­ gritty of prospect theory (Kahneman 2011) and the two systems of cognition. Let it suffice at this point that as far as cognizing the situation is concerned, those who complied with Milgram’s instructions were cognizing them at the fast and elementary level of System I.  What about the others? Why did they fail to comply? They were allowing their cognitive system to think further, to listen to their inner voice regarding what the researcher was asking them to do. They were basing their decision to obey/disobey on intrinsic reasons rather than the indicative reason. They were using the relatively slower and more analytical System II.  Even though the situational circumstances indicated that they should obey, the real reason was also apparent to them, that they would be hurting the “learner.” As Kool (2008) points out, it is these differences between moral reasoning and moral conduct which lead to deep moral conflicts and conflicting behavioral tendencies. Milgram’s subjects were also going through these moral conflicts (Shermer 2012) as also revealed by in-depth analyses of the verbal protocols from the experiment (Hollander 2015; Hollander and Turowetz 2017). Gandhi faced situations similar to those faced by Milgram’s noncomplying subjects. This was the Truth, the resolution of the moral dilemma

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

27

that Gandhi was attempting to establish through his own experiments. Like Milgram’s subjects, he continued to follow authoritative directions (basing his decision on indicative reasons) until the time he found out that the facts of oppression were real (the intrinsic reason) while the values with which he had been brought up were secondary. That was when he decided to disobey. In Gandhian terms, Milgram’s procedure can help the layman understand the basic difference between indicative and intrinsic reasons. It also clarifies that it is due to this tendency of placing intrinsic reasons on the back burner that we tend to obey authority blindly. But, as soon as it becomes clear that the situation contradicts our very values system and the purpose of the experiment is revealed, its authoritative significance is called into question and we start disobeying. It is, in all probability, this moral oscillation in Milgram’s experiment due to which it is being brought up time and again, though almost 50 years have elapsed since they were conducted. It is not simply obedience to authority or just the compliance to the instructions of the experimenter. More than that, it is the noncompliance of some subjects that has been a matter of intrigue. As mentioned above, the explanations for the obedience or compliance range from those based on social identity theory and the “good follower” or the “engaged follower” effect, to the authority of the system and to personality attributes. But the attributes of those who chose noncompliance or decided to disobey are far from clear. Even as we write this chapter, an article in the Scientific American brings up the topic once again. The very title of the article says it all: “Rethinking the infamous Milgram experiment in authoritarian times.” The author (Appel 2019) argues that rather than calling it an obedience experiment, we should call it a disobedience experiment, revealing the human propensity to follow their moral compass rather than the variables inherent in the situation. According to the writer, Jacob Appel, Director of Ethics Education in Psychiatry, They are out there, waiting the moment when history calls upon them to disobey. We should not lose sight of them in the weeds of social psychology. They are Stanley Milgram’s unheralded legacy—and we may even stand among them. (Appel 2019, blogs.scientificamerican.com)

We would like to conclude this chapter with the comment that from the disobedient subjects of Milgram’s study to leaders such as Gandhi and Mandela, and to the protesters from around the globe to whom Time

28 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

dedicated its Person of the Year award, it is clear that nonviolence has as much legitimacy as the psychology of aggression and violence. Moreover, the seed of nonviolence is often dissent, protest and even disobedience. The importance of the latter cannot be relegated to the back burner. So much so that the great writer and thinker, Oscar Wilde, writes: Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made—through disobedience and through rebellion. (Wilde 2007/1891, p. 1043)

Many years later, Iranian-Canadian philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo (2018) echoes the thoughts of Oscar Wilde, and in his recent volume, The Disobedient Indian: Toward a Gandhian Philosophy of Dissent, calls Gandhi “a disobedient mind” and writes of the relevance of disobedience: None of us can dismiss the fact that the idea of disobedience has the greatest consequences for our present day world and for the future of humanity. (Jahanbegloo 2018, p. 18)

It is imperative that psychology brings the dynamics of disobedience and its fruits, namely, nonviolence, to the forefront, giving it as much, if not more, importance as it has provided to aggression and violence. It should also be clear that nonviolence is not the other side of the coin called violence. Just as the end of war does not mean peace, so also the end of violence cannot be equated to nonviolence. The antithesis of violence is not nonviolence. Not only are its roots different, but so also are the dynamics of the two.

References Appel, J. M. (2019). Rethinking the infamous Milgram experiment in Authoritarian Times. Scientific American, blogs.scientificamerican.com, September 9. Atran, S. (2003). Genesis of suicide terrorism. Science, 299, 1534–1539. Beauvois, J. L., Courbet, D., & Oberlé, D. (2012). The prescriptive power of the television host. A transposition of Milgram’s obedience paradigm to the context of TV game show. European Review of Applied Psychology, 62, 111–119. Benjamin, L. T., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 12–19.

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

29

Bocchiaro, P., & Zimbardo, P.  G. (2017). On the dynamics of disobedience: experimental investigations of defying unjust authority. Psychological Research in Behavioral Management, 10, 219–229. Boulding, K. (1977). Twelve friendly quarrels with Johan Galtung. Journal of Peace Research, 14, 75–86. Boulding, K. (1990). Three faces of power. Newbury Park: Sage. Burger, J.  M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. Caspar, E. A., Christenson, J. F., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2016). Coercion changes the sense of agency in the human brain. Current Biology, 26, 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.067. Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. New York: Columbia University Press. Dolinski, D., Grzyb, T., Folwarczny, M., Grzybala, P., et al. (2017). Conducting the Milgram experiment in Poland, psychologists show that people still obey. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 927–933. Erikson, E. (1969). Gandhi’s truth. New York: Norton. Fiske, S. T., Harris, L. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306, 1482–1483. Freud, S. (1964/1933). Why war? In The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. XXII, pp. 197–218). London: Hogarth Press. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6, 167–191. Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. London: Sage. Galtung, J. (1998). On the genesis of peaceless worlds: Insane nations and insane states. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 4(1), 1–13. Galtung, J., & Naess, A. (1955). Gandhi’s political ethics. Oslo: Tanum. Gibson, S. (2019). Obedience without orders: Expanding social psychology’s conception of ‘obedience’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 241–259. Grinker, R. R. (1969). Review of Erikson, Gandhi’s truth: On the origins of militant nonviolence. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1969.01740240126021. Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S., & Birney, M. E. (2016). Questioning authority: new perspectives on Milgram’s ‘obedience’ research and its implications for intergroup relations. Current Opinion in Psychology, Intergroup Relations, 11, 6–9. Herman, T. (1993). Exercises in nonviolent action. In V.  K. Kool (Ed.), Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Hollander, M.  M. (2015). The repertoire of resistance: Non-compliance with directives in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 425–444.

30 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Hollander, M. M., & Turowetz, J. (2017). Normalizing trust: Participants’ immediately post-hoc explanations of behavior in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 655–674. Jahanbegloo, R. (2018). The disobedient Indian: Towards a Gandhian philosophy of dissent. New Delhi: Speaking Tiger Publishing. James, W. (1900). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life’s ideals (Ed. F. H. Burkhardt). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. James, W. (1910/1995). The moral equivalent of war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 1, 17–26. Johansen, J. (2007). Nonviolence: More than the absence of violence. In C. Webel & J.  Galtung (Eds.), Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, 143–159. London, New York: Routledge. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New  York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291. Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Marcus, H.  R. (2017). Social Psychology (10th Edition). Independence, KY: Cengage. Keyfitz, N. (1996). Kenneth Ewart Boulding 1910–1993. Washington, DC: National Academics Press. Kool, V. K. (1988). Patterns of nonviolence: A cross cultural study of Polish, Indian and American samples. Paper presented at the International Cross-Cultural Psychology Convention, University of New Castle, New Castle, Australia. Kool, V. K. (Ed.). (1990). Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kool, V.  K. (1992a, May). Correlates of nonviolence. Paper presented at the Symposium on Nonviolence, SUNYIT, Utica, NY. Kool, V. K. (1992b, August). Main speaker at the symposium on the social psychology of nonviolence. American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, DC. Kool, V.  K. (Ed.). (1993). Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V.  K., & Agrawal, R. (2013). Whither Skinner’s science of behavior, his assessment of Gandhi, and its aftermath? Gandhi Marg, 35, 487–518. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2018). Gandhian philosophy for living in the modern world: lessons from the psychology of satyagraha. In S. Fernando & R. Moodley (Eds.), Global psychologies: Mental health and the global South. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K., & Keyes, C. M. L. (1990). Explorations in the nonviolent personality. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kool, V. K., & Sen, M. (1984). The nonviolence test. In D. M. Pestonjee (Ed.), Second handbook of psychological and sociological instruments (pp.  48–54). Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management.

1  THE BEGINNING: FROM RESISTING VIOLENCE TO PROMOTING… 

31

Kool, V.  K., Diaz, J., Brown, J., & Hama, H. (2002). Psychological research, nonviolence and cultural orientation: An empirical analysis. Regional Peace Studies Consortium Annual Journal, 55–74. Kozyrev, Y. (2011). Yuri Kozyrev: My year on revolution road. Time, December 14. Mayton, D.  M., Susnjic, S., Palmer, B.  J., Peters, D.  J., Gierth, R., & Caswell, R. N. (2002). The measurement of nonviolence. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 343–354. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper. Myers, D. G. (1999). Social psychology. McGraw-Hill. Packer, D. J. (2008). Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram’s obedience experiments: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 301–304. Passinin, S., & Morselli, D. (2010). The obedience–disobedience dynamic and the role of responsibility. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1–14. Pratt, M. (2018). Gene Sharp, advocate of nonviolent resistance, dies at 90. media. mit.edu, January 30. Regan, D.  H. (1990). Reasons, authority and the meaning of ‘obey’; further thoughts on Raz and obedience to law. Canadian Journal of Law and Juris, 3, 3–28. Rochat, F., & Modigliani, A. (2010). The ordinary quality of resistance: From Milgram’s laboratory to the village of Le Chambon. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 195–210. Russell, N. J. C. (2011). Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 140–162. Sharp, G. (1960/2014). Gandhi wields the power of moral power: Three case histories. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Trust. Sharp, G. (1973). The politics of nonviolent action. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent. Shermer, M. (2012). How communities are shaping our morals: Nazis did not just blindly follow orders. Scientific American, December 1. Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan. Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., et al. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS One, 1(1), e39. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039. Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origin of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stengel, R. (2011). Introduction: Person of the Year. Time, Wednesday, December 14. Wilde, O. (2007/1891). The collected works of Oscar Wilde. London: Wordsworth Editions. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect. New York, NY: Random House.

CHAPTER 2

The Disobedient Gandhi

Opening Vignette

The disobedient Gandhi: I was afraid for my very life. I entered the dark waiting-room. There was a white man in the room, I was afraid of him. What was my duty? I asked myself. Should I go back to India, or should I go forward, with God as my helper and face whatever was in store for me? I decided to stay and suffer. My active non-violence began from that date.

Who was this person? He was a 24-year-old Indian lawyer, who had just completed his degree in law from London. His name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. What had happened: On 7 June 1893, this young Indian lawyer was travelling from Durban to Pretoria by train to fight a case on behalf of a client. Gandhi’s law firm had booked a seat for him in the first class cabin of the train. Things were fine till around 9 pm when the train reached Pietermaritzburg station, and a train helper came to hand him his bedding for the night journey. Soft spoken as Gandhi was, he thanked him but said that since he was carrying his own bedding he did not require anything else. (continued) © The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_2

33

34 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

(continued)

This probably aroused the interest of a fellow passenger, who took a close look at Gandhi and returned with a few officials. An awkward silence followed. Then, one of the officials walked up to him and told him that he must not only vacate this seat in the first class cabin but also go to the van compartment. “But I have a first class ticket,” Gandhi replied, as quoted in his autobiography My Experiments with Truth. However, the official insisted, and when Gandhi refused, the official threatened to call the police and push him out, forcibly. Gandhi, then, in an instinctive but classic act of civil disobedience, remarked: “Yes, you may (push me out). I refuse to go out voluntarily.” What happened next is well known: He was thrown out of the compartment, and his luggage was flung out too. But Gandhi refused to go to the other compartment. The train sped away leaving Gandhi shivering in the cold at the station. Anyone would wonder as to why a bonafide passenger was thrown out. Had he misbehaved? Certainly not! The cause of all this was simply that Gandhi was not white skinned. As such he could not travel in the first class compartment despite having a valid ticket. This was a clear act of injustice. And, this act of standing up against injustice was, in effect, Gandhi’s first act of civil disobedience: a lesson that he would never forget. After Gandhi had made up his mind, though almost instinctively it seemed before his ejection, he never turned back. He was to lead many protest movements both in South Africa and in India, each one to protest against injustice and oppression. These subsequent, public acts of civil disobedience—or Satyagraha, were to define his years both in South Africa and the even longer struggle ahead when he became the leader of India’s freedom movement. But it all began with the train journey in South Africa on 7 June 1893 described above when he did not lose his spirit and vowed to fight back.

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

35

The Turning Point Gandhi’s ejection from the first class carriage was the most “creative” experience in his life, and on that night in Pietermaritzburg, “the germ of social protest was born in Gandhi…he had encountered the dread disease of color prejudice. To flee, leaving his countrymen in their predicament would be cowardice. The frail lawyer began to see himself in the role of a David, assailing the Goliath of racial prejudice” (Louis Fisher 1954, pp. 50–51). The People Who Influenced Gandhi Unwittingly, we see this person evolve, from a child scared of the dark to a towering figure though physically frail. A description of this evolution and its beginnings has been elaborated upon in a very telling fashion by Ramachandra Guha, in his book, Gandhi Before India (2013). He was barely 25 years of age. No Gandhi before him had travelled outside India. Few had even left Kathiawar. Had his father Karamchand Gandhi not died in 1886, Mohandas might not have left the peninsula either. He would, soon after leaving school, have followed his brother Laxmidas, working for (and intriguing with) a petty prince in the peninsula. Instead, he travelled to London, where he met Josiah Oldfield, Henry Salt, the Vegetarians and the Theosophists. Then he returned home, where he was deeply influenced by the Jain savant Raychandbhai. The break in at the Porbandar Palace forced him away to South Africa, where his spiritual and political education was continued by A.W. Baker and Dada Abdullah. In Kathiawar itself, Mohandas Gandhi could never have met or befriended these men, who became, as it were, unwitting agents of a transformative process whereby he moved from orthodoxy to heterodoxy in religion, from lawyering to activism in professional life and from a conservative inland Indian town (Rajkot) to a growing bustling South African port (Durban). Leaving Bombay in 1888 a small town Bania with the habits, manners and prejudices of his caste, six years later Gandhi had become a Hindu who befriended Christians and worked for Muslims while organizing political campaigns in-of all places-Natal. (pp. 80–81)

Who and what were the causes of this transformation in Gandhi? As Gandhi had remarked, “three moderns have left a deep impression on my life and captivated me. Raychandbhai by his living contract; Tolstoy by his book, The Kingdom of God is within you, and Ruskin, by his Unto This Last”

36 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Gandhi’s Parents But, before we come to these three people let us take a look at the early childhood influences on the young Mohandas Gandhi, not a Mahatma, not a Bapu, simply a young lad, timid, scared of the dark and not very good at studies; in short, one who seemed to be a very ordinary child. It is not wrongly said that values are imbibed in childhood itself. This was very true for the lad Mohandas, too. First and foremost, his father was a man of strong values. An incident oft recounted is that when Gandhi’s father moved from Porbandar to Junagadh, while paying his respects to his new boss, who was also the Nawab (king) of that state, he saluted him with his left hand, normally regarded as an affront to the person being paid obeisance to. When asked why he did so, Gandhi’s father very calmly replied that his right hand was already pledged to his erstwhile employer, the Nawab of Porbandar! This was the exemplar in front of the young Mohandas. Moreover, the young Mohandas was exposed to variegated experiences since as a senior official of the State, his father would have all sorts of visitors, belonging to different faiths, including Muslims, Jains and even Parsees, who follow Zoroastrianism. His mother Putlibai was no less. A deeply devout and religious person, she would recite stories from the Hindu scriptures to her growing children, introducing them to the mysteries and beauties of faith. Rather than being dogmatic, she would also recite from the Jain scriptures. Further, since she hailed from a sect that incorporated elements of Islam into the family worship, the ecumenical practice of the Gandhi family was multi-­ religious. So greatly did Gandhi respect his mother that when she was against his going to England for further studies after the death of his father, mainly due to the fear that he would take to wine, women and meat, Gandhi took a vow that no matter what would happen, he would never go near these three vices. And, Gandhi stuck to his vows despite initial temptations through his newly found friends in London and exposure to the Western culture. In fact, he soon joined a group of vegetarians in London after reading an essay entitled, Plea for Vegetarianism, and some of the other works of Henry Salt (1886). It was as member of the London Vegetarian Society that he learned his first lessons in social activism and also got a taste of public movements. Under the vow to his mother, Gandhi was already a vegetarian, but after reading this essay, he became a vegetarian by choice, even though the Indian origins of

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

37

vegetarianism were unknown, not only, to Gandhi, but also to the man who influenced him so greatly. Gandhi became totally convinced by the logic given by Salt: The logic of vegetarianism is not chemical but moral, social, hygienic…it is not only human life that is lovable and sacred, but all innocent and beautiful life: the great republic of the future will not confine its beneficiaries to man. The emancipation of man will bring with it another and still wider emancipation—of animals. (Salt 1886, pp. 89–90)

It is not difficult to discern the origin of Gandhi’s emphasis on love for all things in nature, human or animal, and even plants or what has been called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (Nature is our family.). Let us now come to the influence of the three individuals mentioned by Gandhi. We will consider them one by one and attempt to understand the profound impact that these men and others had on making Gandhi the way he was—above all, disobedient. Leo Tolstoy In May 1908, a Bengali revolutionary Taraknath Das, Editor of a journal, Free Hindustan, wrote to Leo Tolstoy asking him to contribute an article. Tolstoy willingly agreed and wrote back an article entitled, A Letter to a Hindoo (1908). It was this article that Gandhi found on his visit to London in 1909 and so impressed was he that he immediately wrote back to Tolstoy. This was the beginning of an acquaintance that soon developed into a close and mutually admiring correspondence and lasted till Tolstoy’s death on November 20, 1910. That such a deep bond could develop between the two in the small time frame of barely one year speaks for itself. Though Gandhi never got a chance to meet Tolstoy, so captivated was Gandhi by him that on his death, he addressed a meeting and wrote in his obituary, “There can be no death for Tolstoy’s death. His name will remain immortal.” Later, in 1928, at an event to mark the birth centenary of Tolstoy, Gandhi reminisced about not only the message but also the impact of Tolstoy’s book, The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1893). He wrote: The title means that God’s kingdom is in our hearts and that if we search for it outside, we shall find it nowhere. I read the book some 40 years ago. At

38 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

that time I was skeptical about many things and sometimes entertained atheistic ideas. When I went to England, I was a votary of violence; I had faith in it and none in nonviolence. After I read this book, that lack of faith has vanished. (Gandhi 1928)

What was there in the book that so changed Gandhi from being a votary of violence to one practicing and preaching nonviolence? The crux of Tolstoy’s A Letter to a Hindoo was that “love…represents the highest and indeed the only law of life.” Moreover, he was of the view that the law of love was not only the basis of all the religions of the world but was also recognized by all as a law, be it Indian, Chinese, Jewish, Greek or Roman religions. Indeed, all religions spurn killing as also doing harm to anyone. In his book, Tolstoy writes that he fails to understand one contradiction: on the one hand, all religions of the world forbid killing, and on the other hand, every nation carries out the task of preparing huge armies. In Tolstoy’s words, “there is obvious contradiction that cries to heaven between belief in the necessity of armies with preparation to slaughter on an ever increasing scale and the simultaneous confession of Christianity.” According to Tolstoy, this contradiction must be resolved such that “the law of love is recognized and all reliance on force abandoned.” The very fact that such a line of thinking has universal appeal is that it emanates from religion, not just Christianity but all religions, which hold that the force of love is far greater than, and, far superior to brute force. This admiration of Gandhi for Tolstoy was not one sided; it was mutual. While Gandhi described himself as Tolstoy’s disciple, they also had the same heroes: Socrates, Christ, Buddha and Mohammed. There were other similarities—both of them had a deep faith in religion, both were keen readers of the Bible, the Upanishads and the Bhagwad Gita; both were not mere philosophers, rather, they were teachers of humanity at large, endeavoring to put into practice what they preached. What was it about Tolstoy that so enamored Gandhi? There were two aspects. Firstly, as Gandhi wrote, that: “He (Tolstoy) did what he preached” as shown by his outright negation of aristocracy once he realized the futility of it. …“Tolstoy was the very embodiment of truth in this age. He strove uncompromisingly to follow truth as he saw it…he stated what he felt to be the truth without caring whether it would hurt or please the people….Tolstoy was a great advocate of nonviolence in his age.” (Gandhi 1928)

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

39

And, secondly, as pointed out by Guha, Tolstoy… saluted the conscientious objector, who seeks the preservation of his human dignity, the respect of good men and above all, the certainty that he is doing God’s work. (Guha 2013, p. 85)

All of the above were soon to become incorporated in the life and work of Gandhi. There are countless examples of the fact that he always practiced what he preached, right from the cleaning of toilets to being ready to make sacrifices for anything demanded by the Satyagraha. In fact, his struggle in Natal was based on Tolstoy’s interpretation of the Christian code. Gandhi writes at one place: Our method in South Africa is to conquer hatred by love… we do not attempt to have individuals punished, but as a rule, patiently suffer wrongs at their hands. Generally our prayers are not to demand compensation for past injuries, but to render a repetition of those injuries impossible and to remove the causes. (Gandhi 1896)

Also, Gandhi’s very autobiography is entitled My Experiments with Truth, clarifying the ardent fervor with which he sought truth. In fact, Gandhi was wont to say that if ever one comes across a contradiction in his writings, one should always take the later version, because he was constantly experimenting; his life was a constant search for truth, he was constantly evolving and changing. Rather than this being a manifestation of flippancy on his part, it was so because as he went along with his experiments on himself, he discovered new truths and always made it a point to make a noting of these newly discovered truths. Though, not a student of psychology, he was definitely a practical psychologist and even more so, a scientific psychologist who never said or did anything without firstly empirically establishing its truth. If later events failed to substantiate his findings, he would change them. Lastly, how can we fail to see the influence that Tolstoy had on making Gandhi a conscientious objector? All through his life, from the day he stepped out of the train at Pietermaritzburg to the day of his assassination, Gandhi remained a conscientious objector, refusing to obey anything that he considered unjust in order to preserve the dignity of people.

40 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Raychand Raychand was a jeweler by profession, a Jain by religion and, overall, a very learned person who spent most of his spare time reading. Gandhi was introduced to him on his return to India from London after becoming a barrister. The outer storm was to me a symbol of the inner. But even as the former left me unperturbed, I think I can say the same thing about the latter. There was the trouble with the caste that was to confront me. I have already adverted to my helplessness in starting on my profession. And then, as I was a reformer, I was taxing myself as to how best to begin certain reforms. But there was even more in store for me than I knew. …I was pining to see my mother. I did not know that she was no more in the flesh to receive me back into her bosom. The sad news was now given me, and I underwent the usual ablution. …The news, however, was none the less a severe shock to me. … Most of my cherished hopes were shattered. But I remember that I did not give myself up to any wild expression of grief. I could even check the tears, and took to life just as though nothing had happened. Dr. Mehta introduced me to several friends… But the introduction that I need particularly take note of was the one to the poet Raychand or Rajchandra. (Gandhi, An Autobiography: Story of my experiments with truth 1927)

The inner turmoil and the grief of losing his mother are evident from the passage above. At the same time, leaving London forced him to part with the many friends he had made over there and who had helped and guided him in many ways. He was in dire need of a confidante, a friend, a mentor. Raychand came to fill a vacuum in the life of Gandhi. His brothers were unable to provide either the moral instruction or the intellectual inspiration. It was into this scenario that Raychand happened to step in, helping him to overcome the grief of his mother’s death. Whenever he would be free, Gandhi made it a habit to frequent Raychand’s shop, and there he would find in him a solace of a different kind. Though a Jain by birth, he was hardly dogmatic or orthodox, rather, he was a poet and a thinker. Most of all, Gandhi was enthralled by Raychand’s command over language and his powers of memory. Raychand was a man of great character and Gandhi so trusted this person that he felt that he would never lead him astray and in his moments of despair and spiritual crisis, it was this Jain ascetic who was to become his mainstay. Even 30 years later, Gandhi could recall that the impact of Raychand was so great that he could almost recall each and every nuance of Raychand’s countenance, “There was magic in his eyes and even while walking he would seem engrossed in deep concentration.”

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

41

In sum, we can say that there were at least two major things that Gandhi got from Raychand: the belief that one can have a plurality of vocations and, also, harbor this same plurality as far as faith is concerned. But most of all, he had found a person on whom he could depend for guidance and solace whenever he needed it, whether it was on issues related to religion, the soul, or the treatment of animals. Even during his stay at Natal, Durban and Johannesburg, he continued with his relationship with Raychand, often writing to him and asking him to resolve his doubts and questions. Raychand, true as he was to his mentee, never disappointed him and would reply back at great length. And on his death in 1901, wrote Gandhi to a friend: “rightly or wrongly I was greatly attracted to him and I loved him deeply too. All that is over now.” John Ruskin In the year 1904, Gandhi was to travel to Durban for some work. He was seen off at Johannesburg station by his dear friend Henry Polak, who gave him a book. This book was to change the life of Gandhi. It was none other than Unto This Last by John Ruskin (1860). In the book, Ruskin made the point that current theorization in economics was against the teachings of religion. While Mills and others were writing that it was money that was of prime importance and the only substance of value, Ruskin was of the view that economics could not be, and should not be, separated from morality. Any science according to him, which regarded air, light, peace, trust or love as worthless, was, in itself, against the teachings of religion and was also against the deeper interests of humanity. Ruskin propagated a moral economics, one that would lead to the largest number of happy people rather than the largest number of wealthy people. The impact that the book had on Gandhi is clear from the fact that Gandhi read this book at one stretch and so taken up by it was he that he could not sleep that night. As he was to recall later, “I determined to change my life in accordance with the ideals of the book,” the core message of which was that the work of farmers and laborers is as valuable as that of lawyers and factory managers and that to work by hand was far more valuable than to work with one’s brains or with the help of machines. The depth of the impact that Ruskin had on Gandhi is also clear when we note that it was this book which caused him to shift his newly found printing press to the countryside, to a farm established near the station of Phoenix, and, therefore, known as Phoenix settlement. Not only was the printing press shifted to this new location but so also were the workers and their families, where “the workers could live a more simple life, and the ideas of Ruskin and Tolstoy combined with strict business principles.”

42 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

The book literally gripped Gandhi and he paraphrased it into Gujarati under the title of Sarvodaya (welfare of all). Gandhi realized through the book not only the value of physical labor, which he was to later term bread labor, but also that every person has the right to earn their livelihood through whatever work they are capable of doing and that the hope of humanity lies in the welfare of all persons.  enry David Thoreau H The book Walden (Thoreau 1854) is well known the world over and is, probably, what Thoreau is most remembered for. Gandhi first read Walden in 1906 in South Africa, and he writes at that time, “Thoreau’s ideas influenced me greatly. I adopted some of them and recommended the study of Thoreau to all my friends who were helping me in the cause of Indian Independence. Why, I actually took the name of my movement from Thoreau’s (1854) essay, On the duty of Civil Disobedience.” A great writer, philosopher, poet and man of morals, he was an American who at the time of the abolition of slavery movement wrote this essay, and was even sent to jail for it. What did he write? He started his essay with “I heartily accept the motto, “that government is best which governs least.” Thereafter, he arrives at the focus of his thoughts (see Box 2.1). Box 2.1 Thoreau (1854), On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally under such a government as this think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. …why does it not cherish its wise minority? …why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?…what I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn…for it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever…they do not know how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person….A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. (Thoreau 1854)

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

43

Ruskin’s Unto This Last in 1904, Thoreau’s On the duty of civil disobedience in 1906 followed by Tolstoy’s A Letter to a Hindoo in 1908—one can well imagine how the concept of civil disobedience in the form of Satyagraha was being built up in the mind of this young lawyer from India. Within a short span of less than a decade, we can identify the people by whose writings Gandhi was being influenced. Through these writings, coupled with the values that were nurtured by his parents in his childhood, we can clearly discern the ideas that went into the making of the disobedient Gandhi. At the same time, while in London as a student of law, Gandhi was an avid reader of the newspapers. One of the aspects which had a tremendous influence on Gandhi was the state of affairs in Ireland (Ackerman and Duvall 2000). This was in the late 1880s when Ireland was aspiring for home rule and was also facing agrarian exploitation through the hands of the rich landlords who extorted exorbitant rents from their tenants. Under the leadership of a few, including some women, the tenants decided to go on a rent strike, refusing to let the bailiffs in when they came to hand over the eviction notices. At the same time, another technique that proved to be very effective was the boycott, through which the landlords, who took over the land of tenants who were unable to pay their rents, were isolated and ostracized, with no-one being ready to sell them, even, essential groceries. Named after one, Boycott, who was so isolated, the technique delivered results. This was when Gandhi saw the power wielded by nonviolent techniques in action, and realized that they had far greater power than those that were violent. Where the Sinn Feiners had failed, these nonviolent protesters were able to get Ireland liberated. Much later, in 1905, at the time of the Russian revolution, when the Russians declared a general strike, which even the Czar could not break, Gandhi (then in South Africa) professed that the Russians had found another remedy, which, though very simple, is more powerful than rebellion and murder. (cf., Ackerman and Duvall 2000, p. 77)

Coupled with these two events was the resistance being shown by Indians against the British in India and in South Africa. Taken together, it is clear that Gandhi had before him various events, spanning across three continents that revealed the power of nonviolent techniques such as strikes and boycotts, each being an example in civil disobedience that provided sufficient evidence for their efficacy.

44 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

In each case, their experiences revealed that ‘even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.’ Gandhi concluded that, ‘we can also show the same strength that the Russian people have. (Ackerman and Duvall 2000, p. 78)

Gandhi and Religion Apart from the influence of certain individuals, another aspect that impacted Gandhi’s life and work was religion. Starting with the role of his mother, who gave him his first taste of non-dogmatic religion to that of his governess Rambha, who taught the young lad to recite the name of the Indian god Rama whenever darkness stared at him, religion continued to play an all important role in his life and in his philosophy of nonviolence. It is notable that of the pantheon of gods and goddesses in Hinduism, Gandhi chose to become a devout follower of Rama. Remember also that it is Rama who is said to have brought about Ramrajya, the Indian equivalent to the Greek Utopia, and was known to be one of the most compassionate and yet just of rulers. This was what Gandhi strived for in all the communities that he set up, whether it was Phoenix settlement, Tolstoy Farm or Sabarmati Ashram. We must also not forget that Gandhi’s last utterance, before he died at the hands of his assassin, was, “He Ram” (a well-known Hindu chant, remembering the god Rama). Besides this, the Hindu scripture Bhagwad Gita with its emphasis on non-attachment and selfless action continued to influence him while he was developing his course of action and perfecting the spirit and practice of Satyagraha. And, of course, we should not forget the role played by Gandhi’s mentor Raychand, in helping him see the truth behind all religions, that they are all the same. While Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism laid the basic foundation during his childhood, he made a number of Christian and Jewish friends while in England and South Africa. Through them he got a deep insight into the Bible and into the basic tenets of Judaism. The Sermon on the Mount as well as many other parts of what Christians call the Old and the New Testament of the Bible deeply affected Gandhi. Goedhals (2014), in his article, “Gandhi and his Christian friends: legacy of the South African years,” writes that Gandhi’s religious development can be traced into three distinct stages, each taking place against totally differing geographical backdrops. These three are as follows:

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

45

• The India of his youth • England, where he not only personally explored Hindu texts such as the Bhagwad Gita but also had a deep exposure to Christianity • The crucible of his South African years As a result of all these variegated experiences and effects of both people and their writings, Gandhi who left England with no real religious commitment found his calling, his true self and his true vocation in South Africa (Brown 1989). As Gandhi writes: It was the New testament which really awakened me to the righteousness and value of passive resistance. When I read the Sermon on the Mount, such passages as ‘resist not him that is evil, but whatsoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also’ and ‘love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you’ I was simply overjoyed and found my own opinion confirmed where I least expected it. The Bhagwad Gita deepened the impression and Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is within You gave it permanent form. (Doke 1909, p. 132)

Both of the above found ample place in his Satyagraha against his prosecutors in South Africa and later in India. Leader from the front that he always was, he personally showed strict adherence to these principles and constantly pleaded with his fellow satyagrahis to adhere to them. As he was wont to say, “hate not the British but the acts of the British.” The turning point was, of course, events such as those mentioned in the Opening Vignette. Some of them were personal affronts but more so was the constant discrimination that he saw people suffering at the hands of the white regime in South Africa and the British in India. Not having faced these situations, he would probably not even have thought of civil disobedience and nonviolence as weapons of the courageous for use in the political realm. So, it can be said that circumstances precipitated his activism and action in the political realm, but the weapon he chose and the strategy he formulated were derived from the moral teachings and values of his childhood, his exposure to the religions of the world and to people such as Tolstoy, Ruskin, Thoreau and Raychand, among others (see Fig. 2.1). All four sets of influences, delineated above, can be traced in the philosophy and practice of Gandhian nonviolence. This was the foundation for Gandhi’s “Truth.” The congruence between the Gandhian toolkit to be elaborated upon in the next chapter and these lines of influence is

46 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Religions of the world

People such as Tolstoy, Ruskin, Thoreau, Raychand

Gandhian Nonviolence

Events and circumstances

Parents and childhood

Fig. 2.1  Influences on Gandhi and Gandhian nonviolence

evident. Drawing from them, he perfected the art and science of nonviolent activism in the various cities of South Africa where he worked, first, as a lawyer and, later, as an activist. He was to use this same form of nonviolent activism, calling it Satyagraha during the struggle for freedom in India. Also, it was because of his use of a weapon that had, at its base, universal values and time-tested principles that it found appeal with such an august set of people, ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama and many, many more. Gandhian nonviolence has survived the travails of time and has been found to be relevant even today, not simply to protest against political persecutors (as evidenced by the many uprisings that have successfully liberated people from the hands of persecutors) but also as a solution to many of the ills of the twenty-first century (Kool 2008; Kool and Agrawal 2013; 2018).

The Length and Breadth of Gandhi’s Influence The world appears small when we try to gauge the appeal that Gandhi and, especially, the principle and practice of nonviolence had on people. While many are prominent figures, there are countless others who laid down not only their arms but also, at times, their lives for the cause of nonviolence. Topping the list are well-known civil rights movement leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Cesar Chavez, all of whom were avowed practitioners of nonviolence and, especially, Gandhian nonviolence. Other followers include the noted authors Pearl S. Buck and George Bernard Shaw and poet, Rabindranath Tagore, who first addressed him as “Mahatma.” Then, there are statesmen such as the ex-Secretary General of the UN, U Thant. The list of eminent people who were influenced by Gandhi

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

47

continues with spiritual leaders such as the Dalai Lama, singer John Lennon, scientist Albert Einstein, well-known entrepreneur Steve Jobs, historian Will Durant, film maker Richard Attenborough and the journalist who penned the famous book The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, which was the inspiration for Attenborough’s film, Gandhi, Louis Fischer. But let us start with an individual not very well known by the world at large, but, certainly, a known figure in the world of activism and even in the academic circle of peace and nonviolence. David Cortright David Cortright is an active writer, and his numerous books, articles and blogs help us to understand the deep impact of Gandhi on his life. He is a well-known American scholar and a peace activist. He is the Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame and Chair of the Board of the Fourth Freedom Forum. He has authored a large number of books, including Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for a New Political Age (2005), and many other volumes on peace and nonviolence. What was the genesis? David, a young American student who loved to play in the college band, found one day that he had been drafted into the US army to fight the Vietnam War. It was at his stint at the army base at Fort Hamilton that he joined a group of soldiers who had decided to agitate against what they felt was an unjust war on Vietnam. Protesting against the war and later against an unjust action of the army is normally unheard of especially as far as the US army is concerned. What gave Cortright and his friends this courage and determination? In an article in the journal, Gandhi Marg, he recounts many of these influences and the deep impact of Gandhi is evident. This is how he starts the paper: (This is) The story of my lifetime journey to comprehend and embrace Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence. I recount the unusual pathway that led me to Gandhi, which began while I was serving in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. I spoke out against the war as an active duty soldier, and through that experience and my participation in the peace community encountered the ubiquitous image and message of Gandhi. (Cortright 2013, p. 561)

48 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Later in the paper, he writes: The deeper I engaged with the peace movement, the more I began to notice and feel the presence of Gandhi. …Always there was the reference to Gandhian nonviolence and the call for social action. And of course the knowledge that this frail looking man in loincloth who preached tolerance and love had somehow brought down the mightiest empire on earth without firing a shot. … Gandhi for me was not the iconic Mahatma on a pedestal, but an ordinary man with extraordinary courage and political vision, one who struggled with inner demons and was flawed in some respects as we all are. Gandhi changed the course of history by introducing into the world a revolutionary new principle of mass nonviolent action to achieve social change. Our challenge is to understand and apply his philosophy and method but also to enrich it with a deeper understanding of the meaning of social justice. (Cortright 2013, p. 564)

As discussed by Cortright, the source of his inspiration were the combined influences of Dellinger, Muste and Barbara Deming, and the book, The Power of Nonviolence (Gregg 1958) in which he found a detailed description of Gandhian nonviolence. However, the most significant influence was probably that of Martin Luther King Jr., and his words, “Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale” (Cortright, ibid.). The story of his fight with the US army and the subsequent court case and its implications has been described by Cortright in various blogs. The petition they presented went as follows: We are 1365 active duty service men. We are opposed to American involvement in the war in Vietnam. We resent the needless wasting of lives to save face for the politicians in Washington. We speak, believing our views are shared by many of our fellow service men. Join us. (Cortright 2018, davidcortright.net)

Following this petition were a few lines exhorting GIs to remember their constitutional right to oppose war under the First Amendment of the American Constitution and included were the names of these 1365 service men. In May 2018, this court case was reenacted in the United States Court House in New  York, a manifestation of the importance of the case, in which Cortright was acquitted of the charges against him and the transfer orders against him were revoked.

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

49

He goes on, At the end of the reenactment, I was introduced and stood to read a few lines from the script about the purpose of our action. In response to a question, I explained that the experience of opposing the war and suing the Army changed my life and gave me a sense of purpose. I committed myself to working for peace and I am still at it nearly 50 years later. Were you scared back then, another young lawyer asked. “Terrified,” I replied. We were operating in uncharted territory and were afraid of what might happen, but we felt a moral obligation to speak out against an unjust war. (Cortright 2018, ibid.)

Despite being terrified at that time, Cortright strove on, undeterred by the circumstances and the suffering and continues to be an activist and worker for peace even today. Martin Luther King Jr. If it was a train ride that created Gandhi, it was a bus journey that created Martin Luther King Jr. As a small boy, he was travelling to Atlanta, USA, with his teacher in a bus. They were asked to vacate their seats to accommodate white passengers. King refused to move but his teacher said that they must obey the law. So, they got up and travelled the rest of the 90 miles standing in the aisle of the bus. This was a night that King was never to forget. While King had heard of Gandhi, he actually started taking a more active interest in his life and nonviolent methods while working on a paper for his class at the Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania during the period 1948–1951. As he delved deeper, he became highly excited for here was a way out of the dilemma that he was facing. On the one hand, he had always felt that one should oppose injustice, especially such as the racial oppression of Black Americans, poverty, war, and so on. On the other hand, his deep commitment to the Christian ethic of love made him want to avoid all forms of killing. Gandhi provided the way out. Through his constant experiments with truth, he had been able to show that it was possible to fight evil without taking recourse to guns or false propaganda; one can do it through love if truth is on one’s side. As a result, under the leadership of King, the civil rights movement was totally nonviolent, yet, not passive. When in 1955 King became actively involved in the fight against racial oppression, he chose the Gandhian methods of nonviolent direct action to the exclusion of all others. In 1959, he paid a visit to Gandhi’s land, India,

50 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

and met the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, and members of Gandhi’s family. In what he termed a pilgrimage, he became even more convinced that the Gandhian path was the true path. Later, when they planned the famous March to Washington, it wasn’t sheer coincidence that there were many similarities between this March and Gandhi’s Salt March. In fact, it had been actively modeled after the Salt March. Why was it that Gandhi had such a deep impact on Martin Luther King Jr.? Perhaps, because it was for the first time in history that someone had demonstrated that pacifism is not a way out for the underdog or for those who have been proved ineffectual. Gandhi showed that nonviolence does not mean being passive, nor is it a weapon for the weak (of heart or of the mind); nonviolence is a weapon for the person with an indomitable will, immense strength of character and integrity, a readiness to fight against injustice, yet living a life with dignity and integrity. Nelson Mandela With great foresight, Gandhi had once remarked that someone from South Africa would take up his ideas and lead the people against oppression from the whites. That man turned out to be Nelson Mandela. In both Gandhi and Mandela a light shines that is the fruit of inward-focused constancy of a kind that is a stranger to hyper-connected status anxiety. Through this they live…Here is another link in the Gandhi-Mandela chain: The value of manual labor and what it teaches. Not for them the soft manicured hands of today’s masters of the universe gliding from one financial transaction to the other, making money from money. Self-rule for the two men was a political goal; it was also an internal value. (Cohen 2013)

Mandela, or Madiba, as he was affectionately called, was born in 1918 and joined the African National Congress in 1944, engaging in resistance against the apartheid policies of the ruling National Party. Inspired by the Indian community set up by Gandhi in South Africa (a place that is generally regarded as the “cradle of Satyagraha”), he led his people much in the same way as Gandhi had done. In fact, he has called Gandhi his political guru and his role model, and so deep was this feeling that on being released after 27 years in prison, his first visit abroad was to India, the land of Gandhi. Dubbed as the Gandhi of South Africa, there were striking similarities between the two. Like Gandhi, he firmly believed in the strength of brotherly love, total integration of all citizens without bias or prejudice, and it

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

51

was because of this that once South Africa was liberated, the bitterness between the erstwhile ruling whites and their black subjects abated with astonishing speed. Like Gandhi, Mandela, too, envisaged a democratic and free society where everybody could live fearlessly and in harmony with each other. So great was his commitment to these ideals that he was even ready to die for them. He remained committed to nonviolence as long as his party could, but, when the time came that they started feeling that nonviolence was bringing them shame and dishonor, that violence was no longer an option but a necessity, the party resorted to the use of violence, once again quoting Gandhi who had always said that it was better to use violence than to live a life of dishonor; when one has to choose between cowardice and violence, Gandhi would always suggest the latter. In an article in the New York Times, Roger Cohen (2013) compares Gandhi and Mandela. He writes: Gandhi branded with the racist insult of ‘coolie lawyer; in South Africa; Mandela thrown into the same Johannesburg prison as Gandhi before him; both arriving by different roads at an idea put in this way by Gandhi ‘when we come to think of it, the distinction between heterogeneous and homogenous is discovered to be merely imaginary, we are all one family. (Cohen 2013)

The Burma Gandhi: Aung San Suu Kyi Frail, gentle-faced, flowers in her hair, but fearless and confidence exuding all around, this is the Burmese politician, diplomat, author and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi, often referred to as the Burma Gandhi. They were marching towards Rangoon. Despite warnings from the military they wanted to gather for rallies in the Burmese capital. There was only one thing on their minds: to demand their rights through protest. But they were stopped. A fleet of soldiers stood in front of them, pointing their rifles. Words were not necessary. They did not need to be told that another step forward would mean bullets ripping through their bodies. There was a moment of silence and then a boy came forward. Ripping his shirt open, he stood facing the rifles as if telling them, “Go ahead—shoot me!” It was in that moment that the officer ordered the soldiers to lower their guns. “Have we come to the point where we shoot little boys?” he said, watching the boy. The soldiers knew she was leading them. They had orders not to let her reach the capital and here she was—standing right next to the boy. But they

52 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

let her go. They let the crowd march to Rangoon, where she addressed a half million people for the first time. That was August 26th, 1988—that was Aung San Suu Kyi. That was when the people of Myanmar heard her, and that was when they found their leader in her. (Bhatia 2011)

She was born in 1945 in Burma, but after the early demise of her father, she followed her mother, the then Burmese Ambassador, to India, from where she obtained her early education. Thereafter, she went to Oxford followed by a stint in New York, working for the UN for three years. In 1988, she returned to Burma, mainly to tend to her ailing mother, but the prevailing circumstances forced her to remain there and lead a pro-­ democracy movement against the oppression by the Burmese military dictatorial government. Influenced highly by Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence and her Buddhist upbringing, she helped found the National League for Democracy but was soon put under house arrest. She remained under house arrest for a total period of 15 years over a span of 21 years. During this period, she lost her husband to terminal prostate cancer, paid the sacrifice of giving up her two sons whom she was not able to look after, but, though, granted permission to leave Burma on the condition that she would never return, she refused. She has been hailed as “the lone crusader in Myanmar who for decades has adopted the principles of Gandhi…. Gandhian principles which inspired her to fight for the freedom of her country nonviolently” (Bhattacharya 2002). They tried to oppose her, they tried to stop her, they tried to scare her—these were people with the might and brute force of the Burmese government behind them, but she has been unflagging. In her political struggle because of the very ways that she has adopted, she has received widespread national and international support, even the support of the UN and numerous awards including the Nobel Peace Prize. Suu Kyi clearly indicates at all times that her inspiration was Gandhi, her father (himself an admirer of Gandhi) and her religion, Buddhism. Throughout this long struggle, which she called the second struggle for freedom (the first was while getting independence from British rule), one sees uncanny similarities between Suu Kyi and Gandhi. As in the case of Gandhi, her life is her message. Both were frail, physically, but with a moral strength that was indomitable; both were fearless; both loved their country and their countrymen and could not see them being oppressed; both had to sacrifice their family and their professional career, but most of all, both shared the belief in the positive energy of courage, peace and

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

53

nonviolence along with a tenacious commitment to a vision in which means were not separated from the end. Like Gandhi, Suu Kyi, too, went to England for further studies. And like Gandhi, it was circumstances and not choice that brought her into the political arena. According to her, “I am not scared. My attitude is that I do as much as I can while I am free and if I am rearrested, I will do as much as I can under arrest.” In a recent talk to students of an American university, Suu Kyi described Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru among her greatest sources of influence and encouraged American students to read the works of Gandhi. Gandhi is somebody really phenomenal. I think you must all read his works, the more you read Gandhi, the more impressed you are by who he was and what he was…You must remember that change through nonviolence was not even thought of before Gandhi. He was the one who started it, he was the one who decided that it was possible to bring about revolutionary change without violence. (Suu Kyi, Hindustan Times 2012, September 23)

The Frontier Gandhi: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan While Gandhi was fighting against the British in mainland India, we saw the rise of another person in the extreme north west of India, a region known as the North West Frontier Province, before, 1947. Nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people… No peace or tranquility can descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced. (Wangchuk 2019)

The above are the words of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who, for almost 40 years, struggled for the rights of his people. The Khan’s story of nonviolence is amazing, to say the least, not only for its popularity but also for its simple and spiritual outlook, earning him the nickname of Frontier Gandhi. As Gandhi’s grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi writes in his book, Ghaffar Khan: Nonviolent Badshah of the Pakhtuns: He and his brother saved Hindu and Sikh lives in the Frontier; he brought succour and relief to Muslim victims in Bihar; he confronted Jinnah in Pakistan and, twenty years later, India’s Parliament with uncomfortable facts of attacks on minorities. His fight for the rights of the threatened, the weak and the poor, his sympathy for peoples across the subcontinent’s borders,

54 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

his scepticism about the effectiveness of guns and bombs, and his frankness towards both rulers and citizens make him an inspiring model. (Gandhi 2008, p. 272)

When Khan died in January 1988, the scene was unprecedented. More than 200,000 mourners attended his funeral, including the Afghanistan President and the Indian Prime Minister. According to Mukulika Banerjee from the London School of Economics and author of The Pathan Unarmed (2000), The burial in Jalalabad caused other unprecedented events. A one-day ceasefire was declared in the Soviet-Afghan war so that mourners could safely traverse the distance between Peshawar and Jalalabad, the two cities at either end of the Khyber Pass which marks the official boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Furthermore, the visa requirements were waived and for that day alone thousands crossed freely to join the funeral procession as it inched along the winding roads of the majestic Pass. In his death, Badshah Khan thus bore witness to the possibility of a closed boundary becoming an open frontier, restoring to the North West Frontier its open character of past centuries and eliminating the artificial barriers between the Pathans who lived on either side. (p. 2)

Who was Frontier Gandhi? Born in 1890 in a prosperous Pashtun family of present day Peshawar in Pakistan, his name was Badshah Khan. He had decided to join the Corps of Guides after completing his schooling. This Corps consisted of British officers and soldiers serving in the North West Province but seeing the second class status afforded to non-British members, Khan joined, instead, the Aligarh Muslim University and became part of the Independence Movement of India in 1911. The region Khan came from comprised people who, though a warrior race, suffered intense oppression under the British army. This led him to take up the task of uplifting his fellow countrymen, for which he travelled through some 500 villages spreading education, attempting social reform in the area and preaching against the prevalent culture of violence. However, it was only in 1928, when he first met Gandhi and joined the Indian National Congress that he was able to make his most notable contributions. Seeing Khan Abdul Ghaffar next to Gandhi was an almost comical sight. Khan was well over six feet tall and weighed more than 100  kilos and seemed to overshadow the small, thin Gandhi. While Khan could be very vocal, Gandhi was very shy and soft spoken by nature. Gandhi was a Hindu and Khan a Muslim. Yet, they had a very unusual friendship, and their mutual respect and bonding was almost instantaneous, based as it was on the solid ground of nonviolence.

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

55

Khan founded the Khudai Khidmatgar (Servants of God), the followers of which were commonly referred to as “red shirts.” What attracted people to him? It was the same values that drew people in large numbers to Gandhi—integrity of character coupled with a total commitment to the philosophy and practice of nonviolence and the unwavering belief in a united India. In 1930, these “red shirts” even participated in Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha. However, in the same year, Khan was arrested by the British. What followed echoed the tones of what had occurred in Jallianwala Bagh in 1919, when the British had fired on an innocent and a peaceful congregation and massacred hundreds of people. Khan died 40  years after the assassination of Gandhi, but as long as Gandhi was alive they shared a profound relationship both at the personal and at the political level. In 1987 as he lay ailing in Delhi, the Government of India offered him a future resting place adjacent to Gandhi’s mausoleum—an unprecedented gesture. But Khan refused, saying that he would like to be buried in the garden of his house in Afghanistan where he had spent most of his later years. In 2011, Faisal Khan reformed the Khudai Khidmatgar with 50 volunteers to commemorate the great Badshah because this army of nonviolent protesters was Khan’s greatest achievement, brought as it did, Gandhi’s message of nonviolence to the Muslims. Protesters from Around the World The list of people who followed the Gandhian path of nonviolence is long, and it is restricted to neither a few countries nor even to one continent. Over and above those already mentioned, we could add the names of all those who led to the fall of the Soviet Union, people who participated in the revolutions of Eastern Europe and those who were involved with the downfall of the dictatorship of Marcos in the Philippines. But here, we would like to pay tribute to those countless people, ordinary citizens from around the world, who chose to follow the path of nonviolence in their struggle against injustice. As put very succinctly by Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall (2000), in their book, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict (p. 20): It is after all, the words and work of individuals that we recount: the passion of those who sparked or led the campaigns, the arrogance, guile and eventual disgrace of the autocrats they overcame, and the native genius, foolish blunders and stunning sacrifices seen throughout the century’s cavalcade of ‘people power’.

56 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

From Tunisia, from where the entire Arab world was rocked into action to Bahrain, Libya and Egypt; from Oakland California, to Wisconsin and even London, there were people who were feeling oppressed by the dictatorial regimes, or by conditions of economic inequity during the great economic downturn, or simply by not being able to get what they needed, whether it was insurance to pay for medical aid, or even the right to earn their living through whatever means they had. These were the protesters, organizing peaceful marches, sit-ins or other similar forms of nonviolent protest. What did they have to face? In most cases it was a violent police force, which, because of the power they wielded, could force these peaceful agitators to become silent. Innocent people lost their lives and at times their homes and their bare means of livelihood. Scenes such as the above were a source of inspiration for countless other individuals, from different countries, different walks of life and of different ages. We present below excerpts from the life and work of some such people. The first person we would like to write about is Dr. Arthur Chen, a physician from Oakland, California who was highly frustrated seeing many of his patients who came from the lower strata of society suffer simply because they could not afford to buy medical insurance. Occupy Oakland gave him a platform for protesting against the sorry state of affairs. On being asked as to what inspired him to join Occupy Oakland, this was what he said in an interview with a Time magazine reporter, Jason Motlagh (2011): How did protests in other parts of the world affect, influence, or inspire you? The Arab Spring, very inspiring. Just to have seen what had happened in Tahrir Square and Tunisia and the start of things. And that it was really young people who played a significant role in that. All of that activity, the demonstrations in London around students outraged about an increase in tuitions, and all of this activity in Wisconsin, where people really spoke out against the governor, who really wanted to strip labor of its rights at that time, of collective bargaining. In reply to another question, what was the most memorable day of the protests in personal terms for you? He replied that it was the day the camp was dismantled and the scene changed overnight. It was ghastly to see,

A peaceful, nonviolent protest around the economic conditions, and what are the causes of that, and here we had folks just cleared out and arrested, and now we had an oppressive-looking police tactical squad coming in. That was probably my worst day.

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

57

And, then there was Olmo Galvez of Spain. He joined a protest group called Youth Without Future, basically a Twitter group. He went to the first meeting planning to just attend it and then tweet about it. But, he got more and more involved and finally became an activist, working for DRY (Democracia Real Ya). At his first demonstration, he witnessed a scene unthought-of. Just how big became clear as Gálvez monitored DRY’s Google analytics. ‘We went from 300 to 3000 to 70,000 hits in the period of a day. So we were able to predict that it was going to keep growing.’ As they had in Tahrir Square, social media not only helped spread word of what was happening but acquired a new degree of authority. ‘Mainstream media had no idea what was going on and wasn’t reporting it at all,’ he says. ‘So we turned to our own media.’

Galvez was galvanized into action by what he saw. ‘It was marvelous to see people become the actors in their own lives. You could watch them breaking out of their passivity. They turned off the TV, left their homes, went to the plaza and entered into community with each other.’ That sensation kept him returning for other assemblies—as the holes in the back pockets of his jeans, worn through from sitting on the pavement, prove … Asked why he believes the movement has been as successful as it has, Gálvez likes to quote Gandhi: ‘We’ve achieved what we have so far because we didn’t know it was impossible’. (Abend 2011)

As a matter of fact, the list of those famous individuals who were influenced by Gandhi is very long, but owing to limitation of space in this chapter, we have provided only a short diverse sample without the descriptions of such luminaries as Karve, Vinoba Bhave, the Dalai Lama, Cesar Chavez, and many more, who had worked closely with Gandhi and/or carried his message. For more information, please refer to the website, gandhiheritage portal.org (2020). And so the stories go on and on. There was this stray dog in Athens, who would join every protest and even bark at the police who would try to control the protesters. They gave him a name, Loukanikos, meaning “sausage” in Greek. There is Yuri Kozyrev, a contract photographer for the Time magazine, who spent a year travelling from one country to another covering the Arab Spring, but also becoming deeply affected by what he saw. Starting in one city, in one country, people gradually network with others in other countries, and it is here that technology, especially the social media, has had a very big role to play. From Tunisia where a street

58 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

fruit vendor immolated himself when police stopped him from selling his fruit, to the doctor from California to the young student from Spain, people have been directly or indirectly influenced by Gandhi who demonstrated to the world that nonviolent protests work if people are determined; the only catch being that they must have truth on their side, they must be working for social justice. As Gandhi once said: Perhaps never before has there been so much speculation about the future as there is today. Will our world always be one of violence? Will there always be poverty, starvation, misery? Will we have a firmer and wide belief in religion, or will the world be godless? If there is to be a great change in society, how will that change be wrought? By war, or revolution? Or will it come peacefully? Different men give different answers to these questions, each man drawing the plan of tomorrow’s world as he hopes and wishes it to be. I answer not only out of belief but out of conviction. The world of tomorrow will be, must be, a society based on non-violence. That is the first law; out of it all other blessings will flow. It may seem a distant goal, an impractical Utopia. But it is not the least unobtainable since it can be worked for here and now. An individual can adopt the way of life of the future—the nonviolent way—without having to wait for others to do so. And if an individual can do it, cannot whole groups of individuals. Whole nations? Men may hesitate to make a beginning because they feel that the objective cannot be achieved in its entirety. This attitude of mind is precisely our greatest obstacle to progress—an obstacle that each man, if he only will do it, can clear away. (Gandhi 1946)

History bears testimony to the fact that through the leadership of one person, countless individuals made not only a beginning but were also able to bring about the change that Gandhi had envisaged. What was this “attitude of mind”? How was Gandhi able to convince the thousands of people who became satyagrahis? Why were they ready to make the tremendous sacrifices that nonviolence requires? Why was he nominated as Time magazine’s Man of the Year in 1930, after the Dandi March, and a few years later, became runner-up to someone no less than Einstein as Time’s Person of the Century? In fact, Einstein greatly admired Gandhi and on the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi’s 70th birthday, wrote, Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth.

2  THE DISOBEDIENT GANDHI 

59

Almost 70  years after the death of the Mahatma, his grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi, has attempted to put his life and times into perspective in his book, Why Gandhi Still Matters (2017). In a recent interview, Rajmohan Gandhi (2017) remarks, If you look at any other country, is there any figure who died seventy years ago and is recalled in conversation, is evoked in debates like Gandhi is in India? He may be criticized but he is still relevant. He is a topic of discussion, heated discussion.

References Abend, L. (2011). Why I protest: Olmo Galvez of Spain. Time, December 14. Ackerman, P., & DuVall, J. (2000). A force more powerful: A century of nonviolent conflict. New York: St Martin’s Griffin. Banerjee, M. (2000). Pathan unarmed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Bhatia, E. (2011). Suu Kyi: Following Gandhi and not giving in to fear. Retrieved from https://p.dw.com/p/Romd. Bhattacharya, S. (2002). Other Gandhis: Aung San Suu Kyi – Lone Crusader. Life PositiveE Plis, October–December. Brown, J. (1989). Gandhi, prisoner of hope. New Haven: Yale University Press. Cohen, R. (2013). Gandhi & Mandela. The New  York Times, nytimes.com, December 12. Cortright, D. (2005). Gandhi and beyond: Nonviolence for an age of terrorism. Paradigm Publishers. Cortright, D. (2013). My Gandhi. Gandhi Marg, 561–581. Cortright, D. (2018). Reliving history: Suing the army. davidcortright.net, May 14. Doke, J. J. (1909). M. K. Gandhi: Indian patriot in South Africa. Varanasi: Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan. Fisher, L. (1954/2010). Gandhi: His life and message for the world. New  York: Signet Classics. Gandhi, M. K. (1896). Letter to G. K. Gokhale, October 18. Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, II, 66. Gandhi, M. K. (1927/2003). An autobiography or the story of my experiments with truth. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M.  K. (1928). Speech on birth centenary of Tolstoy. Young India, September 20. Gandhi, M.  K. (1946/1959). Non-violent way to world peace: M.  K. Gandhi (Compiled by R. K. Prabhu). Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House, 49–51. Gandhi, R. (2008). Ghaffar Khan: Nonviolent Badshah of Pakhtoons. New Delhi: Penguin.

60 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Gandhi, R. (2017). Why Gandhi still matters. New Delhi: Aleph. gandhiheritage portal.org. (2020). Ahmedabad: Sabarmati Ashram Preservation and Memorial Trust. Goedhals, M. (2014). Gandhi and his Christian friends: Legacy of the South African Years 1893–1914. Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae, 40, 1–20. Gregg, R.  B. (1958). The power of nonviolence. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Guha, R. (2013). Gandhi before India. New Delhi: Penguin. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2013). Whither Skinner’s science of behavior, his assessment of Gandhi, and its aftermath? Gandhi Marg, 35, 487–518. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2018). Gandhian philosophy for living in the modern world: lessons from the psychology of satyagraha. In S. Fernando & R. Moodley (Eds.), Global Psychologies: Mental health and the global South. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. Motlagh, J. (2011). Why I protest: Dr Arthur Chen of Oakland, Calif. Time, December 14. Ruskin, J. (1860). Unto this last. Cornhill Magazine. Salt, H.  S. (1886). A plea for vegetarianism and other essays. Manchester: The Vegetarian Society. Suu Kyi. (2012). Nehru, Gandhi among greatest sources of influence. Hindustan Times, September 23. Thoreau, H. D. (1854/2004). Walden and on the duty of disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. gutenberg.org, January 26, 2013. Retrieved May 3, 2014. Tolstoy, L. (1893/2001). The kingdom of God is within you. Trans. A.  Maude. New Delhi: Rupa. Tolstoy, L. (1908). A letter to a Hindoo: The subjection of India—Its cause and cure. The Literature Network. The Literature Network. Retrieved February 12, 2012, from THE HINDU KURAL. Wangchuk, R. N. (2019). An ode to frontier Gandhi, The man of peace who fought for a united India. Retrieved from https://www.thebetterindia.com/177052/ frontier-gandhi.

CHAPTER 3

Interviews with Survivors from  the Gandhi Era

Opening Vignette

Gandhi: From an Ordinary Man to a Mahatma—The Story, Recounted by His Family, Coworkers and Scholars When Gandhi left for London to study law, no one could have prophesied that this ordinary person would, one day, be placed on a pedestal or that he would become a Bapu (father) and a Mahatma (saint) to many. There are many incidents that reveal, that in reality, he was a very simple person, with a deep sense of humor and a great love and affection for all, especially children. Gandhi’s humor is, probably, best revealed at the incidence in the University College of London dining hall where one of his teachers, Mr. Peters, happened to be dining and Gandhi walked in and sat down at the very same table where his teacher was dining. It was well known to all that these two did not get along well with each other. Yet, Gandhi went and sat at the very table that Mr. Peters was occupying. The conversation reveals the lighter side of Gandhi: The professor, in his arrogance, said, ‘Mr. Gandhi you do not understand…a pig and a bird do not sit together to eat.’ To which Gandhi replies, ‘You do not worry professor, I will fly away’ and went and sat at another table. Mr. Peters was green in rage decides to take revenge on the next test, but Gandhi responds brilliantly to all questions. (Moulana 2015)

(continued) © The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_3

61

62 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

(continued)

Gandhi’s smile itself was infectious! Niranjana Kalarthi, of Bardoli, Gujarat, recounted an incident when British Prime Minister Churchill is said to have remarked that while we do not want to grant independence to India, “don’t send me to Gandhi, because when Gandhi smiles, I will not be able to refuse him anything.” Yet, there were other incidents to show that Gandhi faced the same controversies that many parents go through: the conflicts between father and child and the generation gap, all of which are common elements of parenthood. Nilam narrated how her grandfather, Gandhi’s son, Harilal, had wanted to go to London, like Gandhi, to study law. Gandhi had refused to send him, and, in revolt, Harilal adopted Islam. Gandhi was a very affectionate person but was, at the same time, a difficult person, as revealed by scholar Sanghavi, because of his insistence on values that formed the core of his personality. Our interviews with Gandhi’s grand-daughters brought out his love for children. He would tease his grand-daughters, and especially, his great grand-daughter, Nilam. He would tease her, pinch her, and, then would give her a fruit to appease her! Gandhi’s grand-­ daughter, Sumitra, recalled lovingly how Gandhi was deeply concerned about hygiene and would insist that she carried a clean, neatly folded “kerchief” all the time. Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari, who was to later become a leading lawyer and judge in the Bombay High Court, also recounted strolling around with Gandhi as a young boy, with each enjoying the company of the other. Gandhi, in other words, was much like other people of his era, a very average person as far as the family was concerned, but when it came to the resurrection of the community or fulfilling the needs of the people at large, he was an extraordinary person.

Interviews with Survivors from the Gandhi Era Much has been written by the Mahatma himself and considerable has been written by others. “Gandhi is perhaps the most documented man in history and yet his life and times remains a work in progress” (Kapoor 2014). Trying to tackle this enigma, the present authors came to the conclusion

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

63

that it would be of utmost importance to record, as much as possible, accounts from people who had witnessed the Gandhian era. These are people who had witnessed the Satyagrahas or worked with either him or his followers or were members of his family. They are, however, octogenarians and nonagenarians, and if we delay our project much further, we would lose them to posterity much as we have lost Narayan Bhai Desai (son of Gandhi’s secretary, Mahadev Desai). What would be a better way of reaching out to Mahatma Gandhi today? In fact, Thomas Weber, in his article, First Meetings with Gandhi (2014), writes: While there may be many factual errors, these are eye witness reports and important for that fact alone. And they provide us with a wealth of new material about Gandhi and elucidate the effect he had on those around him. (p. 57)

He also quotes Hallam Tennyson, who after his meeting with Gandhi wrote that this led him to discover: More of the essential greatness of Gandhi than we had ever learnt from studying his speeches or his life. India called him Bapu or Father. Before we met him, this merely seemed part of India’s passion for personalization. But afterwards we realized that it was because Gandhi himself had such an amazing gift for personalization that he had become Bapu to others. (p. 57)

Inspired by the above comments by leading scholars and much more, we started our project in 2014, making every effort to locate and contact Gandhian era persons. As we soon found out, it was an uphill task. However, with cooperation from a number of quarters, we found success and started on our road, attempting to map Gandhian philosophy through the eyes of people who had witnessed it firsthand. We are thankful to all those who helped us in contacting these survivors as also to the persons who permitted us to meet and talk to them. In the process we were able to glean considerable information and at the same time spend time with people who are totally immersed in the practice of nonviolence at the grassroots level. In this chapter, we have attempted to bring to the fore much of this information, including interviews with members of Mahatma Gandhi’s immediate family (his grand-daughters and great grand-­ daughter) and others who had participated in his movements and researchers from his era.

64 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

We first present excerpts of our interview of Ms. Sumitra Kulkarni, grand-daughter of Gandhi. Sumitra Kulkarni

Gandhi’s son Ramdas’ eldest daughter, Sumitra, is married to a retired professor of the premier Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, Gajanand Kulkarni. They live in Bangalore. Sumitra is an ex-IAS officer and is an ex-member of the upper house of the Indian Parliament, that is, the Rajya Sabha. They have three children, two sons and a daughter. Rita Agrawal, coauthor of this volume, met Sumitra Kulkarni in January 2017 in Bangalore. Born in October 1929, she is well past 85 years of age but continues to be extremely graceful, yet humble; her memory is razor sharp. She had spent most of her childhood vacations with Gandhi (Bapu, as she lovingly calls him) at various places, including Patna, Delhi and Pilani, and would be with him even when he was travelling. There were many small “sanskaras” (traditional values) that she had got from him. Very fondly she recounted his obsession for neatness, cleanliness, manners and etiquette: how he would insist that she must always wash her hands and

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

65

that not only must she always carry a handkerchief but that it must always be clean. In fact, he would insist that it should not only be clean but also be folded very neatly. Sumitra recalled that when she completed her matriculation, Gandhi did not want her to study any further. Rather, he wanted to train her to be his secretary. However, this was not to be. This was the time when Madan Mohan Malaviya had already established the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in Varanasi (both of the present authors, also, have strong affiliations to BHU—where Kool served as professor in the 1960s and Agrawal received her BA, MA and PhD). Malaviya insisted that since till now, no one from Gandhi’s family had studied in BHU, Gandhi should now send his grand-daughter Sumitra there. Malaviya refused to listen to any of Gandhi’s pleas, and so young Sumitra was sent to Women’s College, BHU, from where she completed her bachelor’s degree. Sumitra was thrilled to learn that we also hailed from Varanasi and that Women’s College, BHU, had also been my alma mater! Though it was so many years since she had left Varanasi, she recalled wonderful memories associated with the place and felt that her days at BHU laid her “buniyaad” (foundation) for later life. Thereafter, Sumitra recounted how she definitely wanted to be Gandhi’s assistant, much like Mahadev Bhai Desai. Gandhi had even agreed to that, but before that could take place, Gandhi was assassinated. She was only 18 years old at that time, but has very fond memories of him. Sumitra still remembers those days. She recalled that she had been with Gandhi till January 18 of that year, and when he was fatally attacked on January 30, she was shocked. She was in BHU when she was informed by the principal. No one in the family had expected that things would take such a course. She immediately left for Delhi, where her father was to perform the last rites. She recalled the huge crowd there and how it had been difficult for the train to even move forward once it neared the Jamuna Bridge near Delhi. The meeting next shifted to the reasons for the success of Satyagraha and Gandhi’s popularity. Sumitra was of the view that probably the most important factor was the huge trust that the people had for Bapu. The reason for this trust was that Bapu never manifested discrimination of any kind: whether on the basis of religion, language or region. Another important factor was Bapu’s honesty. It was manifested everywhere and in all facets of his life and work. A prime example of this honesty was in the way he would be very strict regarding the accounting of public money. When

66 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

he started the Harijan Fund, people, especially women, would come and deposit small amounts of money and even jewelry. Every evening, Gandhi would insist that all the donations be counted very carefully and deposited in the bank and would be extremely upset if even a single paisa (the Indian penny) was missing since he held himself to be accountable for each and every paisa of what was public money. This brought us to the topic of the role of women in Satyagraha during Gandhi’s lifetime. Sumitra informed us that at every meeting there were scores of women and Gandhi never stopped them from being actively involved. In fact, he would encourage them, and these women would come and donate whatever small savings they had to the Harijan Fund and do their utmost to help the satyagraha. It was the state of women again that was a prime reason for his giving up wearing of normal clothes. Out of curiosity we ventured to ask her when and why Bapu took to the single loin cloth that was to become his clothing, thereafter. Sumitra recounted the incident: a meeting at Champaran in 1919. It was here that Gandhi became aware of the extreme poverty of the local people with women barely having clothes to cover their body. He realized that the available per capita cloth was scant, being barely one and a half yards per person, which was hardly enough to even cover their bodies. This was when he decided to renounce regular clothes and took to wearing a small dhoti (loin cloth) and chaadar (shawl). (Later he renounced even the chaadar and started wearing only the small dhoti to cover the lower part only.) In this way, he felt he would be able to identify with every man, woman and child, no matter how poor: he would thus be able to reach the last person (Gandhi’s idea of “antodaya”). Sumitra felt that this was one reason why people from all over followed him. It was at Champaran again that he told people that “Desh ka kapda pehno par deshi nahi,” meaning that while we should be self-sufficient, we should not compromise on quality. The interview then went on to what Sumitra felt about the philosophy of education propounded by her grandfather, namely, Nai Talim. She was of the view that Nai Talim was an extremely good way of teaching and that the charkha helped to connect children to the history, geography and culture of their country. She felt that the system was relevant even today, probably, even more so. Times have changed, it is almost a hundred years since then, but one thing is still important: “children should be encouraged to do things by hand and by themselves. They should not be ashamed to help with the housework and this holds true for boys also. Their reliance and dependency on servants is not good.”

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

67

We ended the very informative interview with the relevance of Gandhi in the twenty-first century. Sumitra remarked that this is the strength of India: “so many people have attacked India, but she has always been able to keep her hold. The reason is our strong culture and history. This is our buniyaad (foundation) and we must never forget it.” We now move to our interview of Ms. Niranjana Kalarthi. Niranjana Kalarthi

Niranjana Kalarthi (on the right) with Rita Agrawal (behind)

Both of the present authors have been extremely fortunate to have met Ms. Niranjana Kalarthi several times as also to enjoy her hospitality. Simple, extremely soft spoken and totally unassuming, she proved to be a veritable treasure trove of information on Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel (freedom fighter and later Home Minister of India), the Patel Ashram and Museum and the Sardar Vidyalaya for girls. It was indeed a pleasure to talk to her and learn about the inspiration behind her life and work over the ages and what led her into this tremendous task of teaching (nay, mentoring would be a better term) tribal girls from far-flung, remote areas of Gujarat and other parts of the country. A tour through the Vidyalaya (school) was a

68 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

learning experience in itself. Following the Gandhian spirit, not only in word but also in deeds, we were surprised to find that there were no servants or helpers at all. The girls did all the work, including the cooking and the cleaning; they not only kept the precincts spotless but also excelled in academics. There was even a charkha room where every girl would do some spinning every day; they were given training in poultry farming and gardening, as also in yoga, arts and crafts. Indeed, it was a living example of Gandhi’s philosophy of Nai Talim! Niranjana or Ba (mother), as everyone in Bardoli calls her, was born in 1939. Her father, Uttam Chand Shah, had barely completed his high school and was a student of the intermediate class in Wilson College, Mumbai, when he heard about Gandhi and went to join him at Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad. Gandhi, however, sent him to Bardoli to become a volunteer in the village. Later, in 1921, Gandhi came to Bardoli, and though the Ashram had not taken shape, he started the noncooperation movement from there itself. The Ashram was finally started in 1923 by Vallabhbhai Patel on 24 acres of land, when it was felt that Bardoli was becoming the headquarters for the nationalist movement and a place would be needed where volunteers and their families could stay. While Niranjana’s mother passed away in 1976, her father, Uttam Chand Shah, continued to stay at Bardoli as trustee and secretary of the Ashram till his death in 1998. From Niranjana, we learned about her education and marriage. The young Niranjana’s early education was at Gramshala and later at the Vithal Kanya Vidyalaya Rashtriyashala, in Nadiad, Gujarat. In 1957 she joined the Gujarat Vidyapith for the degrees of BA and BEd This was where she met her husband Mukul Bhai Kalarthi, to whom she got married in 1961, much against the wishes of her family. Later, in 1969, she did her MEd from South Gujarat University and obtained her master’s degree in 1974. The husband-wife duo started the school in 1965 inaugurated by none other than Kaka Kalelkar (a noted freedom fighter), with her father as a trustee. Though almost 80 years of age, she continues to live in and manage the school even today, being helped by her daughter Pragna, who is a medical practitioner by profession, but as much a Gandhian as her grandfather and parents, in spirit, word and deed. Niranjana is passionate about Bardoli and the Gandhian movement and recounted many incidents related to Bardoli, Gandhi and Patel. While

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

69

many of the incidents took place before her birth and some when she was very small, Niranjana was extremely well versed regarding the events, and it was interesting to hear how Bardoli came to be the seat of nonviolence and Satyagraha. She took us around the Sardar Museum, and it was a rare treat listening to her commentary on the events chronicled there. Taking us through, gallery after gallery, she narrated how it all started in 1927 when the British increased local taxes and the villagers requested Gandhi to start a Satyagraha at Bardoli. Gandhi was unable to come to Bardoli and instead requested the villagers to contact his lawyer friend, Vallabhbhai Patel, who was staying at a nearby village. Patel agreed and in 1928, a Satyagraha was formally launched, known in history as the Bardoli Satyagraha. Within six months the satyagrahis were able to convince the British and the tax was abolished. A new slogan arose, “Bardolized India,” which echoed even in the British parliament. Vallabhbhai Patel was given the title of Sardar (chief) and people all over India gained confidence in Satyagraha. In 1930, Gandhi started his salt march from Dandi, and Patel, along with Niranjana’s father, was sent to jail for the first time, spending six years there. She recounted how Bardoli was significant for various other reasons, too. In 1931, it was in Bardoli that Gandhi found his first charkha (spinning wheel) and started the weaving of khadi. Thereafter, Bardoli was the place where charkhas were made and used by satyagrahis in other parts of India. In 1938, the 51st Congress Convention was held in a place near Bardoli. Niranjana informed us that though Gandhi had differences with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Gandhi made Netaji the Chairman of the Convention. Other landmark events took place in 1939 when Vinoba Bhave and many others came here for the first time on a personal Satyagraha followed by the Quit India Movement in 1942 in which even the children of the Ashram took part under the name of “banarsena” (army of monkeys). But soon her father was sent to jail, and the entire family was shifted to Sabarmati Ashram for three years. Niranjana still had memories of those times as also of the family’s trip to Delhi in 1949, of how they saw the place of Gandhi’s martyrdom and Patel in Parliament. That was the big day! She had many fond memories of Sardar Patel and the “banarsena.” She also remembered meeting Jawaharlal Nehru and others at the political party meetings such as the AICCI meetings. The interview then shifted to Gandhi’s values. While Satya and Ahimsa were the basic values of Gandhi, he also placed great importance on love:

70 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

he was full of love and compassion for everyone. For Gandhi, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (world as family) was not a slogan, it was something which must be followed in letter and spirit but even more so for children. Niranjana recounted an incident when British Prime Minister Churchill is said to have remarked that while we do not want to grant independence to India, “don’t send me to Gandhi, because when Gandhi smiles, I will not be able to refuse him anything.” Another incident was regarding the deep affection between Gandhi and his personal secretary Mahadev Bhai Desai. The two of them were together in Yerawada Jail, and even when Dr. Sushila Nayyar came and said that Desai is no more in August 1942, Gandhi went to Desai’s cell and said “get up.” On being asked why he said this, despite knowing that Desai was no more, Gandhi replied that Desai had always obeyed him while he was alive, and he had a vague feeling that such a person would obey him even now. The love between them was immense, and Gandhi cremated Desai at the jail only, saying that since Desai passed away first, it was as if his father had died and so he would cremate Desai in the same spirit. While alive, Desai would spend considerable time with Niranjana’s father. At another point of time, when Gandhi visited Bardoli, Patel asked Uttam Chand Shah to fix up an expensive dinner. On seeing the items laid out for dinner, Gandhi asked Uttam Chand whether he was running a hotel. Uttam Chand very simply replied by asking whom should he listen to: the guest Gandhi or the host, Patel? Gandhi patted him on his back and said that whatever he had done was right: bringing to the fore, the importance of values for Gandhi. Honesty was another hallmark of Gandhi. This is best clarified with how he would insist on accounting for every paisa (an Indian currency) of the donations made to the Kasturba Trust founded after the death of Kasturba in 1944. Regarding what triggered the Gandhian spirit in Niranjana and how did she come to imbibe the Gandhian philosophy? She claims that the inspirational force was her father. He was her ideal and role model, always encouraging her to stand on her own feet. Despite various problems, she remains relentless and has been able to do the kind of work she has always cherished and to carry forward the torch of education.

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

71

Ela Ramesh Bhatt

We next got a chance to meet Ela Ramesh Bhatt, an eminent person having won various awards for her work. She was born on September 7, 1933, in the city of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Her father was a successful lawyer, while her mother was an activist of women groups and was also Secretary of the All India Women’s Conference during the freedom struggle of India. Young Ela spent her childhood in Surat and later joined the law college in Ahmedabad to pursue a degree in law. She got married to another activist, Ramesh Bhatt, who is no more, having passed away in 1993. Ela is not only an activist and Gandhian but is also an organizer of cooperative societies and is the brain behind the well-known women organization, SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Association of India) founded in 1972. She served as its general secretary from 1972 to 1996. Bhatt has received a large number of awards including honorary doctorate degrees from various universities such as Harvard University; Yale University; Universite libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; and University of Natal, South Africa. She has been the recipient of civil awards from the Government of India such as Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize, the Ramon Magsaysay Award and other prestigious international awards for her efforts regarding the empowerment of women in India. She is the author of We Are Poor But So Many: The Story of

72 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Self-Employed Women in India (2006) and Anubandh (2015), both of which have been translated into various languages. In February 2016, one of us (V. K. Kool) interviewed Ela Bhatt, and we give below some of the excerpts from this meeting. Eighty-four-year-old Ela Ramesh Bhatt is at present Chancellor of the Gujarat Vidyapith in Ahmedabad and despite her age remains as active as ever. Talking about her childhood, Bhatt revealed that her father was an eminent lawyer, more on the British traditions, but her mother, though a housewife, came from a family of freedom fighters well ensconced in the spirit of nonviolence. Her mother’s father though a civil surgeon by profession had never met Gandhi personally but was so influenced by his public addresses that he gave up his job and joined the Dandi March organized by Gandhi. Similarly, her mother’s brother was also actively involved in the freedom struggle. Regarding her education, Ela said that she joined college in 1947 and received her LLB degree in 1952. It was here that she met and later got married to her classmate, Ramesh Bhatt, who came from a poor background, but was nevertheless a student leader and member of the Youth Congress. Asked about what triggered her involvement with issues of women empowerment, she replied that after getting her degree in law, she joined the women’s wing of the Textile Labour Association (TLA) movement led by activist Anasuya Sarabhai who was soon to become her mentor. This was the beginning which grew larger as days went by. In the beginning, they fought small cases involving labor workers and other labor issues and even worked with labor inspectors. The work was certainly not easy since there was considerable discrimination against women lawyers and even basic facilities such as toilets for women lawyers were hard to come by. Another important aspect brought up in the meeting was regarding how she got women to accept nonviolence. What we were looking for was her script for nonviolence. Bhatt is of the view that poverty itself is a form of violence making people vulnerable. As far as women are concerned, only a small proportion of them were part of the organized labor force. With the closure of textile mills in Ahmedabad, these women lost their jobs. The women continued to manage the home front but got no support. Bhatt was soon to realize that even though they were not organized they were laborious and contributed as much as 30% to the family income,

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

73

but their wages were extremely low. This was the backdrop against which SEWA was created in 1972. Working on the now famous “100-mile principle” that the basic needs of everyone such as those of “roti, kapda and makaan” (i.e., food, clothing and shelter) should be met within a 100-­ mile radius, the organization is now over four decades old and is fast expanding. She stepped down in 1996 after having groomed many woman leaders, who are now managing the well-known organization. The meeting ended on the note of what she disliked most. Her answer was that while she had a distinct dislike for fireworks, three things that she just cannot tolerate are wastage of money, inequality and injustice. 

Nilam Parikh

Nilam Parikh is Gandhi’s great, grand-daughter. Her grandfather was Gandhi’s eldest son, Harilal Mohandas Gandhi. During his youth, Harilal had wanted to go to England to study law and become a barrister much like his father, but Gandhi had refused to send him saying that his leaving the country would not help the Indian struggle for independence. Becoming totally frustrated, Harilal decided to renounce all ties with the family and got converted to Islam. However, as Gandhi had predicted, Harilal followed Islam for a very brief period, reconverting to Arya Samaj Hinduism very soon. Nilam is the daughter of Harilal’s eldest daughter,

74 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Ramiben. Today, she lives in Navsari, Gujarat, with her son who is an eye surgeon. A true Gandhian, she wears only khadi even today. She has spent her life working for the upliftment of poor, tribal women with an organization, Dakshinapath. She is also an author of a biography of her grandfather, Harilal, entitled Gandhiji’s Lost Jewel: Harilal Gandhi which has been widely acclaimed and was later made into a movie Gandhi, My Father by Feroze Abbas Khan. V. K. Kool had the opportunity to interact with her in February 2017 in Navsari. We give below the basic contents emanating out of the meeting. The meeting started with questions related to her childhood. According to Nilam, she was born in Rajkot, but has spent most of her life in Mumbai. Her father worked with Zandu Pharmacy, while her mother Rami, daughter of Gandhi’s eldest son Harilal, was a housewife. Much like other girls of that era in India, Nilam had an arranged marriage in 1957. Her husband, Yogendra Parikh, had a degree in agriculture and trained farmers. Nilam had completed her BA before marriage but continued her studies even after marriage to attain her master’s degree and also a BEd degree. They lived near Bardoli, in Vyara, where she became the principal of a school which followed the Gandhian system of education, namely, Buniyadi Shiksha. At the same time, she was never affiliated to any political party. Rather, it was the strong influence of her mother’s brother, Kantibhai Gandhi, a doctor working to serve workers in Mumbai and Dhond, near Pune, which got her involved in social work. Asked about her memories of Gandhi, the incident that came to her mind immediately was the way Gandhi would joke around with her and tease her. And, when she would complain, he would give her a fruit! Also, it was Gandhi who inspired her to do something for other people. At the same time, while being involved in social work, she remarked that she never reveals the fact that she belongs to the Gandhi family: this brings in its wake, peace of mind and a joy in serving others. What would be her suggestion to followers of Gandhi? According to Nilam, to understand Gandhi, one must work at the grassroots level, meaning that one must visit villages and sit with the villagers. Only then would one be able to understand Gandhi.

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

75

Bhawani Charan Patnaik

Bhawani Charan Patnaik (in the middle) with V. K. Kool (on the left)

Bhawani Charan Patnaik, ex-MP of the Rajya Sabha, was interviewed by V. K. Kool in January 2017 in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. They started the meeting with some biographical details. Patnaik was born on May 11, 1922, and is presently around 95 years old. He was the only son of his parents with six sisters. He got married to Vasant Manjushri, who unfortunately passed away in 2013. He has served three terms in the Rajya Sabha (the Upper House of the Indian Parliament) between 1961 and 1984 and has been Chairman of the Kalinga Foundation. Recently, the President of the Government of India honored him with Padma Shree, a prestigious award given to distinguished citizens of the country. The meeting then went on to how he became a Gandhi follower. He recounted an incident from 1932, when he was only 10 years of age, of how he had joined a march with other Gandhi followers. Someone complained to the police and as a result he was punished. In school too, all the other students were given sweets, but he was denied this delicacy. Though

76 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

this made him furious, it also made him even more determined to participate in such a march again. His wife, Vasant Manjushri, was also active, though, at the local level. However, as long as Patnaik’s parents were alive, she was confined mostly to the home and looked after the family, as was the tradition in most Indian homes. When asked about a typical day of a Gandhian activist, Patnaik replied that there was no set routine and that it depended on what was required on that particular day. People would participate accordingly. He also recounted how he was sent to prison in 1942 and remained there till 1946, serving a total period of three years and six months. During this time he shared the prison cell with Pilot Biju Patnaik who was later to become the Chief Minister of Orissa. He also recounted how they managed to script nonviolence among fellow prisoners through both word and act. He would not only help in disseminating the message of Gandhi but would also personally clean toilets and carry the night soil both in prison and outside. Patnaik emphasized that Gandhi belonged to everyone and elaborated how Gandhi himself was very inclusive. People would not care about the size of the group: what was important were the mission and the message. In fact, this was all that mattered to Gandhi, who was least concerned about whether he received international accolades or not. Yet, Patnaik was of the view that politics cannot remain at the local level. While local politics helps to serve local interests, we have to look beyond and be inclusive if we are to serve the broader interest. The meeting concluded on the note that Patnaik felt that being involved in the Gandhian movement was his most valuable experience and one that he has never regretted. He was convinced that nonviolence actually works and that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose would have failed in his mission because of the very violent ways he was using. He ended by saying that Gandhi’s message was extremely simple: “priti karo, seva karo” (love others, serve others). Asked about whether he would recommend any person who could be called the living legend of Gandhi, he replied that one such person is Dr. S. N. Subba Rao of NYP. Even as we are finalizing this book, we learned of the demise of Bhawani Charan Patnaik on the May 14, 2020. May his soul rest in peace. We are, certainly, lucky to have met this gentleman, from whom we were able to glean valuable experiences and observations regarding Gandhi.

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

77

Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari was born on November 27, 1927, at Raipur, in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh and now the capital of Chhattisgarh. Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari was acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and has received a number of prestigious awards, including the Padma Bhushan and the Jamnalal Bajaj Award. His publications include Bharatiya  nayaya Pranali: Disha  aur  dasha, Gandhi: Prahar aur prabhaav, Contemplating Gandhi and more. In February 2017, V. K. Kool had a meeting with Justice Dharmadhikari, and they discussed various issues at great length. His father, Dada Dharmadhikari, was a close associate of Gandhi, and thus, even as a boy, Chandrashekhar got many opportunities for meeting and becoming close to Gandhi. This meeting revealed much about not only Gandhi but also about the relevance of Gandhi to modern life and times. Some of the aspects discussed were as follows:

Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari (right) and V. K. Kool (left)

Dharmadhikari was of the view that it is not easy to manage the inner struggle between Gandhian principles and the demands of the present world. A prime example is how, as a High Court Judge, Dharmadhikari had to administer capital punishment, much against his Gandhian beliefs of ahimsa. He revealed how he was unable to cope with the pressure,

78 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

becoming ill and as a consequence developed diabetes. Yes, it is not easy to be a Gandhian in spirit and undertake actions contrary to these values, but it is important that one remains neutral and calm and refrains from becoming passionate. He gives the example of Gandhi, who was not a philosopher but an experimentalist. Whenever he faced conflicting views, he would focus on the end result. Thus, thought is different from thinking: it is only when thinking becomes stagnant that it becomes thought, leading to fragmentation and bringing conflicts in its wake. If one continues to think as Gandhi did, never allowing it to stagnate, conflicts wane into the background. Along the same lines, he went on to recount that it was from his father, Dada Dharmadhikari, that he learned that it is not work which makes one tired, rather it is the worries associated with it that causes fatigue. Therefore, what one needs to avoid is worrying about work. As far as judicial work is concerned, Dharmadhikari is of the view that judges must focus on the social good. In a very befitting analogy, he exclaimed that since judges come in closed “buggies,” they often failed to perceive the real problems of the people. The meeting then went on to discuss his views on technology. He emphasized that he felt there was a clear difference between modernity and modernism. Firstly, regarding technology, he insisted that the adoption of technology must not lead to exploitation: in his words, “we have hands but we cannot cut hands and replace them with a hammer.” Compassion and sympathy must reign supreme in our use of technology. In fact, while illustrating the difference between modernism and modernity, he opined that we should see the charkha as a symbiosis in revolution. His question was, “why should we compromise with the poor?” Thus, modernism should be need based and not greed based, and one way through which that need can be exemplified is by khadi: it can lead to equality between the rich and the poor. According to him, a gun cannot frighten the poor, because power and money cannot buy everything and no amount of temptation can seduce a person, who, though poor, has certain values. In fact, khadi clarifies the link between the producer and the consumer by getting rid of the difference between the two, since the person who produces khadi is also the one who uses it, “jo soot kaate, wohi pehne.” At the same time, the local economy must be sustained and khadi offers a very viable solution for that. Asked about his opinion regarding the relevance of Gandhi in the modern context, he was clear that the problems of the twenty-first century were different from those in Gandhi’s time. If Gandhi had been alive

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

79

today, he would surely have approached them in a very different way. Who knows, maybe Gandhi would have had his own laptop! This is where leaders of today are different from Gandhi. The modern leaders can only be called “dealers” because a true leader must be able to perceive the times and change accordingly. The meeting ended with Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari wondering why is it that even though the younger generation has great potential, they are not developing along the right path: why is it that wisdom is being lost in knowledge; knowledge is being lost in education; education is being lost in information and information is being lost in Doordarshan (TV)? 

Nagin Das Sanghavi

Professor Nagin Das Sanghavi was born in 1920, got his master’s degree from the University of Mumbai in 1947 and has taught in three renowned colleges in Mumbai for over 30 years. Even after his retirement, he continues to write for both English and Gujarati journals. His book, Agony of Arrival: Gandhi in South Africa (2006) is a volume based on considerable research and has been widely acclaimed. A well-known historian and political scientist, he continues to research and write, and though well into his 90s, as he himself remarked, he has several books in the pipeline. We would be failing in our duty if we do not take this opportunity to bring to the fore another important facet of Sanghavi’s life. He plays a very important role at the religious discourses (kathas) of the well-known proponent of the Ram Charitmanas, Morari Bapu. For many years he has acted as a translator during Bapu’s kathas across many Western countries, where the youth do not understand Hindi or Gujarati very well. Each

80 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

morning, the katha begins with a brief but highly accurate synopsis of the previous day’s discourse, and the person creating and delivering the synopsis is none other than the nonagenarian Nagin Das Sanghavi or “Bappa” as Bapu, and his followers call him! Rita Agrawal met him in January 2016. The meeting started with how Sanghavi came to be interested in the life and work of Gandhi. He replied that though he had never met Gandhi, he became interested in him as a political scientist, in an attempt to understand and analyze Gandhi as a political leader. Moreover, the scarcity of books on Gandhi was an additional factor. Retrospecting over his analysis of Gandhi, Sanghavi pointed out the difficulties that come our way when we try to understand Gandhi. The most important aspect to remember is that Gandhi was far from being a unitary person, manifesting facets that are often difficult to reconcile. The primary reason for this is that Gandhi was always evolving and consciously changing his behavior as he went along his experiments with truth. Even the famous psychologist and author of the Pulitzer Award book, Gandhi’s Truth, Erikson, could not understand Gandhi, at times. To prove his point, Sanghavi relates a number of incidents: one, that in the 1920s, Gandhi was opposed to intercaste marriages, but by 1940 that had changed and he would attend a wedding only if at least one person was from the scheduled caste. Another incident related to when Gandhi first went to South Africa. At that time, he was passionate about publicity. In fact, he would keep a list of journalists who he felt would support him and he would then meet them according to this list. By 1920, however, he had lost all interest in publicity. Some of the other contradictions pointed out by Nagin Das were as follows: • Though a political leader, he was never hungry for power. • Though a conservative person, he was also a revolutionary. • He loved children but also administered very harsh punishments. • He was very generous but also a miser. • He was very hard-hearted but also very compassionate. Laughingly, Sanghavi remarked that personally speaking, perhaps, he would not like to have Gandhi as a friend: “he was a difficult person.” Gandhi was a perfectionist and would not tolerate either his own mistakes or those of others. As his secretary Mahadev Desai had put it, it is easier to stay on top of a volcano than to stay with Gandhi for even a day! Sanghavi went on to remark that this was the hallmark of every “mahapurush”

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

81

(great people), “they are like the Himalayas: we admire them but would not want to endure the hardships faced when in their midst.” Gandhi’s hard-heartedness also stemmed from the same fact: “he was a mahapurush.” To many, it seemed that he did not care for his family. This was because for every mahapurush, his values are foremost, and it was because of these values that the wives of each and every mahapurush would never leave them. Nagin Das gave the example of another mahapurush, Karve, the founder of SNDT College in Mumbai. When Karve got married to a person from a lower caste, the students refused to eat the food cooked by her. Karve then asked them if his wife could wash the utensils. The students agreed to this, and she started doing all the cleaning but never complained. As far as controversies are concerned, Nagin Das also brought up the topic of Gandhi’s relationships with women. He was of the view that if we go back to the definition of ahimsa in the Patanjali Yoga Sutras, it says that once you are truly nonviolent, violence will completely disappear and you will reach the stage of true brahmacharya: it was this stage that Gandhi wanted to reach and was constantly testing whether he had attained that level of celibacy. While on the topic of woman, Nagin Das provided a very interesting analysis. According to him, the portrait of the ideal woman, characterized by Sita, is totally different in the Ramayana written by Valmiki from that in the Ram Charitmanas written by Tulsidas. The former portrayed Sita as having a very strong character, “a burning fire, it gives you warmth but if you put your finger in it, it will burn you.” Tulsidas’ Sita was much more submissive. If Gandhi had read the Ramayana, his concept of women would have been very different. Sanghavi also felt that social institutions have not adjusted to modern life and the new woman. “Indian society worships Lakshmi, Kali and Saraswati but when have we allowed women to work, to have a weapon to fight or to get educated?” Unfortunately, there are still many reservations regarding these three aspects. It has often been said that though Gandhi was a devout Hindu, many of his values were very Christian. As Sanghavi remarked, “he was born in India, but shaped outside India, in England and South Africa.” For example, Gandhi had always pushed the concept of prayer and even community prayer meetings. Similarly, he laid a strong emphasis on social service. All of these are values he inculcated from Christianity, as also the focus on punctuality and devotion to people.

82 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Sanghavi pointed out that during the last three years of his life, Gandhi was very miserable mainly because he was a visionary, not a politician. He took on all the shortcomings and wrongdoings of society as being due to faults within himself such that he was not able to correct these faults. All prophets seem to fail, so also Gandhi was misunderstood during his era. We have to keep in mind that he was a mahatma, as exemplified by his capacity to renounce, to sacrifice and to suffer. He was not a political leader. At the same time, Sanghavi said, “don’t place him on a pedestal, treat him as a human being.” Asked about how Gandhi would have reacted to the modern world, Sanghavi was clear that Gandhi would have faced no problems and would have adjusted. It was such a remarkable meeting! Before we realized, almost two hours had passed and yet the nonagenarian Nagin Das was as fresh as ever! Despite his age, he is tireless, and once he starts talking about Gandhi, he can go on and on. His storehouse of knowledge based on a lifetime of reading and research just spills out. The meeting ended with him treating us to tea that he insisted on making himself accompanied with some very tasty biscuits from none other place but Bardoli! 

Usha Gokani

Usha Gokani is the younger of the two daughters of Ramdas, the third son of Gandhi. Ramdas was born and raised in South Africa and as a result had actively participated in many of his father’s civil protests. He was married to Nirmal. They had two daughters and a son, one of whom was

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

83

Usha. V.  K. Kool was able to meet the 84-year-old grand-daughter of Gandhi, Usha Gokani, at her residence in Mumbai in February 2017. Asked about her childhood and her parents, Usha Gokani said that she is the daughter of Gandhi’s third son Ramdas. She was born in 1934 in the town of Wardha, Gujarat, and has one sister Sumitra Kulkarni and one brother. Her father worked in Tata Oil Mills. Usha graduated from Morris College, Nagpur, and got married to Harish Gokani in 1955, and they have two sons—one is a physician in Mumbai, while the younger one is a computer scientist in Calgary Canada. Harish passed away in 1983. Usha Gokani has always taken a keen interest in activities associated with her grandfather Gandhi, for example, in the Rise Up program in Kolkata a few years back. At another meeting in Vijayawada in 2011, she put on record that Gandhi is more relevant today than ever before and recalled how eight Nobel Prize winners, after very serious discussions on the various problems of the world, came to the conclusion that following the Gandhian path was the only way to solve the myriad problems of the world. She now lives in Mumbai with her son and his family. From 2007 to date, she has been chairperson of the famous Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, started in 1955 when Mani Bhavan was formally handed over to the, then, Gandhi Memorial Society. Regarding her memories of Gandhi, Ms. Gokani recollected a number of things. First and foremost, since the young Usha was shy by nature, her grandfather Gandhi would often attempt to make her laugh: he would turn and twist his face into various contortions and play with her, showing once again the extent to which Gandhi loved children. On being asked what drew her toward Gandhi and his philosophy, she remarked that Gandhi just could not tolerate anything that was not proper or which was unjust and recalled how he would become exceedingly upset on seeing injustice being done to any person. At the same time, he would otherwise remain very cheerful, even while he would be fasting (which he did on many occasions), and would always focus on cleanliness. However, the young Usha was more impressed by her grandmother, Kasturba, who, she felt, knew and understood Gandhi very well. Asked to give a message for the young girls of today, she said that they should be brave and that they should not be afraid.

84  

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Radha Bhatt

As far as the Indian freedom struggle is concerned, women have played an important role in all facets of the struggle. Women leaders emerged from towns, big and small, and a number of names come to mind, including those of Sarojini Naidu, Kamala Nehru, Kamala Devi Chattopadhyay, Aruna Asaf Ali, Usha Mehta, Amalprava Das, Pushpalata Das, Chandraprava Saikiani and others. Even after independence, women continued to play an important role in constructive programs. Kumari Radha Bhatt was one of them. Starting at the Lakshmi Ashram, the process got further strengthened with the formation of the Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust under the aegis, of which, a large number of women started working at the grassroots level for the upliftment of women and children. This emergence of women can be attributed to none other than the leadership of the Mahatma himself. As pointed out by Natwar Thakkar (2008), founder Secretary of the Nagaland Gandhi Foundation, Gandhi rightly claimed that: Though satyagraha has automatically brought India’s women out from their darkness as nothing else could have in such an incredibly short space of time, Congressmen have not felt the call to see that women became equal partners in the fight for swaraj. They have not realized that woman must be the true helpmate of man in the mission of service. Woman has been suppressed

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

85

under custom and law for which man was responsible and in the shaping of which she had no hand. In a plan of life based on non-violence woman has as much right to shape her own destiny as man has to shape his. (Gandhi 1941)

Thakkar continues writing about Radha Bhatt: One unique feature of Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for India’s freedom was his motivation to a large number of young men and women to work for implementation of constructive programme as drawn out by him while all political activities like offering of satyagraha, civil disobedience, non-­ cooperation, etc., were also taking place under his direction. He had seen to it that the efforts for national reconstruction through people’s own initiative also continued. The individuals involved in constructive work were described as constructive workers. Radha Bahan Bhatt is one of the senior constructive workers of our country. She was born in an interior village of the Himalayas and hence she is a daughter of the Himalayas.

Fondly known as the daughter of the Himalayas, Radha Bhatt was born on October 1933 in the small town of Almora in Uttarakhand. In 1951, she joined Lakshmi Ashram, a school started by Sarala, a Britisher by birth, but who had joined Gandhi in his fight for equality and freedom. Bhatt has been attached to the school for more than 30 years and even today lives and works in the town of Kausani, close to Almora. She has been actively involved with the Chipko Movement and other padyatras (walks) undertaken for various causes. She has received a large number of awards for her work, including the Jamnalal Bajaj Award and the Indira Priyadarshini Environment Award, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. She has served on many boards in various capacities, including the Gandhi Peace Foundation, of which she was chairperson. V. K. Kool had a meeting with her in February 2017, in which Radha Bhatt recounted many interesting aspects about her life and work. Asked about her childhood, Radha said that she was born in Dhurka, a small village in Uttarakhand. Her father served in the army, and she was the eldest of five sisters and a brother. As far as Gandhi was concerned, though Radha Bhatt had never met him, she always had a deep respect for him. Moreover, whenever she heard about nonviolent satyagrahis being beaten and physically tortured, she would become very sad and even shed tears. When she learned about Gandhi’s death, three days after he died, both Radha and her uncle were devastated: this is what changed her life. She joined Lakshmi Ashram, the

86 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

girls’ school started by Sarala and continued working there till the death of Sarala in 1982. Radha is as humble and self-effacing as we found all true Gandhian workers to be. The most unique part about this interview was that Radha Bhatt spoke less about herself and more about her mentor, Sarala, the daughter of a British Army Officer who came from England and worked with Gandhi for the independence of India. Radha recounted that Sarala was actually a Britisher and that her name was Catherine Mary Heilemann, but because of her German lineage, her family was looked upon with suspicion during the war. She took training in nursing and tried to meet Gandhi when he came to England for the Round Table Conference but was not successful in doing so. Later, she wrote a letter to Gandhi and was helped by an Indian student in the UK, one Mohan Singh Mehta, to come to India. When she finally met Gandhi, he tested her determination in many ways: he asked her to clean the dirt from cotton and even to remove night soil. Her willingness to do both soon convinced Gandhi about her determination to serve India and the cause of Indian Independence, and he accepted her joining him. Later, she was even sent to prison like other satyagrahis. Radha Bhatt recounted another incident from the life of Sarala: when questioned by an Indian District Magistrate as to why she was participating in the agitation, her reply was through another question, “even though I am a Britisher, I am fighting for India, what are you doing as an Indian?” The result of this was that she not only received the harshest punishment but also suffered a severe loss of identity. Another important facet of her recollection was how Sarala would always insist on touching Gandhi’s feet even though he would always stop her from doing so. After Gandhi’s death, Sarala established a girls’ school named Lakshmi Ashram in Kausani, near Almora. This was where she was joined by Radha Bhatt, who continued there till 1982, when Sarala died. Sarala’s determination to meet and work with the satyagrahis would make her go to Almora and when she was under house arrest even the dangerous jungles failed to stop her from traversing them and meeting the nonviolent agitators. Her most frustrating experience was during the Indo-Chinese war when all foreigners, including Sarala, were asked to go out of India. Though Sarala initially insisted on staying, she later moved to South India, returning to Kausani only after many years. Despite feeling that she had been betrayed by her adopted country, India, and in spite of all the difficulties, she never went back to England.

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

87

In Radha Bhatt, we see the same determination and courage that was the hallmark of Sarala. Over 84  years of age, one is taken aback by her dedication and stamina: she continues to be active, travelling in and around India, taking part in many diverse activities. Radha has recounted many of her experiences in her extraordinary book Mana: Himalaya ki Beti, translated into a number of languages, including Danish and Swedish.

Conclusions When we started this project of interviewing Gandhi era survivors, we were looking for answers to many questions. For example, what was this “attitude of mind” that Gandhi mentions as the primary obstacle to nonviolence and how can it be changed? What was it that made these people choose this Gandhian path of change? Were there difficulties that they faced once they had decided? As far as women are concerned, did they have to overcome greater resistance from the society and their families? Other questions were related to Gandhi himself. What, in their view, were the reasons for Gandhi’s charisma and popularity? What were the ideals of Gandhi which endeared him to the people at large? And perhaps, most important, what is the relevance of these ideals and values for the twenty-­ first century? Last but not the least, what is their message for the youth of today? What were to be interviews ended up as being informal but lengthy discussions, with each person providing us with a wealth of ideas and facts? Never in the wildest of our dreams had we thought that we would be able to learn so much. Nor had we thought that once contacted, these great persons, each eminent in his or her sphere, would be so humble, so ready to help us! Well, this was what we gleaned from our interviews and meetings with nine people, ranging from family members to active workers and to even historians! Not only did we collect a treasure trove of material, we learned a lot and that too from the proverbial horse’s mouth. Saying that it was truly worth the effort would be barely enough. What Were the Learnings? 1. First and foremost it is clear that nonviolence is within each and every one of us. As Gandhi himself remarked at one stage, it is as old as the hills. Each of the persons interviewed was of the view that people followed Gandhi, not through force but because they really wanted to. A

88 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

good example is of the people of Bardoli. Niranjana recounted the entire saga of the Bardoli Satyagraha to us. People voluntarily approached Gandhi to start a Satyagraha to solve their problems with the British government. Even though they knew fully well, the ways through which Gandhi operated, they insisted that only Gandhi would be able to solve their problems. Gandhi’s grand-daughter Sumitra too pointed out how women would attend every meeting and readily donate whatever small savings they had for the Harijan Fund. The shocked and tearful crowd in Delhi seen by the young Sumitra at the funeral of Gandhi provides further testimony. Why did they love him? Why did they follow his ideals? It is because Gandhi engaged something that is there in each one of us. What is needed is to tap this innate and perhaps sometimes inert spirit of nonviolence in the right way and demonstrate its salience for the people. Kool has attempted to explain the underlying psychology in his book (Psychology of Nonviolence and Aggression, 2008; Kool and Agrawal 2009), on the basis of the two systems of cognition (Kahneman 2011). We have also made reference to it in Chap. 1. As a result, when we have to make a choice between the use of violence or nonviolence in our daily life, the first quick response is that of violence. Only when we think over the matter in depth, evaluate all the pros and cons of the choices that we soon find that nonviolence leads to greater benefits than violence. This was what Gandhi was able to achieve. His charisma lay as much in his personality as in the way in which he could persuade people to think and use System 2 of cognition. As is always said, he did not use brute force, he asked people to listen to their heart; he used soul force. Each interview brought us only closer to this fact, the reasons for these people choosing to live the kind of lives they are living and the values that they have espoused. 2. Truth or “satya” was the hallmark of Gandhi. He spent his entire life carrying out experiments with truth and saved these experiments for posterity in the form of his autobiography. Similarly, it is important that we engage in such experiments regarding nonviolence at our own personal level, and for this, we must start with experiments on ourselves. Given a certain situation, how will I choose to respond? Will I choose the first reaction which comes to mind, namely, violence, or will I think twice and choose the nonviolent mode? Through the use of a psychological questionnaire constructed by Kool and his students (popularly known as The Nonviolence Test reported in Chap. 6 of this volume and

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

89

also available free of cost at http://www.nonviolencetest.net), a number of such situations were devised. Thousands of people have used this questionnaire to understand their reactions to situations, and it has been translated into many languages. More recently, three prisons in Maryland, USA, have demonstrated that such a personal encounter involving choices between violence and nonviolence through the questionnaire can be used to reduce violence among even prisoners (for more information, see website www.gemstone.umd.edu). Again, as we have emphasized earlier, people must be given an opportunity to make choices. They must be made to think about it. As Gandhi also agreed, choosing nonviolence is not easy, but it is not impossible as evidenced by the scores of people who had and are still choosing nonviolence over violence as their characteristic mode of response. Gandhi even provided the technique, “anuvrat,” taking small vows that keep us from falling prey to the temptation to be violent. 3. Another salient feature brought out by the interviews is that many of the people who followed Gandhi were fearless. They followed their convictions, much as Milgram’s subjects did, and chose to do what they felt to be right. At least two examples can be drawn from the people we interviewed. The first is Niranjana Kalarthi, the lady who runs the school for tribal girls in Bardoli, Gujarat. Much against the wishes of her family and the community, she married a person from outside her caste group (something unheard of in India at that time) because she felt that he was the right person for her and her values. That she had made the right choice is clear from the ways in which they worked together to build up the school based on the Gandhian principles of education. The second person whom we would like to refer to in this context is the Britisher, Sarala (referred to by Radha Bhatt), who left her country and her people to work with and for Gandhi. 4. The interview of Justice Dharmadhikari clarified the deep moral conflicts faced while attempting to follow Gandhian principles. As pointed out in Chap. 1, it is easier to espouse moral values and engage in moral reasoning, as Kohlberg’s subjects were made to do in his studies on moral dilemmas, but putting them into practice could be a totally different matter. So intense were the moral dilemmas faced by Dharmadhikari in his profession as a judge, that he fell ill and developed diabetes as a result. Yet, this did not stop him from using his values in taking the decisions and delivering the judgments. What helped him was patience and equanimity of mind.

90 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

5. The interviews also brought to the fore that truly nonviolent people or people who follow the Gandhian tradition are humble, even self-­ effacing. They do not carry their achievements on their sleeve and refrain from talking about them. The vast majority of the people interviewed had written books and papers and contributed to various newspapers and journals but hardly did they ever mention it. Justice Dharmadhikari and Nagin Das Sanghavi are prolific writers, but they did not even mention the books or papers they have written and the wide acclaim they have received. A few of them had spent years in jail and suffered great hardships during the freedom struggle but did not think or talk too much about it. Patnaik is a good example of this. Radha Bhatt was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but refrained from mentioning either this point or the other awards she has received. Ela Bhatt has received a large number of honorary degrees and won prestigious awards. Sumitra Kulkarni did not mention her highly acclaimed volume: Mahatma Gandhi: Mere Pitamah. Nilam has written a book on Gandhi’s son Harilal that had been made into a movie, Gandhi, My Father, based on her personal and intimate knowledge of Gandhi family. She mentioned it but only as a passing remark. Niranjana Kalarthi works arduously for the tribal girls but makes light of it. 6. Recent research has pointed out that by eight years of age, children are exposed to over 150,000 episodes of violence. In stark contrast, how many events of nonviolence does she/he ever witness? She has many people on whom she can model her own violent reactions, but does she have any role models for nonviolence? The life and work of the people we interviewed has clarified that while they were inspired by Gandhi and his direct followers, they are, in turn, acting as role models for other people. Each one of them is pursuing some such activity that leads to not only the dissemination of Gandhian values and ideals but also to actual constructive work at the grassroots level. The self-help groups culminating in the organization SEWA founded by Ela Bhatt and the pursuits of Radha Bhatt at Kausani and other places are a good example of this. Usha Gokani continues to work arduously at Mani Bhavan, Mumbai, while the unassuming Nilam in her own way has done much to carry the torch forward. In conclusion we would like to say that, the world over, Gandhian nonviolence and satyagraha have proved their worth. The need of the hour is to provide sound scientific evidence to show that nonviolence works. A

3  INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS FROM THE GANDHI ERA 

91

recent volume published in Europe has done just this: the authors have collected data from countless agitations and have established thereby that the success rate of nonviolence is much higher than that of violence (Chenoweth and Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, 2011). But, one stray volume or a few books and papers in journals are not enough. Even in India, over and above those documented in this paper, there are a large number of organizations engaged in work of the kind advocated by Gandhi. They include nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and even trusts run by religious leaders. They, however, remain known only to the region in which they operate, and if they are not documented, they would be soon lost to oblivion. Our effort is a small step in this direction, and we are extremely grateful to all those who participated in the interviews and, also, those who made these interviews possible.

References Bhatt, E. (2015). Anubandh: Building hundred mile communities. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. New York: Columbia University Press. Gandhi, M.  K. (1941/1945/2005). Constructive programmes, its meaning and place. Ahmedabad: Navajiwan Publishing House. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New  York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kapoor, P. (2014). My experiment with Gandhi. Seminar, 662, 68–73. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2009). The psychology of nonkilling. In D. J. Christie & J. E. Pim (Eds.), Nonkilling psychology (pp. 145–174). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Moulana, S.  H. (2015). Gandhi’s brilliance and non-violent response! Asian Tribune, Friday, June 6. Sanghavi, N.  D. (2006). The agony of arrival: Gandhi, the South African years. New Delhi: Rupa. Thakkar, N. (2008). Kumari Radha Bhatt: A daughter of the Himalayas. indianfolklore.org, 2(6). Weber, T. (2014). First meeting with Gandhi. Seminar, 662, 54–58.

CHAPTER 4

The Building Blocks of Gandhi’s Nonviolence

Opening Vignette: When Gandhi Became Gandhi

The Transvaal government was caught off guard. They were not prepared for such a mass resistance and for what seemed to be turning into a movement. The government kept extending the deadline for registration hoping that the resistance would soon die out. But they were mistaken. It did not die out and with every extension the government was running out of time, since there were just so many extensions that could be given. Thereafter, the law would have to be enforced. Before they realized it, the end of the year 1907 was upon them, and the time had come to arrest people and send them to jail for disobeying the law. Within a week, there were already 3000 people in jail. Trying to break the leadership, the government arrested the rich, the merchants and those who were politically active. They also arrested Gandhi. This was Gandhi’s first ever jail sentence. How did Gandhi take the arrest? As people were to understand later, he seemed to love being in jail and wore his sentence like a badge of honor. It was during these jail sentences that he developed the idea of Satyagraha. Author, Maureen Swan captures it beautifully: In 1908 he was able, finally, to articulate the moral stance with which he sought to inform both his political and personal conduct. He did

(continued) © The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_4

93

94 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

(continued) this by deifying ‘Truth.’ ‘Truth is God, or God is nothing but Truth… It is a divine law that he who serves that Truth—that God—will never suffer defeat,’ he wrote in 1908. (Swan 1985, “Gandhi: The South African Experience”)

What were the circumstances? In 1906, the Transvaal government passed a law known as the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, under which it became mandatory for every Indian in Transvaal to register with the government and submit a full set of fingerprints. This was deemed extremely derogatory, being a practice that applied exclusively to criminals. However, this was also that point of time when Gandhi was armed with a new philosophy and a new outlook to counter this unjust law. He was ready to implement the ideas of passive resistance that had been delineated by Leo Tolstoy and John Ruskin. Gandhi spoke loud and clear that this law was not simply unjust, it went a step ahead and was immoral, and as such no Asian should register with the government. He used his contacts with business men, merchants and political circles to spread the word, knowing fully well that passive resistance would work only if there was collective disobedience. He made strong appeals, such as the following: Let us for a moment consider what will be gained by the Indian who submits to Law (Asiatic Law Amendment Act). Firstly, he will have forsaken his God. Secondly, his honour will have been lost. Thirdly, he will have incurred the curse of all India… Is there an Indian who will gain such ‘benefits’ by submitting to the law? Now let us take the case of the Indian who does not submit. This Indian will have lived in fear of God and kept his Covenant with Him. He will be rewarded as a hero and acclaimed by all India. The gaol he enters will be considered a palace. The utmost that he will suffer is that he may lose all his possessions and may have ultimately to leave the Transvaal. If he has to leave the Transvaal, is not God there also? … He whispers constantly into our ears, ‘Trust in Me alone.’ (M. K. Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 6 July 1907)

One can easily discern that Gandhi was making a moral case for defying the law. Gandhi’s aim was to imbibe morality among the Indians in South Africa, and he had decided to use the Amendment Law as an opportunity to do that. His strategy worked and very few people registered with the government. Adapted from Indraneelk (2017)

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

95

Gandhi’s Truth History stands witness to the fact that this first passive resistance movement started by Gandhi and described in the Opening Vignette was, unfortunately, not successful and drew many critics in the process. However, he was not one to lose heart; he knew that whatever he was doing was toward the best interests of everyone concerned. He kept experimenting, he kept evolving, and just a few years later it was in South Africa itself that he carried out his second passive resistance movement which was a resounding success and Gandhi was able to get a number of concessions for the Asians residing in South Africa with the Indian Relief Bill being passed in 1914. How did he do it? As Indraneelk (2017) puts it, it was “His willingness to observe, improvise and commit to new strategies is commendable and he should get credit for it” (Indraneelk 2017). Or as author Maureen Swan (1985) puts it, it was by “deifying Truth.” What was this “Truth” or “satya”? According to Geetha (2014), “Gandhi’s satya is a curious value…it worked its effect through example in and through active acts of love, friendship and care” (p. 16). In the words of Gandhi: What… is Truth? A difficult question; but I have solved it for myself by saying that it is what the voice within tells you. How then, you ask, different people think of different and contrary truths? Well, seeing that the human mind works through innumerable media and that the evolution of the human mind is not the same for all, it follows that what may be truth for one may be untruth for another, and hence those who have made these experiments have come to the conclusion that there are certain conditions to be observed in making those experiments. (Gandhi 1931, p. 428)

Why did people follow Gandhi’s appeal for nonviolence? His appeal was to the values held important universally, values such as love, empathy and compassion, and most of all, he appealed to one’s moral conscience or what Gandhi called the “inner voice” (“that voice within you”). Time and again, he would urge people to join the Satyagraha movement only when and if their “inner voice” told them to do so, that is, when they were fully convinced that nonviolence is correct, in principle; when they were committed to the cause of universal love and brotherhood; and when they believed in earnest that this is the “Truth.” Nonviolence was not simply a speedy way to reach certain ends; “nonviolence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart and it must be an inseparable part of our very being” (Murray et al. 2014). As Gandhi said:

96 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Devotion to this truth is the sole justification for existence. All our activities should be entered in truth. Truth should be the very breath of our life. (Gandhi 1932, Chapter 1)

An example of the above is the Bardoli Satyagraha. In the previous chapter, we have reproduced excerpts from interviews with Gandhi era survivors, one of them being Niranjana Kalarthi, who has lived and worked in the very ashram which housed the satyagrahis of Bardoli from the times of Gandhi and his fellow worker Vallabhbhai Patel, who spearheaded the Bardoli Satyagraha. It was Kalarthi who avidly recounted details of the Bardoli Satyagraha, echoes of which resounded even in the British parliament in London. We learned that when villagers from Bardoli asked Gandhi to start a Satyagraha against the unjust taxes being introduced by the British, he sent them back, telling them to go home and think deeply about what Satyagraha entails, the sacrifices it involves, the discipline it demands and the time and the patience that it takes. He advised them to come back only when their “inner voice” commanded them to do so. In the words of Gandhi: I ask nobody to follow me. Everyone should follow his or her own inner voice. If he or she has no ears to listen to it, he or she should do the best he or she can. In no case, should he or she imitate others sheeplike. (Gandhi 1947)

Thus, at the root of Gandhian nonviolence was the “inner voice” or moral conscience of the people which produced “soul force,” a force to be reckoned with and a force much more powerful than the brute force being used by the oppressors. The resounding success of the nonviolent resistance offered at various places in South Africa and India and by communities in different parts of the world stands witness to the power of this “soul force.” It was this which probably made Reverend Joseph Doke, a friend of Gandhi, call such campaigns “a heroic struggle for conscience sake.” Gandhi and the Relationship Between Means and Ends Gandhi, from his very childhood, had exposure to the Bhagavad Gita, but as mentioned in the previous chapter, it was only when he was in England that he realized its true meaning, and thereon, it became like a mother to him, providing him with the answers to many of the subtle secrets of life

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

97

and of the world. One lesson that he took to heart was regarding the relationship between means and ends, as professed by the Bhagavad Gita. According to this scripture, we should be concerned with only our actions, over which we can have control. As far as the fruits of our labor are concerned, they will follow. It has been said, “As you sow, so you shall reap.” But, Gandhi was also convinced that the means one uses have to be pure, since impure means can never lead to the attainment of pure ends: They say ‘means are after all means’. I would say ‘means are after all everything’. As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation between means and end. Indeed the Creator has given us control (and that too very limited) over means, none over the end. Realization of the goal is in exact proportion to that of the means. This is a proposition that admits of no exception. (Gandhi 1924, p. 236)

The aforesaid is the lesson that Gandhi drew from the Bhagavad Gita. At the same time, for Gandhi, the means and ends were convertible terms. Thus, if Truth is God, the realization of this God is the end or the ultimate goal in life. Further, there is only one means through which we can reach this ultimate goal, the path of ahimsa or nonviolence.

Gandhi’s Ahimsa or Nonviolence The history of mankind is fraught with the search for knowledge and meaning. One finds -isms of a variegated nature. But as far as Gandhi is concerned, there are no -isms. Despite being the “most documented man in history” (Kapoor 2014), one has to extrapolate his philosophy and methodology of nonviolence from his voluminous writings: There is no such thing as Gandhism and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply eternal truths to our daily life and problems. I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills…it was in the course of my pursuit of truth that I discovered nonviolence—how am I to convince the world by means of books that the whole of my constructive program is rooted in nonviolence? My life alone can demonstrate it. (Gandhi 1914)

And true, nonviolence is not new. When one looks at religions across the world, from Christianity to Islam and Jainism and from Judaism to

98 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Hinduism and Confucianism, they have all preached the creed of nonviolence through the maxim “thou shalt not kill.” When one studies ancient scriptures, the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, it is equally clear that the wise have always been full of praise for nonviolence (MacNair 2015). Is it not surprising that nonviolence is as old as the hills or finds mention in all the ancient scriptures? If one attempts to analyze nonviolence, one finds that it is completely scientific (Kool 1993, 2008; Kool and Agrawal 2013, 2018), and because of which, it has been able to survive through the ages and through the process of evolution (Kool and Agrawal 2010, 2011). Even Gandhi decided to use it only when he had established the “Truth” of nonviolence, established through his own experiments with truth on himself. In fact, nonviolence stands the test of modern empirical psychology, as we will discuss in a later chapter of this volume. This is, probably, the reason why it proved to be successful time and again, across different cultures, geographies and age groups. According to Bristol (1967), the crux of Gandhi’s nonviolence can be explained as follows: Such an approach when carried out in the best spirit of nonviolence has four important characteristics: (1) Participants fight tyranny, aggression, an evil system with all the vigour at their command, but they believe in the worth and dignity of their opponent and insist upon loving him even when he showers abuse or inflicts physical punishment upon them, yes, even when he kills them. (2) Participants try to bring about a change of attitude within their enemy; they strive to raise his sights, not to subdue, cripple, or kill him. (3) They take loss and suffering upon themselves. They do not inflict pain upon another, nor threaten him with pain. There is no warning of retaliation, massive or otherwise. It is important to bear in mind that nonviolent action does not mean the absence of violence, nor the absence of anguish and suffering, but that the agony involved is taken upon one’s self and not visited upon an opponent. (4) Constructive work is undertaken wherever possible. Protest against injustice, against destructive systems and practices is not enough. The eradication of poverty, the building of cooperatives, the establishment of village industry, the improvement of educational facilities, these and similar efforts must be constantly entered into. (Bristol 1967, p. 68)

• Could there be a better definition of Gandhian nonviolence? As discussed by Johanson (2007) in his chapter entitled, “Nonviolence: More Than the Absence of Violence,” we can discern two connotations of nonviolence, one based on the pragmatic approach and the other based on the pacifist approach. Those who believe in the for-

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

99

mer use nonviolence simply because they feel that it is an easy and effective tool for getting their demands met. In contrast, those who believe in the latter are committed to the nonviolent lifestyle. Johanson also agrees with Gandhi that the pragmatic use of nonviolence is for the weak, for people who use it only to reach certain ends, while in the pacifist user, we see nonviolence at its best. The pacifist is anything but weak; he or she is strong; is one who combines a totality of self-discipline, a minimalistic lifestyle, a constant inner search for truth, constructive work and the courage to confront the unjust oppressor. In such users there is a “total revolution” including an inner revolution. It is evident from Box 4.1 that for Gandhi, philosophy was not enough; his vista was oriented toward the practice of nonviolence in all realms of Box 4.1 Gandhi: A Law Student in England

While Gandhi is always pictured as a very serious person, as a deeply religious person and as a person for whom his values had the greatest priority, there have been enough incidents on record that go to show the lighter side of Gandhi. Moulana (2015) writes about one such incident. The incident relates to when Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London. He never got on well with one of his professors, Peters, mainly because he never bowed down to him. His arguments with Peters were also well known. Just imagine what would take place if these two people, professor and student, happened to share the same table in the University dining hall. Well, this is exactly what once took place. Gandhi came with his lunch tray and sat next to the professor: The professor, in his arrogance, said, ‘Mr. Gandhi you do not understand…a pig and a bird do not sit together to eat.’ To which Gandhi replies, ‘You do not worry professor, I will fly away’ and went and sat at another table. Mr. Peters was green in rage, decides to take revenge on the next test, but Gandhi responds brilliantly to all questions. Then Mr. Peters asked him the following question, ‘Mr. Gandhi, if you were walking down the street and find a package, and within it there is a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money; which one will you take?’ (continued)

100 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Box 4.1  (continued) Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, ‘the one with the money, of course.’ Mr. Peters smilingly said, ‘I in your place would have taken the wisdom, don’t you think?’ ‘Each one takes what one doesn’t have’ responded Gandhi indifferently. Mr. Peters, almost hysteric, writes on the exam sheet the word, ‘idiot’ and gives it to Gandhi. Gandhi takes the exam sheet and sits down. A few minutes later, Gandhi goes to the professor and says, ‘Mr. Peters, you signed the sheet but you did not give me the grade.’ (Excerpted from Moulana 2015)

Gandhi chose to respond to the arrogant professor using his intelligence and, thereby, shamed him, instead of using other derogatory or violent tactics as any other student would have, probably, done. This is one of the few examples to show how even in his daily life Gandhi refrained from using violence of any kind, choosing instead novel but nonviolent ways to deal with the situation.

life. His vision was to develop an entire lifestyle based on those nonviolent principles which he followed assiduously and also demanded from his followers. Let us try to understand some of these principles of Gandhian nonviolence. It is claimed that the greatest achievement of Gandhi was the spiritualization of politics through an attempt to bring together morality and politics, two realms normally thought of being antithetical to each other. What was the logic behind such thinking? Gandhi was forthright in stating that there cannot be a distinction between body, mind and soul. The three are not only interlinked but form a complete unity in the individual human being. Thus, actions (body) cannot go against beliefs (mind), which in turn cannot contradict “Truth” (soul). Since both morality and politics have their genesis in the same human mind, how can one contradict another? Politics can, thus, never remain devoid of morality; the need of the hour according to Gandhi is moral politics, moral politicians and moral statesmen.

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

101

Secondly, Gandhi affirmed that the foundation of all morality is faith in God. This God could be of any religion and not necessarily a Hindu God, believing as he did, that the truth of all religions is the same and that one should not kill, one should not tell lies and one should not oppress others. At the same time, at the base of every religious practice is the welfare of all. Gandhi used to profess that “religion is truth” but later, as he evolved, he turned it topsy-turvy and claimed that “truth is the only religion.” And this truth is nothing but the practice of certain moral values. As such, even an agnostic is acceptable, if her life is governed by the same moral values. Moreover, such a religion would appeal even to the atheist. Thirdly, going on to describe these moral values, Gandhi felt that all social actions should be governed by the same single set of moral values, the main elements of which are selflessness, nonattachment, nonviolence and active service. Gandhi believed that the growth of one’s personality depends not on age, education or material belongings, but to the extent that she/he is able to practice these above-stated values. This is possible only when one identifies oneself with a series of ever-encompassing circles till one embraces not only all humanity but all that is living—animal or plant. Probably, the easiest and best way to understand Gandhian nonviolence is through his writings. Realizing that we cannot be perfect votaries of nonviolence, Gandhi writes in his autobiography: We are helpless mortals caught in a conflagration of himsa…man cannot for a moment live without consciously or unconsciously committing outward himsa. The very fact of his living—eating, drinking and moving about—necessarily involves some himsa, destruction of life, be it so minute. A votary of ahimsa therefore remains true to his faith if the spring of all his actions is compassion, if he shuns to the best of his ability the destruction of the tiniest creature, tries to save it, and thus incessantly strives to be free from the deadly coil of himsa. (Gandhi 1927, pp. 427–428)

The above once again makes it clear that Gandhi was deeply influenced by his mentor, Raychand, who was a follower of Jainism. We also find the basis of another very vital aspect of Gandhian nonviolence, namely, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (Nature is our family), about which we will discuss in greater detail in the chapter on environmental psychology in Volume 2.

102 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

While violence seems to be an all pervading aspect of mortal life, Gandhi was of the view that if we go back through the ages, we witness a slew of efforts which can be termed progressive nonviolence. Gandhi reminds us as to how are ancestors were, probably, cannibals and it was only when they got fed up with cannibalism that they moved to become wandering hunters and, thereon, to agriculture. Thus, from being a nomad, man settled down to civilized life and from a member of a family became a member of a community, with many communities joining hands to form a nation. “Are these not signs of ahimsa?” asks Gandhi. If such progressive moves toward ahimsa had not taken place, humanity would have become extinct, with one human killing another. Fourth, going from the individual realm to that of the state, Gandhi affirmed that it is the duty of the state and every institution within that state to contribute to the growth of the individuals of which it is composed. And last but not the least, Gandhi was convinced that the ends do not justify the means. It was his firm conviction that the means were inseparable from the ends. No matter how virtuous the end, if one used the wrong means, the end itself would not be of any worth. Thus, there is no way to peace; peace is the way. Cultivating Ahimsa As pointed out above, human beings cannot survive without committing some sorts of violence, maybe not against fellow human beings, but maybe against animals, plants and other aspects of nature. It has also been clarified that it is easier to engage in violence than to refrain from it or to behave in a fashion that is nonviolent. As Gandhi pointed out, “We are helpless mortals.” Yet, ahimsa can be cultivated, and the scores of nonviolent movements from across the world stand witness to this fact. Tapasya Most of the above attributes of nonviolence require a high degree of self-­ sacrifice. However, the capacity to sacrifice oneself at the altar of nonviolence does not come easily; nor is it easy to refrain from violence and to wait patiently till the opponent understands our viewpoint. One must learn to behave in this manner, till it becomes a part and parcel of one’s way of life. Hence, the nonviolent person must “cultivate the capacity for sacrifice of the highest type in order to be free from fear” (Gandhi 1940a, p.  268). Gandhi not only exhorts his followers to cultivate certain

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

103

personality attributes necessary to refrain from using violence but also provides a toolkit for the ways in which to do it. The foremost tool is tapasya or self-purification. A Sanskrit term, the meaning of the word tapasya, goes back to the root “tapas” meaning heat and can be traced to the ancient Hindu scripture, the Rig Veda, wherein it refers to the practice of severe austerities for achieving mental and spiritual purification. Through the practice of tapasya, the ancient sages of India were able to enjoy a much higher longevity of life and at the same time derive powers which seemed far beyond the capabilities of the average human being. The image that conjures up in one’s mind is that of an ascetic sitting or even standing on one leg in a yogic posture, refraining from taking food or water for periods of time extending to even weeks and months together. The purpose of tapasya is normally to cultivate an inner fire leading to self-purification. If you visit the remote areas of the Himalayas even today, you would surely come across such sages who have renounced the world, given up their homes, their families and all their worldly belongings in order to create that inner fire through tapasya. In fact, one form of tapasya, namely, religious penance, is common to all other religions too, for example, in Jainism, Buddhism, Islam and even in Christianity and Judaism. There is the 40-day fast in Jainism much akin to the Christian Lent and the Islamic Ramzaan. Severe austerity is also practiced by the Buddhist monks in the many monasteries that dot India and Southeast Asia. Over the years, the practice of tapasya has had various connotations, including personal discipline, self-­ control, spiritual effort and tolerance, all being undertaken to attain some form of transformation (van Goelst Meijer 2017). For Gandhi, tapasya is one of the key elements of the nonviolent Satyagraha, but with a much wider meaning and far-reaching implications. While discipline, self-control and austerity were an integral part of Gandhi’s tapasya, the main focus was not on just suffering of the self, but the sacrifice of the self for a much larger purpose. As Mayton (2001) puts it, a personal, spiritual quest was of no value to Gandhi, if it were not translated to the public realm and used for the achievement of sociopolitical justice. As Gandhi evolved through his experiments with truth, the very meaning and significance of tapasya changed. From being a personal vow for asceticism, tapasya became an essential element in the use of nonviolence for the fight against injustice. Tapasya is, therefore, concerned both with an internal process of bringing out that power of fearlessness and implementing it externally to bring about justice. A closer examination of the term reveals

104 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

at least three uses of tapasya in Gandhian nonviolence, with each one leading progressively to the next. Gandhi used tapasya to inculcate, first and foremost, discipline of the highest order, being convinced that discipline is as necessary for the satyagrahi as for the soldier in the army. It would also help the satyagrahi draw attention away from himself, making him fearless of both suffering and death. At the same time, it refers to the sacrificing of the self with all humility (yet not suffering humiliation) for the greater good of all concerned, or what Gandhi termed as sarvodaya. We can, therefore, say that: • From the moral standpoint, tapasya would enable the nonviolent person to stand firm on his ground of nonviolence; it would help him refrain from using violence and harboring ill will against the violent opponent, with the cultivation of love for the opponent coming in its wake. • From a more practical standpoint, it would break the cycle of violence by “penetrating the heart” of the opponent, who is overwhelmed by the nonviolent reactions of the victim in the face of extreme violence. This is the moral jiu-jitsu about which we will discuss shortly. • Last but not the least, Gandhi was of the view that because of tapasya, the victim would show to the world the injustices being perpetrated by the oppressor against innocent victims. Thus, Gandhi uses tapasya as a tool to make the suffering visible to both the oppressor and to the onlookers. It would demonstrate that since the injustices are being perpetrated by human beings, they could be corrected. In other words, Gandhi sees tapasya as a complex, dynamic process. While love for the oppressor and suffering of the self, taken independently of each other, is of not much value, the two intertwined together coalesce to form a formidable whole, manifesting authenticity of purpose and developing integrative power (Boulding 1993). As put by van Goelst Meijer (2017): One has to actively engage in tapasya and be willing to suffer for one’s goal, refusing to comply with untruth and accepting the consequences. Thus, tapasya is a medium of change and transformation of oneself, the opponent and the situation at large. (pp. 93–94)

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

105

The beauty of Gandhian nonviolence stems from the fact that all its subparts form an orchestrated whole, brought together through experiments on himself and elaborated upon in his autobiography. Very early in life, Gandhi realized that tapasya was not easy for anyone, including himself. Yet, if one was firm, it could be done. What was the solution? It was to take a vow. Vows The first taste that Gandhi had of the importance of vows was when he wanted to go to London to obtain a degree in law. His mother did not want him to go for the sole reason that she felt that the young Mohandas would be open to many types of temptation in the foreign land and culture. Gandhi, then, not only assured her but also took a vow: he vowed to abstain from wine, women and meat. Despite initial temptations, he was able to uphold these vows and returned to India very satisfied that he had not broken any of the vows that he had made to his mother. Later, he was to take another important step in his life, namely, a vow of celibacy. By now he knew for certain that only a vow can keep one from faltering in the face of temptations, whether of lust or anything else. How important vows were to Gandhi can be deciphered from the following: The freedom and joy that came to me after taking the vow (of celibacy) had never been experienced before 1906…now the vow was a sure shield against temptation. (Gandhi 1927)

As Sahibzada (2018) puts it, more than a century later: Locks are on doors only to keep honest people honest. One percent of people will always be honest and never steal. Another one percent will always be dishonest and always try to steal. And the rest of 98% will be honest as long as the conditions are right. Tempt them enough and they’ll be dishonest too. Locks mostly protect from everyday honest people who get tempted and become dishonest. (Sahibzada 2018)

One can easily understand that this was what Gandhi’s mother had feared, namely, temptation. Gandhi’s stint in London under the vows to his mother was, seemingly, one of his first experiments with truth (because at that young age he had probably not even thought of truth, leave alone

106 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

experimenting with it). But the very way in which these vows enabled him to lead a life, untarnished by petty vices, was proof enough of their success. The importance of vows was, probably, brought to the fore for Gandhi by his Jain mentor, Raychand (about whose influence we have described in the previous chapter), a jeweler by profession but a thinker and philosopher by nature. The Jain religion lays considerable emphasis on vows of many types, some for ascetics and others for persons who are not celibates and are living the lives of ordinary people in traditional households. Vows to be taken by ascetics are termed mahavratas (great vows) and require great self-control, in contrast to vows for non-ascetics, which have been called anuvrat (vows of limited nature) and are relatively easier to follow. Having tested them on himself time and again, Gandhi made it mandatory for every inmate at his communities (ashrams) in South Africa and India to subscribe to not 1 but 11 such vows. Five of them are common to most religions of the world but the other six were built in with a totally different motive. The first five were taken directly from the Jain vows for non-ascetics or what they termed anuvrat. These were as follows: • Satya or truth • Ahimsa or nonviolence • Brahmacharya or celibacy • Asteya or non-stealing • Aparigriha or non-possession Though most people think of Gandhi as a political leader, he was basically a person in search of God. If you were to ask him which God, his answer would be: To me, God is truth and love, God is ethics and morality, God is fearlessness, God is the source of light and life and yet he is above and beyond all of these. (Gandhi 1940b, p. 55)

He also firmly believed that the best way to realize God is through service to humankind. It was in this context that all 11 vows were not only very important to him but guarded people from falling prey to those things that come in the way of universal truth. All 11 were part of self-­ denial and austerity, preached by most religions and considered important

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

107

for self-purification that Gandhi felt necessary to realize God or truth. Since for Gandhi, his spiritual efforts were not limited to himself or to any one individual, but were rather focused on the upliftment of the entire society, he also insisted on the last six vows which are as follows: • Sharirashrama or physical labor/bread labor • Asvada or control of palate • Abhaya or fearlessness • Sarva dharma samanatva or equal respect for all religions • Swadeshi or duty toward one’s neighbors • Ashprishyatanirvana or removal of untouchability Moreover, Gandhi’s vows went much beyond their literal meaning and had to be followed in thought as well as in action. One could not simply profess that one is a celibate and continue to have lustful thoughts about the opposite sex. Of these 11, the first, satya or truth was the most important. Not only did Gandhi profess that truth is God, but he also expected that truthfulness be followed by one and all in speech, thought and action. Ahimsa or nonviolence was the second pillar against temptation, and for Gandhi, satya and ahimsa were two sides of the same coin, in that it is impossible for one to exist without the other. Stringent though these vows were and were not to be enforced through external policing but by one’s own moral conscience, every inmate at the ashrams and farms followed them voluntarily. That keeping to them was not an easy task was something that Gandhi, too, understood. This was probably why he asked every follower to follow his inner voice, which would guide him at times of conflict and temptation. Practical psychologist that Gandhi was, he realized that such strict vows are extremely difficult to live up to. He, therefore, started with anuvrat (small vows), and this is what he exhorted his followers to do. One small step taken in the direction of temperance can gradually be built upon till one is finally ready for total abstinence as delineated by empirical psychologists such as Helson (1964). In his adaptation-level theory of attitude change, Helson has emphasized just this point. You cannot expect a person to change his or her attitude overnight and go from one end of the continuum to the opposite end, at one go. Helson advocated attempts to bring about small changes, changes that one can adjust to, till one reaches the level advocated.

108 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Used in this manner, vows worked brilliantly. For Gandhi, he had his personal experiences to vouch for it. More recently, Kris Kirby, in a paper in the journal Gandhi Marg, has made a remarkable analysis of the modus operandi of vows, using a statistical model and illustrating his theory through graphical representations. Kris Kirby (2013) uses the Ainslie (1992) theory of delay discounting to explain the utility of vows in the maintenance of self-control. For example, why is a smoker unable to resist the cigarette lying in front of him or her or being proffered by a friend, despite statutory warnings that cigarettes are injurious to health? Further, there are enough examples from people and families around him or her that there is no doubt that cigarette is injurious to health. Let us start with a simple diagrammatic representation (Fig. 4.1) of the theory to show how we may be fully committed to our long-term goals, such as that of health and happiness, but fall prey to temptations. Of the two plots depicted in the graph, the solid line is the present value of and time taken to achieve a long-term reward, L. The dotted line depicts the same two dimensions for a short-term reward, S, with the two plots crossing each other at point C. For all periods of time, before the crossover point C, while there is still considerable time for both rewards, one may actually prefer L as shown by the solid line. However, as time to S approaches, one may temporarily start feeling that S has greater value (e.g., the company of a smoker friend may be more important than the hazard to health). This interval between C and S is called the “window of vulnerability” during which despite the opportunity to choose L, one may Present value

L

C S Time

Fig. 4.1  How vows guard us against temptation

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

109

choose S, a totally impulsive choice taking precedence over the self-­ controlled choice, L. In fact, Kirby relates Gandhi’s fluctuations between being a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian as a good example of the above. He earnestly wanted to remain a vegetarian (remember his vow to his mother), but when the meal was in front of him, he often found himself vacillating. If and when he was unable to resist the banned meat, he would give in, but would feel an extreme sense of remorse and guilt later. Such reversals and motivational ambivalence have been noted not only in humans but also in animals (Green and Myerson 2004; Kirby 1997; Kirby and Finch 2010). This is where a vow comes in. A vow leads to what Kirby has called the “bundling effect of rewards.” Rather than having to choose between S and L on a daily basis, through a vow we decide once and for all, and as a result the summative value or the bundled value of L is greater than that of S even though on a daily basis, the opposite may be true (Kirby and Guastello 2001; Stein et al. 2013). As Ainslie (1992) explains, “by such a perception the person stakes his expectation of getting a whole series of rewards on a single choice’, namely, the vow which creates in turn a precedence effect in that “we are motivated to choose today in a way that increases our expectation of future adherence every time.” In other words, a vow today, guides all our future choices, saving us to make a choice every single day. As Gandhi said: If once it be allowed that a vow may be broken, no vows will ever be kept and they will lose their significance. (Gandhi 1919, p. 268)

In other words, vows bind you to certain choices. Also, when such a vow is taken in public, there would also be the effect of what social psychologists refer to as the escalation of commitment (Kool and Agrawal 2006). You can try this out on yourself: even without taking any vows, by simply publicly stating your viewpoint regarding something small such as saving water, you find that every time you waste water, you are reminded about the commitment you made in public. This, itself, acts, helping you to stick to your commitment. Attributes of the Nonviolent Individual Probably the most important attribute is self-control. In a later chapter, we will discuss prospect theory (Kahneman 2011) and show how we use

110 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

two systems of thinking, System I being fast and leading to impulsive decisions and System II being much slower, thereby giving us time to think and then decide. Since our first instinct is always of survival and self-­ defense, violence seems to be the quickest and the best option. But to refrain from doing so even in the face of oppression and injustice requires utmost self-control and even more so the control of anger. A second important attribute is patience. Self-control is not possible without patience, so necessary to help the person wait and refrain from taking impulsive decisions. With patience, the individual realizes that while violence can lead to easy and quick victories, they will not be lasting. If one is patient enough, even intractable opponents can be made to see reason and to understand one’s viewpoint, and with truth at our side, the opponent finally comes to the realization that violence leads us nowhere. Gandhi was, indeed, the very epitome of patience, to the extent that his good friend, Polak, once wrote to him: Yours is splendid patience. I envy you. I see more and more the beauty of the Gita teaching—act and don’t worry about results. But I see more and more how difficult it is to do this and admire the man who can. (Guha 2013, p. 343)

A third attribute of the nonviolent person is the readiness for self-­ sacrifice in the face of injustice. Here, we see the ways in which Gandhi drew from Thoreau, calling such an act civil disobedience, that is, the refusal to obey legislation that is degrading, even if it meant going to prison: Just as one must learn the art of killing in the training for violence, so one must learn the art of dying in the training for nonviolence. (Gandhi 1940b, p. 268)

Not only must one learn the art of dying, one would also see to it that there is no infliction of suffering on others. As Gandhi wrote, “The test of passive resistance is self-suffering and not infliction of suffering on others.” And, speaking at a large public meeting in Bombay, Henry Polak described some of the stalwarts of Transvaal: The Tamil Thambi Naidoo, ‘who goes to jail with a smile on his face’; the Muslim A S Cachalia, who ‘lost his whole fortune rather than break his sol-

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

111

emn oath’ (to go to jail); the Parsi, Rustamjee, who would ‘give all he could himself, in the cause of his country; and, not least, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, saint and patriot, who would gladly allow his body to be torn asunder by wild horses rather than compromise his honour and that of his country. (Guha 2013, p. 344)

The degree of self-sacrifice made by the followers of Gandhi has been, probably, described most aptly by the Parsi philanthropist Ratan Tata who endowed huge sums of money to finance the struggle in South Africa. Explaining his gesture once, Tata said that he had: watched with unfeigned admiration the undaunted and determined stand which our countrymen in the Transvaal—a mere handful of numbers—have made and are making against heavy odds and in the face of monstrous injustice and oppression, to assert their rights as citizens of the Empire and as freemen, and to vindicate the honour and dignity of our motherland…the ruinous sacrifices which men mostly of very modest means are cheerfully making in this unequal struggle, the fortitude with which men of education and refinement are ungrudgingly submitting to treatment ordinarily accorded to hardened convicts and criminals, the calm resignation of men devotedly attached to their homes to cruel disruption of family ties, and the perfectly legitimate and constitutional character of the resistance which is being offered and which is in such striking contrast to the occasional acts of violence which we deplore nearer home—all these to my mind, present a spectacle of great nobility of aim, resoluteness of purpose and strength of moral fiber with which we Indians are not usually credited. (Guha, ibid., p. 386)

Anasakti and Aparigriha Two other important attributes of the nonviolent person are anasakti and aparigriha, both of which are forms of self-sacrifice. While the former refers to non-attachment to anything, the latter refers to non-possession. The relationship between the two is not difficult to understand, if one takes into account the idea that it is because of our attachment to objects and people that we find it impossible to get into the non-possession or giving-up mode. It is also the reason for the multitudinous objects we tend to collect, whether apparel, gadgets, vehicles or other articles of daily use. Simply peek into your cupboards and you are sure to see them over-­ brimming with stuff, a lot of which you haven’t had any use for, for quite some time. New items are bought, especially at the much-hyped Christmas

112 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

sale and off-season discount sale, to name only a few. Many of them lie in the cupboard with not even the wrapper being removed. Gandhi was totally against such behavior, especially in view of the difference it creates between those who have too much and those who have nothing. For Gandhi, the possession of useless articles was akin to stealing, since by doing so, we deprive others of articles that they may be actually needing: As it is, the rich are discontented no less than the poor. The poor man would fain become a millionaire, and the millionaire a multimillionaire. The rich should take the initiative in dispossession with a view to a universal diffusion of the spirit of contentment. If only they keep their own property within moderate limits, the starving will be easily fed, and will earn the lesson of contentment along with the rich. (Gandhi 1932, Chapter 6)

This was the anasakti and aparigriha that Gandhi advocated and also followed. Once he became aware of the abject poverty of the masses, he reduced his own personal belongings to the bare minimum required for subsistence. This included not only his attire, preferring to remain half clad, but also his minimalistic diet. In fact, as we shall later see in this chapter, one of the 11 vows mandatory for all his followers was that of aparigriha. Sarvodaya and Antodaya In the previous chapter, we have described how Ruskin’s (1860) Unto This Last made such an impact upon Gandhi that he even paraphrased it into the Gujarati language and entitled it Sarvodaya or the principle of service to all. For Gandhi, service was the hallmark of a nonviolent person. Moreover, it was imperative that this service be free of prejudice and discrimination and reach the lowliest and the most needy, the “last person” in the queue of descending incomes. This was what Gandhi termed antodaya. Both sarvodaya and antodaya could be easily attained and would be the natural corollary of anasakti and aparigriha. In fact, what one saved through anasakti and aparigriha can be utilized for service to the needy. Through the previous paragraphs, it becomes clear that the picture of nonviolence created by the ingenious artist, Gandhi, was not a random assortment of bits and pieces, unaligned to each other. Rather, they went hand in glove, much like the parts of a jigsaw puzzle, which may individually seem to have no meaning but when fitted to each other formed a gestalt, a perfect whole.

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

113

The Dynamics of Nonviolence: A Moral Jiu-Jitsu Let us imagine a situation in which we have either of the two options, one, to respond violently or, two, to refrain from using violence no matter what the degree of instigation. Attempting to understand the salient features of such a situation, it is apparent that, firstly, the situation must be an interpersonal one involving two or more people. Secondly, there has to be some reason for one or more of these actors in the situation to become pugnacious; in most cases, violence is preceded by anger toward or maybe by even fear of the other person. And then, the other person against whom violence is taking place must decide how to react—retaliate with violence or choose some other strategy. Gregg (1958), in his book, The Power of Nonviolence, has analyzed just such an interpersonal situation in an attempt to understand the dynamics of nonviolence. Retaliating to violence with violence is, probably, the easiest reaction, requiring minimal mental energy or even cognitive space (as explained in more detail in the later chapter on cognition), but an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind. By reacting with violence, we harm ourselves as much as we harm the other. The other truth that Gandhi established is that the use of nonviolence does not mean that the individual is a coward. In reality, it requires much greater strength and self-control to restrain oneself in the face of violence and the anger that follows. As Gandhi said, nonviolence is not for the weak. So the question now is why should an individual expend extra mental effort, exercise greater self-control and suffer physically from the violent overtures of the attacker? As put by Mayton (2009), the principled nonviolent person: . “…believes that violent behavior and retaliation are to be avoided, 1 2. desires to understand the truth within a conflict, 3. accepts the burden of suffering to break the cycle of violence, 4. believes in noncooperation with evil and 5. engages in behavior that confronts injustice with the intention of increasing social justice in a manner consistent with the above mentioned beliefs without using direct violence.” (Mayton 2009, p. 9, numbers added by the present authors) In other words, nonviolence is not a passive absence of violence but can be viewed as having cognitive, affective and behavioral components. How does nonviolence work? What are its advantages? The answer provided by Gregg (1958) is that nonviolence is a moral jiu-jitsu much as violence

114 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

could be a physical jiu-jitsu, leading, in turn, to much greater advantages on all fronts for the resistor. Asked the question, “if you hit me or hurt me in any way, how do you think that I will react,” your answer will most probably be that I will either run away due to fear or retaliate due to anger. Now against this psychological frame of mind, I do neither of the above. I stand there, firm, full of courage and emotionally poised, in perfect self-­ control. This makes you even angrier and more violent and finally throws you off balance. What turns the tide against the attacker? Gregg (ibid.) explains it in terms of the following advantages reaped by the nonviolent person: 1. The element of surprise: normally violence begets violence, but seeing the victim not retaliating causes great surprise. What is this man made of? Why is he not retaliating or even running away? After a few pugnacious attempts, he does not know how to handle the situation. 2. Loss of moral balance: as Gregg writes: He plunges forward…into a new world of values. He feels insecure because of the novelty of the situation and ignorance of how to handle it. He loses his poise and self-confidence. (Gregg, ibid., p. 40)

In comparison, the nonviolent resistor knows exactly what he is doing and why he is behaving the way he is. He also knows that he is following the path of truth and is therefore doing the right thing. This realization helps him to maintain his moral balance. The opponent is caught off guard and in the process loses the fight which he himself had started and propagated. On the other hand, the victim has merely to remain firm and resolute, no fisticuffs being needed, no blows to be dealt, “Just as in jiu-jitsu, violence itself helps to overthrow the user.” Gregg analyzes how various cognitive and affective factors are involved in this moral jiu-jitsu. The cognitive aspect: firstly, the attacker soon realizes that he had made a mistake in his judgment of the victim—who is far from being a coward and who is not a weakling, but rather is an extremely courageous person, a person committed to his principles and values. Secondly, the attacker faces a conflict: the resoluteness of the victim arouses “more decent motives” in the attacker, which are in direct conflict with his aggressive instincts. Thirdly, the consequences are far greater if there are onlookers— the attacker loses even more poise, and the violence against an innocent person seems undignified.

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

115

The affective aspect: the emotional consequences of the above cognitive realization are even greater: 1. The rising and prolonged anger soon exhausts the attacker. Research in the psychology of anger has shown that a prolonged state of heightened emotion is detrimental for the person, both physically and even mentally (Agrawal 2001). 2. Under the influence of the heightened emotion, psychological studies indicate that suggestibility increases, thereby making it easier for the nonviolent person to influence the attacker than vice versa. 3. Lastly, the rapidly depleting energy level of the attacker becomes even greater, since part of the energy is reverted and used up against his own self. In sum, “in this moral jiu-jitsu, the nonviolent person has superior position, poise and power for many reasons” including aspects such as having taken the moral initiative, not showing any element of surprise, manifesting utter self-control helping him to conserve energy, demonstrating his sincerity and conviction to the cause and at the same time demonstrating his respect for the integrity and personality of the aggressor: The art of jiu-jitsu is based on a knowledge of balance and how to disturb it. In a struggle of moral jiu-jitsu, the retention of moral balance seems to depend upon the qualities of one’s relationship to moral truth. (Gregg, ibid., p. 47)

Satyagraha and Duragraha If ahimsa or nonviolence was the philosophy offered by Gandhi, Satyagraha was the methodology for the practice of ahimsa in both personal and public realms. By 1907, Gandhi began to feel the need for an appropriate name for his nonviolent struggles, being least satisfied with the English words “civil disobedience” or even “passive resistance.” While Gandhian nonviolence was passive in certain senses and was being used for civil purposes and was certainly disobedience, he wanted a single word which would capture connotations far beyond those in the current usage, because:

116 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

For nonviolence alone is weak, noncooperation in itself could lead to defeat, and civil disobedience without creative action may end in alienation. (Bondurant 1967, p. 85)

Thus, when on December 27, 1907, arrest warrants were issued against 23 resisters in Transvaal, including Gandhi, who was then tried and convicted, the year’s last issue of the journal, Indian Opinion, was printed in Durban (Guha 2013). It was in this issue of the year 1907 that a call was made “to send Indian equivalents for the terms passive resistance and civil disobedience, which had been coined by British nonconformists and an American writer respectively.” Gandhi wanted indigenous replacements since “to respect our own language, speak it well and use it in as few foreign words as possible—this is also part of patriotism” (Guha 2013, p. 264). In the next issue, Gandhi noted that several seemingly good suggestions have been received, from which the word “sadagraha” roughly translated as “firmness in a good cause” seemed to be the best. This was further refined to Satyagraha “or the force of truth in a good cause” by Gandhi’s uncle, and the followers of the movement came to be known as satyagrahis. On January 10, 1908, Gandhi was produced before court. He pleaded guilty of disobeying orders and was arrested and taken to Fort Prison, overlooking that great cricket and rugby ground known as the Wanderers! It was here in prison that he had sufficient time for reading and it was in this prison that he was able to refine his views on Satyagraha and set them forth in a coherent fashion. There are at least seven core characteristics of Satyagraha. These are as follows: • Faith in human goodness • Truth • Nonviolence • Creative self-suffering • Unity of means and ends • Rejection of coercion • Fearlessness Another way to understand Satyagraha is to contrast it with its opposite, duragraha. Highlighting the differences between the two, Bondurant (1967) is of the view that first and foremost, the duragrahi uses

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

117

prejudgment: that the enemy is wrong and has to be shown that he is wrong. It is a form of stubborn resistance which is certainly not a characteristic of the satyagrahi. Satyagraha and duragraha can be further distinguished on two dimensions, namely, the differential use of persuasion and pressure on the one hand, and, the use of guilt and responsibility on the other. While both the satyagrahi and the duragrahi make abundant use of the above, the characteristic way in which they do so is vastly different. The duragrahi uses pressure to get the opponent to make concessions. The satyagrahi, in contrast, uses it to persuade and pressurize the opponent to seek alternative solutions. At the same time, the duragrahi makes the opponent feel small and guilty. The satyagrahi, who is a truly informed and acutely aware individual, does not point the finger of shame at others. As Gandhi writes, “Whenever I see an erring man, I say to myself, I have also erred.” …“It is our duty to grant to others the same freedom that we seek for ourselves. When we fail to do so, we are making use of violence, albeit in a symbolic form” (Gandhi 1921). In the words of Gandhi: A satyagrahi does not abandon his path, even though at times it seems impenetrable and beset with difficulties and dangers…. Even in these circumstances, his faith shines resplendent like the midday sun and he does not despond. With truth for sword, he needs neither a steel sword nor ­gunpowder. Even an inveterate enemy he conquers by the force of the soul, which is love. But Duragraha is a force with the opposite attributes. … The wielder of brute force does not scruple about the means to be used. He does not question the propriety of means, if he can somehow achieve his purpose. This is not dharma but the opposite of it…the man who follows the path of Duragraha becomes impatient and wants to kill the so-called enemy. There can be one result of this. Hatred increases. The defeated party vows vengeance and simply bides his time. The spirit of revenge thus descends from father to son. (Gandhi/Dalton 1996, p. 55)

The duragrahi seems to make progress, but is it really progress? According to Gandhi: Satyagraha will triumph in the end. The duragrahi, like the oilman’s ox, moves in a circle. His movement is only motion but it is not progress. The satyagrahi is always moving forward. (Gandhi/ Dalton, ibid., p. 55)

118 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Bondurant (1967) not only points out the differences between the two but also elaborates on the need to understand these differences: Whenever men meet to consider how they shall struggle against great odds for freedom or for their cherished rights, the name of Gandhi readily comes to their lips and his image of greatness and success strengthens their will. Let them know the distinctions between Gandhi’s satyagraha and forms of struggle which are here described as duragraha. For without this understanding the seminal contribution of Gandhi could be lost. (p. 95)

And, once the lines of distinction have been drawn between the two, Bondurant (ibid.) sets forth a question regarding the relevance and use of Gandhian Satyagraha in the modern-day world: For those who understand the many ways in which satyagraha is distinguished, a challenge is posed: the methods must be refined and techniques developed for this age of advanced technology. The Gandhian philosophy of conflict is sound. Who is to press forward the experiments in technology? (p. 95)

Constructive Program Gandhi’s understanding of Swaraj or independence was far deeper and broader than mere political independence from Britain. He firmly believed that self-rule could only be built on the firm foundation of self-reliance which in turn mandated a fundamental moral-psychological transformation in each person. As a result, there had to be two integral aspects of any campaign. One which was seen by all, namely, the front stage Satyagraha, using nonviolent means of resistance. The other went far deeper; it envisaged the upliftment of all through constructive programs undertaken at the local level. So important was this second aspect for Gandhi that he devoted an entire volume to it, entitling it, Constructive Programme, first written in 1941 and later revised in 1945. In the Foreword of the volume, Gandhi has enunciated the need for constructive programs by writing: Civil Disobedience, mass or individual, is an aid to constructive effort and is a full substitute for armed revolt, Training is necessary as well for civil disobedience as for armed revolt. Only the ways are different. Action in either

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

119

case takes place only when occasion demands. Training for military revolt means learning the use of arms ending perhaps in the atomic bomb. For civil disobedience it means the Constructive Programme. (Gandhi 1945, Chapter 2, p. 3)

Initially in 1919, Gandhi started his constructive work with three items, namely, the propagation of khadi and village industries, Hindu-Muslim unity and rural reconstruction. As he was ever receptive to new ideas, by 1940s, his constructive work had 13 items. On the eve of independence, the Programme was expanded to 18 items. Even then, he said that they were only illustrative and many more items could be covered. The remarkable aspect of each of these 18 items is that none are revolutionary; in fact, they are very mundane. At best, it could be seen as a reform program. But here lies the remarkable ability of Gandhi to weave them together and bring a new texture and meaning of a nonviolent revolution. It was the combination of the political agitation and village reconstruction that brought a revolutionary change in the outlook of people. In the words of war veteran David Cortright (2013): …Gandhi changed the course of history by introducing into the world a revolutionary new principle of mass nonviolent action to achieve social change. Our challenge is to understand and apply his philosophy and method but also to enrich it with a deeper understanding of the meaning of social justice. (p. 562)

Michael Nagler’s work provides significant contributions to understanding nonviolent constructive programs in the Gandhian tradition. In his volume, The Search for a Nonviolent Future: A Promise of Peace for Ourselves, Our Families, and Our World, Nagler (2004) analyzes how the constructive programs probably offer the best prospect of liberating people. He articulates five principles of such programs, namely: • Building continuity and community into society • Using the creative force for good • Providing the means by which people can meet their basic needs themselves • Returning control to the people • Training in nonviolent living

120 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Quoting Nagler, Dillon (2016) points out that through the constructive program, the following points can be said to provide justification for a constructive program: Scaffolding for a new society…balances noncooperation with cooperation… [proves] the lie of dependency wrong…unifies diversity… builds community … trains people to live a nonviolent life. (Dillon, p. 5)

Dillon (ibid.) also points out that the beauty of the constructive programs was that not only was it a positive force of nonviolence but also that it provided for the fulfillment of basic needs through work that everyone could participate in. What Gandhi started way back in the 1940s for the upliftment of the people through action that they themselves were responsible for continues to this day. There are many such nongovernmental agencies and people who have been actively working along the lines set forth by Gandhi. In the previous chapter, we focused on interviews with some of the Gandhi era workers and their survivors. Among them was the meeting with Ela Ramesh Bhatt. She was responsible for starting one of the largest of such constructive action programs in the form of SEWA, which continues to work actively even to this day. She has described these activities very lucidly in her book, Anubandh (2006). Another initiative was that of the Sardar Vidyalaya started by Niranjana Kalarthi of Bardoli (whom we also interviewed), through which the very lives of thousands of tribal girls and their families have changed, not just because of education but because of the many other constructive actions taken by those who run the school. Thus, through the chapter, we have attempted to provide a kaleidoscopic view of what was Gandhi’s truth, which formed the building blocks of not only the philosophy of ahimsa but also the practice of Satyagraha accompanied with constructive action. Probably, the best description of Gandhi’s thinking can be provided by Gandhi himself, according to whom: Passive resistance is an all sided sword; it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without dropping a drop of blood it produces far reaching results. It never rusts and cannot be stolen. (Gandhi 1909, Chapter 17)

Gandhi has also provided in a nutshell, the crux, on which rests the very structure of nonviolence, writing:

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

121

But no institution can be made nonviolent by compulsion. Nonviolence and truth cannot be written into the constitution. They have to be adopted of one’s own free will. They must sit naturally upon us like next to skin garments or else they become a contradiction in terms. (Gandhi 1927)

Murray et al. (2014) have very aptly summarized the ways in which the various aspects delineated by Gandhi can be brought together. According to them: In sum, nonviolence is an approach to life which assumes that truth and love are the most powerful forces in the universe that all reality is interdependent, that authority depends on the obedience of those who acknowledge authority, and that means and ends are inseparable. (Murray et al. 2014, p. 156)

And, we end this chapter on a note of optimism, with the same hope that Murray and his colleagues had in 2014: We write this chapter in the conviction that King’s (Martin Luther) words were prophetic, in the hope that there is still time to choose nonviolence, and in the firm belief that psychology can contribute to that choice. (p. 152)

References Agrawal, R. (2001). Stress in life and in work. New Delhi: Response-Sage. Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person (pp.  144–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhatt, E. (2006). Anubandh. Ahmedabad: Navajiwan Publications. Bondurant, J. V. (1967). Satyagraha versus Duragraha: The limits of symbolic violence. In G. Ramachandran & T. K. Mahadevan (Eds.), Gandhi, his relevance for our times (pp. 85–95). New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation. Boulding, K. E. (1993). Nonviolence in the 21st century. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. Lanham, MD: The University Press of America. Bristol, J. E. (1967). Nonviolence as a positive concept. In G. Ramachandran & T. K. Mahadevan (Eds.), Gandhi, his relevance for our times (pp. 65–77). New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation. Cortright, D. (2013). My Gandhi. Gandhi Marg, 35, 561–581.

122 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Dillon, A. (2016). An analysis of Gandhi’s constructive program based on Galtung’s theories. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Human Sciences, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Canada. Gandhi, M. K. (1907/1956). Indian opinion, 6th July 1907. In Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 7 (p.  35). New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. Gandhi, M. K. (1909). Hind Swaraj. Phoenix, Natal: International Printing Press. Gandhi, M. K. (1914). Constructive programmes, August 27. Gandhi, M.  K. (1919). Letter to Narahari Parikh. Complete works of Mahatma Gandhi, 17, 268. Gandhi, M. K. (1921). Young India, February 9. Gandhi, M. K. (1924). Young India, July 17. Gandhi, M. K. (1927). An autobiography or the story of my experiments with truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M. K. (1931). Young India, December 31. Gandhi, M.  K. (1932). From Yeravada Mandir. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Mudranalaya. Gandhi, M. K. (1940a). Harijan, March 23. Gandhi, M. K. (1940b). Harijan, September 1. Gandhi, M. K. (1945). Constructive programme: Its meaning and place. www. mkgandhi.org. Gandhi, M. K. (1947). Nonviolence. Harijan, June 29. Gandhi, M.  K. / Dalton, D. (1996). Gandhi: Selected political writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Geetha, V. (2014). Caritas and maithri. Seminar, 662, 14–17. Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 769–792. Gregg, R. (1958). The power of nonviolence. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. Guha, R. (2013). Gandhi before India. New Delhi: Penguin. Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation level theory. New York: Harper & Row. Indraneelk. (2017). When Gandhi became Gandhi–Part 3. The Civil Tactician, October 3. Johanson, J. (2007). Nonviolence: More than the absence of violence. In C. Webel & J.  Galtung (Eds.), Handbook of peace and conflict studies (pp.  143–159). London: Routledge. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kapoor, P. (2014). My experiment with Gandhi. Seminar, 662, 68–73. Kirby, K. N. (1997). Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 54–70. Kirby, K.  N. (2013). Gandhi, vows and the psychology of self control. Gandhi Marg, 35, 519–540.

4  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF GANDHI’S NONVIOLENCE 

123

Kirby, K.  N., & Finch, J.  C. (2010). The hierarchical structure of self-reported impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 704–713. Kirby, K.  N., & Guastello, B. (2001). Making choices in anticipation of similar future choices can increase self-control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 154–164. Kool, V.  K. (Ed.). (1993). Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2006). Applied social psychology: A global perspective. New Delhi: Atlantic. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2010). The psychology of nonkilling. In J. E. Pim (Ed.), Toward a nonkilling paradigm (pp.  349–367). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2011). From empathy to altruism: Is there an evolutionary basis for nonkilling. In D. J. Christie & J. E. Pim (Eds.), Nonkilling psychology (pp. 65–93). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Kool, V.  K., & Agrawal, R. (2013). Whither Skinner’s science of behavior, his assessment of Gandhi, and its aftermath? Gandhi Marg, 35, 487–518. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2018). Gandhian philosophy for living in the modern world: Lessons from the psychology of satyagraha. In S.  Fernando & R.  Moodley (Eds.), Global psychologies: Mental health and the global South. London: Palgrave Macmillan. MacNair, R. M. (2015). Religions and nonviolence: The rise of effective advocacy for peace. Westport, CT: Praeger. Mayton, D. M., II. (2001). Nonviolence within cultures of peace: A means and ends. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 143–155. Mayton, D. M., II. (2009). Peace psychology book series. Nonviolence and peace psychology: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal, and world peace. New  York: Springer Science. Moulana, S.  H. (2015). Gandhi’s brilliance and non-violent response! Asian Tribune, Friday, June 6. Murray, H., Lyubansky, M., Miller, K., & Ortega, L. (2014). Toward a psychology of nonviolence. In E.  Mustakova-Possardt, M.  Lyubanski, et  al. (Eds.), Toward socially responsible psychology for a global era (pp.  151–182). New York: Springer. Nagler, M. (2004). The search for a nonviolent future. San Francisco, CA: Inner Ocean Publishing. Ruskin, J. (1860). Unto this last. Cornhill Magazine. Sahibzada, J. (2018). Honestly dishonest: A behavioral model of financial dishonesty. www.linkedin.com, October 23.

124 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Stein, J. S., et al. (2013). Effects of reward bundling on male rats’ preference for larger-later food rewards. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 99, 150–158. Swan, M. (1985). Gandhi: The South African experience. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. van Goelst Meijer, S. L. E. (2017). The nonviolent sacrifice: The role of Tapasya in nonviolence. In J. Duyndam, A. M. Korte, & M. Poorthius (Eds.), Sacrifice in modernity: Community, ritual, identity. Leiden: Brill.

CHAPTER 5

The Evolution of Nonviolence and Its Neurological Basis

Opening Vignette

“For every thousand dollars robbed, there are millions given in charity, and for every individual who engages in antisocial behavior, there are countless others who engage in prosocial behavior. For every person who robs another, there are many others who are ready to devote both time and money for social causes. If this was not the case, we would run short of prisons and policing would become extremely difficult. Zak and his colleagues (2007) providing data on the enormous amount devoted to charity in the USA alone help us to understand why we are ready to help others even at a cost to oneself. Based on a differentiation between altruism (helping another at a cost to oneself) and generosity (liberality in giving), Zak postulates that the latter is a subset of the former and cites results of neuroimaging studies from his laboratory to show that certain specific areas of the brain are activated during charity giving. By manipulating oxytocin (OT, the “trust hormone”) while subjects participated in common economic games such as the Ultimatum and Dictator games, they concluded that OT raised generosity in the Ultimatum game by as much as 80% over those given a placebo. Notably, OT had twice the effect on generosity than on altruism, and the effect (continued)

© The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_5

125

126 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

(continued)

persisted even though there was no face-to-face interaction (as is also the case with most cases of anonymous charity giving). Together, OT and altruism scores accounted for almost half of the interpersonal variation in generosity. Does such prosocial behavior even with complete strangers and without any face-to-face interaction have any adaptational value? Perhaps, the ubiquitous attraction felt for complete strangers and the development of romantic attachment and love could be the answer. ....The very fact that the substance, namely OT, has remained with mammal seven after such a long evolutionary history suggests OT has adaptive value. It is often said that, ‘an eye for an eye will leave the world blind.’ Maybe it is the effect of OT on various brain systems that prevents us from being so revengeful and killing others and helps us to continue to trust others even after persistent breaches of trust. In fact, if the effects of OT are taken together, ranging from affiliative behavior to sex, from parturition to nursing and finally maternal bonding, OT appears to be truly the ‘great facilitator of life’ (Lee et al. 2009).” (Excerpted from Kool and Agrawal 2011, pp. 149–151).

The very foundation of our sociability is, apparently, the ability to cooperate with others and our capacity to understand the feelings of others, including that of strangers. Millions of years ago, humans realized that while they were intellectually better, their physical strength and skills was no match for the physical prowess of wild animals, either large or small. Dealing with the ravages of nature was again not possible without the combined efforts of bands of people acting through concerted effort. Gandhi, too, decades before scientific research on the evolutionary basis of behavior surfaced, was keenly aware of the adaptive nature of cooperation and its role in societal living, and so spoke of what he called progressive ahimsa. If we turn our eyes to the time of which history has any record down to our own time, we shall find that man has been steadily progressing towards ahimsa. Our remote ancestors were cannibals. Then came a time when they

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

127

were fed up with cannibalism and they began to live on chase. Next came a stage when man was ashamed of leading the life of a wandering hunter. He therefore took to agriculture and depended principally on mother earth for his food. Thus, from being a nomad he settled down to civilized stable life, founded villages and towns, and from member of a family he became member of a community and a nation. All these are signs of progressive ahimsa and diminishing himsa. Had it been otherwise the human species should have been extinct by now, even as many of the lower species have disappeared. (Gandhi 1940)

As alluded to by Gandhi, cooperative forms of behavior seem to have a long evolutionary history, and the very fact that it has remained with us, despite the processes of natural selection verifies its importance and relevance for adaptation to an unfriendly environment. Further, research findings clarify the existence of cooperation throughout the phylogenetic scale, from the lowly ant and the bumble bee to the gigantic elephant and the ferocious lion. In the present chapter, we will take a look at the behavioral aspects of cooperation through the lens of evolution, the focus being on the nature and dynamics of cooperative behavior among a variety of animal species. Cooperation cannot, however, take place without the understanding of the feelings of others, in other words, without empathy. The next part of the chapter will, therefore, deal with the neurochemical substrates of empathy. The last part of the chapter will attempt to bring to the fore, the neural-anatomical basis of cooperative and other forms of social behavior, including recent advances in the concept of the social brain.

Cooperation Among Animals An anthropomorphous ape, if he could take a dispassionate view of his own case, … might insist that they were ready to aid their fellow-apes of the same troop in many ways, to risk their lives for them, and to take charge of their orphans; but they would be forced to acknowledge that disinterested love for all living creatures, the most noble attribute of man, was quite beyond their comprehension. (Charles Darwin 1871, p. 105)

As can be seen from the quote above, even Charles Darwin appreciated that animals are not only ready to help each other but that they actually do so, to the extent of risking their lives. In fact, one of the earliest references to the scientific investigation of cooperation in animals is that by Darwin,

128 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

who was perturbed by this phenomenon because of the problems that it caused to his theory of natural selection (1859/1958). A few decades later, in the nineteenth century, we witness fervent debates between the likes of intellectuals such as Thomas Huxley and Peter Kropotkin on issues regarding the ability of animals to cooperate with one another and to show altruistic behavior. The twentieth century, with the ongoing advances in science and technology, saw evidence on animal cooperation starting to be gathered in earnest. Today, after two decades of the twenty-first century, what began as a nascent field of experimentation a century ago can be said to have made a position for itself with its extensive achievements demanding due recognition across a variety of disciplines, ranging from psychology and sociology to engineering and medicine. As far as the evolutionary sciences are concerned, cooperation is, normally, defined as any evolutionary change or adaptation that has evolved at least, in part, so as to increase the reproductory success of the actor’s social partners (Gardner et  al. 2009). For example, one form of cooperation among animals is seen in the way monkeys shriek or other species let out loud grunts to warn the rest of the herd of impending danger from predators, thereby helping to keep outsiders at bay. Over the last century, we have seen a burgeoning mass of evidence on cooperation among a variety of species, and is part of the response repertoire of not only human beings but also that of microorganisms such as bacteria (Griffin et al. 2004), birds (Massen et al. 2015) and, of course, primates such as baboons (Kummer 1995), chimpanzees (Boesch and Boesch-Achermann 2000), lions ( Heinsohn and Packer 1995) and plants (Biernaskie 2011) as described in Box 5.1.

Box 5.1  How Animals Engage in Cooperative Behavior

The scientific study of cooperation among animals has brought to the fore the variety of ways through which animals engage in cooperative forms of behavior. Further, within-group cooperation has also been seen among animals, in order to facilitate competition with others outside the group, much as humans do in some sports, in wars and in day-to-day group living. Is it not amazing that there are even examples of altruism, for example, an adult helping an injured mother carry her child? (continued)

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

129

Box 5.1  (continued)

The following are some examples of the great variety of social skills exhibited by different species of animals: Peacemaking: When juvenile baboons fight, their mothers may collaborate to resolve the dispute (Judge and Mullen 2005). Recognizing status differences: Ravens are able to recognize changes in status position among other ravens (Massen, et al., 2015), and chimpanzees can even recognize status differences among humans (de Waal, 2000). Teamwork: Hawks work in teams to more effectively hunt prey (Anderson & Franks, 2003). Sharing: Chimpanzees share the fruits of their joint effort in such a way so as to reward those who contributed the most, even to the extent of depriving those of higher status who contributed less (Boesch and Boesch-Achermann 2000). Joint planning: Baboons plan their travel routes, thus displaying a form of social cognition (Kummer 1995). Cooperative problem solving: Ravens can cooperate to disentangle problems (Massen et al. 2015). Tolerance: Crows, who are more tolerant toward others, are more likely to enjoy success (Seed, Clayton, & Emery, 2008). One last social skills-related example is too interesting not to share; it concerns dealing with inequality. Brosnan and his team of coworkers (Brosnan, et al., 2010) describe a very interesting experiment undertaken on pairs of primates who are made to perform certain tasks and receive cucumber slices and grapes in compensation. The experimenters noticed that all the primates preferred the grapes to the cucumber. Seeing is believing: the researchers saw to their surprise that if one received cucumber and the other grapes, the participant with the cucumber slices objected and sometimes refused the food that would otherwise have been eaten very calmly if their peer had also received cucumber slices. Even more surprising is the observation that, at times, even the participant who received grapes would reject them due to the inequity of the situation. However, it should be noted that this behavior was not always displayed by all the participants and neither is it the common practice for all species. (continued)

130 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Box 5.1  (continued)

What was the conclusion? Well, it seemed clear that our contention that “dog eat dog” behavior among humans does not derive from our “animal nature.” Substantial evidence seems to exist to reject the view. Instead, a growing body of research suggests that our fellow animals have the cognitive capacities needed to cooperate and that those capacities are often deployed. Adapted from Jacobs, G.  M. (2017). Cooperation among animals. IASCE Newsletter, 36(2), 5-7.Retrieved from http://www. iasce.net/home/newsletters.

Traditionally, the cause of animal cooperation was believed to be direct benefit to kin or relatives and was, therefore, nomenclatured as the theory of kin selection (Griffin and West 2003). However, other evidence reveals that cooperation among animals is almost as complex as that in humans and seems to go far beyond the reaping of direct benefits for reproduction (Clutton-Brock 2002). Corroborating this idea are investigations from various sources and on a variety of species, which provide data regarding altruistic cooperation among climbing plants (Griffin et al. 2004), cooperation when the benefits are hidden (Davies et al. 2012) or even that of symbiosis or mutualism between two different species (Lutzoni et  al. 2001; Zhang and Smith 2002). Another issue that has been raised is whether animal cooperation takes place in order to solve ecological problems such as those related to harsh environmental conditions. On the basis of data collected on over 5000 species, Cornwallis and his colleagues (2017) have clarified through extensive data analysis that it is actually the other way around—that cooperation evolves first, and this gives the species the capability to deal with harsh environments in a collective fashion. The scientists clarify that in certain species of birds, for example, the cooperative rearing of offspring took place in fairly benign environments where neither was the temperature challenging nor was there scarcity of water. Only after cooperative breeding was established did these species move to harsher environments. In contrast, species in which such cooperative rearing was not practiced were not able to colonize in challenging environments.

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

131

Further, the authors of the study note that this type of relationship between cooperation and the ability to deal with harsher environments is seen in other species also, including various types of bacteria. That cooperation does not take place only because of the direct reproductory benefits is clear from other examples that show that some species cooperate with each other even if the reward is delayed, or, that they manifest delayed gratification, much like humans do. However, the ability for delayed gratification is clearly a function of partner reciprocation and the accumulation of rewards over a period of time according to some researchers from the University of Minnesota (University of Minnesota 2002, www.sciencedaily.com). Most of the research pointed out above is with reference to cooperation within kin groups. However, one of the basic challenges for the survival of any collectivity, including that of humans, is to be able to collaborate with each other over a wide variety of tasks with unrelated, non-kin members. The success of such collaboration is highly dependent on the ability to recognize when collaboration is vital and whom to choose in the face of such a situation. Do we see the elementary precursors for such collaboration in the animal world? Evidence on chimpanzees, certainly, points to such a hypothesis. The intelligence of animals is sometimes difficult to gauge but experimental findings show that chimpanzees can be smart enough to recruit the best collaborators (Melis, 2006b) proving that such skills may have been present in the common ancestor long before humans evolved their own complex forms of collaboration. Similar skills are also present in other species as pointed out by various scientists (e.g., de Waal, 2000; Hattori et  al. 2005; Hauser et al. 2003). Ontogenetic evidence on humans, too, favors the acceptance of the evolutionary basis of the collaborative skills since we see the emergence of these skills as early as at the age of 14 months (Tomasello et al. 2005). Other lines of evidence also clarify the manifestation of helping or cooperative behavior among strangers. While Darwin’s kin selection theory holds that we tend to help people of the same kin, such that we help in the survival of our own genes, and that as the biological distance between relations increases from siblings to cousins, the amount of help decreases (Burstein et al. 1994), there are times when cooperation even with strangers proves vital for survival as in the case of people helping strangers in incidents of road accidents.

132 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Surprisingly, helping behavior is also seen among animals who may be strangers to each other. The reasons are, however, different from those for bystander intervention among humans. Even more interesting are the observations regarding unrelated male members of the lance-tailed manakin who cooperate with each other in order to attract the female (DuVal 2007) and cooperation among non-kin members of other animal species (Clutton-Brock 2009). Would you cooperate with a cheater or a defector? Research clarifies that animals as well as humans sometimes, actually, do cooperate with cheaters and defectors, especially in situations where it is found to be more profitable to cooperate rather than to compete with them, as seen in organisms as simple as the yeast (Gore et al. 2009). Let us now move to cooperation and conflict among members of a species. As far as human beings are concerned, the formation of groups, generally, leads to feelings of closeness and affiliation for the in-group as contrasted with feelings of aversion for the out-group. As a result, conflict, rather than cooperation, is seen between out-groups in various forms of intergroup conflict. Though conflict is the common behavioral tendency among outgroups, there is sufficient evidence to show that cooperation can also take place. The experiment, generally known as the Robber’s Cave experiment, by Sherif and his colleagues (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961), on young boys is well known as far as intergroup cooperation among humans is concerned. There is recent evidence revealing that the same can take place among animals (Robinson and Barker 2017) with the cause for such intergroup cooperation being much the same as that found for humans, both in the experimental situation and in daily life. The reason is either a felt inadequacy of internal resources or the presence of a common enemy, leading to feelings of shared interests or a super-ordinate level of interdependence (Willems et al. 2013). Last, but not the least, is a form of cooperation, interesting because of its direct relevance to our understanding of nonviolence. Is it not amazing that even animals, especially group-living mammals, realize that while disputes are bound to take place between members of the group, their effects are deleterious for both the aggressor and the victim? A series of experiments, using ingenious research paradigms, by Wittig and his associates, enable us to draw considerable insight into the modus operandi of post conflict behavior of some species of monkeys. First and foremost, it is found that the monkeys tend to minimize the effects of aggression by active reconciliation efforts after the fights. Secondly, the

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

133

function of such reconciliation is that, once it has taken place, the recent opponents can go back to their baseline level of tolerance for each other (Wittig and Boesch 2005). Thirdly, the scientists attempted to look for the mechanisms used for reconciliation. In many cases, akin to humans, animal egos stop them from making direct attempts at reconciliation (remember how difficult it is to say “sorry”!). The animal, then, takes recourse to indirect mechanisms: in some cases it is a grunt by the aggressor which, surprisingly, is recognized by the victim as an act of reconciliation (Cheney and Seyfarth 1997). The other mechanism is that kin of the aggressor may function as the mediator (again, probably because the animal is far too egoistic) (Judge and Mullen 2005). By using play-back conditions, Wittig and his associates (2007) conclude that such kin-mediated reconciliation can substitute direct reconciliation by the aggressor, clarifying how group living is of greater priority than the ego of individual animals. As explained by the authors: If disputes remain unreconciled, tolerance may remain disrupted between both opponents and their matrilines, and group cohesion may be weakened. Such loss of cohesion may prove costly in areas of high predation ..or during inter-group competition for resources…. Regardless of their dominance rank, group life is essential for all female baboons, and more socially integrated females experience higher infant survival,…and reduced stress…. In the Okavango Delta, females’ reproductive success is determined primarily by predation and infanticide, and females can diminish the deleterious effects of these two selective pressures by establishing and maintaining close bonds with kin, adult males and other adult females. Reconciliation serves the important function of minimizing and ameliorating the disruptive effects of aggression and restoring tolerance among females. (Wittig et  al. 2007, p 1113)

In the modern world, there are many examples in which out of court reconciliation has been preferred to expensive and time-taking adjudication in all sorts of disputes: political disputes, corporate disputes and individual disputes. In fact, reconciliation is one of the most favored mechanisms of alternate dispute resolution strategies (Kool and Agrawal 2006; Kool 2008). From the above paragraphs, it is clear that cooperation is a form of behavior that is commonly seen in animals, both small and large, and that the various forms of cooperation seen among human beings today has a strong evolutionary basis. However, for cooperation to occur effectively,

134 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

the organism must be able to comprehend the need for cooperation, as well as, whom to cooperate with. Both of these cannot be possible without the all important ability of being able to empathize with other members of the herd or group. We, therefore, now go on to the detailed analysis of empathy, its evolutionary precursors and the underlying neurochemical and neuroanatomical substrates.

Empathy: Its Evolutionary Roots The following quote helps us get a feel of empathy, in other words, to empathize about empathy. Your heart beats faster as you watch a tarantula crawl on James Bond’s chest in the movie Dr No, your hands sweat and your skin tingles under the spider’s legs. You feel scared, tense, and finally relieved when Bond manages to escape the danger. We are essentially empathic. But what is empathy? How does your brain enable you to feel so much of what 007 is feeling?….The journey starts where ‘mirror neurons’ were discovered. The door of a lab in Parma, Italy, opens to reveal that your motor system not only controls your own body—it becomes automatically activated each time you see others move. A little later, you lie down on a bed and slowly move into the bore of a brain scanner in Marseille, becoming a subject in an experiment that will show how your own sensations and emotions are automatically triggered while you witness those of others. These experiments unravel the mirror in our brain that lets our own actions, sensations and emotions resonate with those of Bond and the people around us……. We are hard-wired for empathy. (Review of book, The Empathic Brain by Christian Keysers (2011), on Amazon website)

At some time or the other, you would, surely, have undergone feelings such as the above! These feelings do not just happen. We have them because of a very special ability that we are endowed with, the ability to show empathy for others. What is empathy? Empathy is the ability to, not only, understand and share the mental and emotional states of others but, to also, be able to take the perspective of others. It helps us to put ourselves in the shoes of the other person and perceive things from their angle. How important is this capacity to empathize with others? Both empirical research and practice bring to the fore that it is this all important capacity which is at the base of much of our social character, including the manifestation of cooperative behavior (Kool and Agrawal 2013, 2018).

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

135

Genetic Underpinnings of Empathy A common way to establish the role of heredity is to study twins, both identical and fraternal. Empirical studies (e.g., Davis et al. 1994) clarify on the basis of over 800 pairs of twins that the affective component of empathy certainly has a hereditary basis. At the same time, the examination of newborn babies reveals that empathy is an innate ability. Thus, Martin and Clark (1982) observed that young babies cried a lot more when they heard recorded cries of other babies than when they heard recordings of their own crying. Similarly, children even before the age of two years were found to readily help even a stranger who dropped something (Warneken and Tomasello 2006). Surely, these two-year-olds did not have occasion to pick up such behavior through observation of adults! As far as the neural basis of such responses to the behavior of other infants is concerned, several neuroimaging methods have been used, and the results provide evidence on the neural processes related to face, gaze, emotion, biological motion and joint attention revealing the complex ways through which the infant brain processes information about the social world (e.g., Onishi and Baillargeon 2005; Southgate et al. 2007; Surian et al. 2007). Many a time, abnormalities have provided useful insights into normal phenomena. Such is also the case with empathy, with studies showing that children with conduct problems show reduced activation in the empathy-­ related area of the brain in response to vicarious pain (Lockwood et  al. 2013). Thus, the empirical evidence in the area clarifies that not only does empathy have a neurological basis but that it has also been conserved across species. In fact, “research in the neurobiology of empathy has changed the very perception of empathy from a soft skill to a neurobiological based competency” (Reiss 2017). Altruistic Cooperation, Altruistic Punishment and Its Neural Basis Digging deeper into the biology and more specifically into the evolutionary basis of empathy, we come across the work of de Waal (de Waal, 2000; de Waal and Preston 2017), a well-known authority in the field. He is of the opinion that both human beings and animals are prewired for empathy, and the beauty of this capacity is that, over a period of time, empathy tends to mitigate the “us-them” boundaries, a known cause of interpersonal problems, especially that between groups.

136 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

A common paradox in human behavior is that while we normally tend to protect our kin, there are times when we also punish them or even go to the extent of cooperating with people who are unrelated to us at the expense of members of our own kin. Such punishment through which we stand to lose rather than gain is known as altruistic punishment, while the act of favoring strangers over members of our kin is called altruistic cooperation. It is important to remember that in both cases the punisher does not accrue any gains. One reason for such paradoxical behavior could be the human instinct of gregariousness due to which we are exceptionally social and tend to protect our social groups even at a cost to oneself or those related to us. How else do we explain a mother punishing her small child even though it leads to considerable guilt? Similarly, how do we explain a mother rebuking her child for not sharing her toys with the neighbor’s child, even though the other child has the habit of breaking them? Bowles and Gintis (2004) have attempted to explain such behavior by pointing out that at times of group crises, reciprocal cooperation may collapse and defectors could be on the rise. Since it is important that defection be curtailed and contained, costly punishment may become mandatory even at great personal cost. The same could be the situation when there is strong intra-­ group reciprocity, and it becomes absolutely necessary to punish noncooperators. The adaptive value of such altruistic punishment is clear because if every individual in the group became a noncooperator there would be no one to reciprocate, and the entire system would collapse. In other words, altruistic punishment often acts as social glue and should therefore be seen as a social investment (Fehr and Gächter 2002). Imaging, using fMRI, has revealed the possible neural underpinnings of altruistic punishment, suggesting that the lateral aspect of the prefrontal cortex acts as a locus in mediating such punishment (Knoch et al. 2006; Ruff et al. 2013; Spitzer, Fischbacher, Herrnberger, et al., 2007). Others have highlighted the importance of the insula and the amygdala (Hsu et al. 2008; Haruno and Frith 2010). The combination of these two sets of areas (the prefrontal area being the seat of cognitive functioning, while the amygdala is known for its role in affective processing of information) explains the ways in which cognitive and affective variables may interact with each other and may well be mediating a potential change in mind before the execution of the costly and often unhappy decision to deliver the punishment (Du and Chang 2015). Even more interesting is the finding that there are clear differences in the neural substrates of altruistic punishment and spiteful punishment (Yamagishi et al. 2017).

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

137

Gandhi and Empathy And, in Gandhi we see empathy at its zenith. As observed by Gangrade (2004): He completely identified himself with the Indian masses. He observed: “We must first come in living touch with them by working with them and in their midst, we must share their sorrows, understand their difficulties and anticipate their wants. With the pariahs we must be pariahs and see how we feel to clean the closets of the upper classes and have the remains of theirs to be thrown at us. We must see how we like being in the boxes, miscalled houses, of the labourers of Bombay. We must identify with the villagers who toil under the hot sun beating on their bent back and see how we would like to drink water from the pool in which the villagers bathe, wash their clothes and pots, and in which their cattle drink and roll. Then and not till then shall we truly represent the masses and they will, as surely as I am writing this, respond to every call.” (Gangrade 2004, p.84)

One should also remember that this exhortation for empathy and compassion was not just political rhetoric spoken to arouse the masses. As Gandhi always professed, he asked for nothing which he had not tested on himself. And the same stands for empathy. In fact, as expressed by Murray and his colleagues (2014): A particular gift of Gandhi was his ability to love and reach out to the humanity of his political opponents, including those who initiated and supported oppressive policies in South Africa and India. (Murray et  al. 2014, p. 176)

At the same time, empathy was at the core of Gandhian nonviolence or ahimsa. The power to love our enemies and those who wrong us is possible only if we are able to empathize with them. According to Gandhi: In its positive form, ahimsa means the largest love, the greatest charity. If I am a follower of ahimsa, I must love my enemy. I must apply the same rules to the wrongdoer who is my enemy or a stranger to me as I would to my wrongdoing father or son. (Gandhi, in Bose 1948, p 151)

Another “truth” that Gandhi was wont to deliver to his opponents and friends was that he had “nothing new to teach the world; nonviolence is as old as the hills.” How right was Gandhi! Research in the latter half of the twentieth century and recent advances in imaging and neurosciences in the current century have shown that the power to love is certainly not new

138 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

and is also not limited to merely us members of the Homo sapiens. There is enough evidence to show that not only are we hard wired for love, compassion and its forerunner, empathy, but also that this capacity has survived phylogenetically. Maybe, it has been very rightly said that neither humans nor rats are angels: both species also experience greed and envy, and will hurt and even kill others in some situations. But, at the same time, the motivation to help others seems to be a biological reality. Whether it is parenting, the capacity to develop affection and even engage in romantic love, or the ability to show altruism and generosity, at the base of all of these and in fact, much more, is empathy. From the insect to various subhuman mammalians, sociability is a capacity that is vital for the survival of the species which cannot be had without emotional and behavioral sharing and cooperation. At the same time, evidence for emotional sharing and helping behavior in rats shows us that there may be more similarities between animals and humans than we have ever suspected and that we might not be the only moral animal. If this is so, these motives must be deeply engraved into our biology and brain architecture, and there should be some reason for its presence through the ages. We now examine various lines of evidence to see the extent to which Gandhi was right in proposing that “nonviolence is as old as the hills.” The first of these relates to what in commercial parlance has come to be known as the “trust hormone” or even the “love hormone.” This is the hormone, oxytocin (OT), till recently more famous for its role in childbirth and lactation. The second line of evidence is regarding the fascinating world of mirror neurons (the so-called Gandhi neurons), namely, neurons that fire on seeing other members of their species engage in action and respond in manners identical to how they would react if they themselves had been submitted to the same stimulus. The third line of evidence draws on the concept of the social brain and studies that elucidate the evolution and computational limits of the social brain.

The Neurophysiological Basis of Empathy: The Role of Oxytocin Ever since Seligman (2003) professed that psychologists have, for far too long, focused on the negative aspects of the human psyche and that it is high time we started investigating the positive aspects of human nature, research interest in positive social behavior such as empathy, trust, compassion, gratitude, forgiveness, generosity, altruism and cooperation has been on the rise.

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

139

One aspect of research on the above has been to decipher the neurological basis along with the evolutionary aspects of positive emotions and behavior patterns. In this direction, a hormone that has attracted considerable attention is the neuropeptide oxytocin (OT). There is enough evidence to show that it is an ancient neuropeptide and neuromodulator, having been preserved through evolutionary forces in both subhumans and humans. Virtually, all vertebrates have an OT-like nonapeptide hormone that supports reproductive functions, along with another nonapeptide hormone, vasopressin, involved in water regulation. The genes for both these hormones are usually located close to each other on the same chromosome probably resulting from a duplication event of a single gene which could be 500 million years old (Gimpi and Fahrenholz 2001). Oxytocin is produced by the hypothalamus and is released in both the brain and in the peripheral blood stream. While its function in childbirth and lactation has long been known, both animal and human studies show that OT plays a role in the regulation of several mammalian social behaviors (Choleris et al. 2013). Oxytocin and Sociability About slightly more than a decade back, investigators, inspired by animal research linking OT to sociability, started conducting studies to delve into the ways in which OT modulates human social behavior. One of the first publications, in which a causal link was established between OT administered externally and trust, was conducted by Kosfield and his colleagues in 2005. In the same year and in the same laboratory, it was also established that there exists a correlation between endogenous or plasma OT and behavior (Zak et al. 2005). The receptors for OT are most densely distributed in those cortical areas known to be activated when adults look at pictures of their lovers or when mothers look at pictures of their children (Bartels and Zeki 2000) and which has, of late, been hypothesized to be the “social brain” (Adolphs 2003; Brothers 1990). According to Lefevre and Sirigu’s (2017) chapter entitled, Oxytocin’s influence on social decision making in the book Decision Neurosciences (Dreher and Tremblay 2017), the social brain circuitry can be divided into two parts: one centered in the amygdala and the other centered in the nucleus accumbens. Both these networks are present in most vertebrates, and their neurochemical properties are very similar. A common denominator for both these centers is the neurotransmitter oxytocin, having receptors in many of these areas and

140 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

controlling social decisions such as approach/avoidance and even ingroup affiliation. Today, we are witnessing widespread interest in OT by both scientists and commercial users, and it has become a cause for intrigue among a variety of disciplines ranging from psychiatry to public policy. We find it being used in therapies for couples and autistic children (Nave et al. 2015), and, for stress-related disorders, and due to its effectiveness, MacGill (2017) has proposed that OT is an important component of a highly complex neurological system that helps the body to cope with highly emotive states. Empathy has been seen to be influenced by variations in OT receptor genes (Rodrigues et  al. 2009), and is also directly moderated by OT (Singer et al. 2008). So strong is the effect that even people in marketing have been eyeing it, and it is already available commercially as a nasal spray, a whiff of which is said to make you more vulnerable to the persuasions of others. Another aspect of great evolutionary importance is bonding between members of the opposite sex in both humans and other mammalians. Attempts to explicate the role of OT in such partner bonding have provided considerable insight, for example, in prairie voles and in humans (Scheele et al. 2013). It is often said that “an eye for an eye will leave the world blind.” Maybe it is the effect of OT on various brain systems that prevents us from being so revengeful and killing others and helps us to continue to trust others even after persistent breaches of trust. In fact, if the effects of OT are taken together, ranging from affiliative behavior to sex, from parturition to nursing and, finally, to maternal bonding, OT appears to be truly the “great facilitator of life” (Lee et al. 2009) and has made scientists researching in the area to write: If hormones could win popularity contests, oxytocin might well be the queen of the day….researchers have been working overtime to uncover its role in the brain and in regulating behavior. (De Angelis, 2008)

Box 5.2 also clarifies that life on this earth is possible to a very great extent because of the ability of member partners in every species to engage in what we humans call love, at the base of which is OT. Gandhi would have agreed, because he was of the opinion that, “Where there is love, there is life.” This has been quoted by none other than the psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, known for his work on how positive emotions

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

141

Box 5.2  The Biochemistry of Love: An Oxytocin Hypothesis “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

According to C. Sue Carter and Stephen Porges, this famous dictum pronounced by Theodosius Dobzhansky also holds true for explaining the evolution of love. And, they add that: “life on earth is fundamentally social; the ability to interact dynamically with other living organisms to support mutual homeostasis, growth and reproduction evolved early. Social interactions are present in primitive invertebrates and even among prokaryotes; bacteria recognize and approach members of their own species…..As another example, insect species have evolved particularly complex social systems known as eusociality….Research on honey bees indicates that a complex set of genes and their interactions regulate eusociality, and that these resulted from an “accelerated form of evolution……the evolutionary pathways that led from reptiles to mammals allow the emergence of the unique anatomical systems and biochemical mechanisms that enable social engagement and selectively reciprocal sociality.” In humans, “the biology of love originates in the primitive parts of the brain…that evolved long before the cerebral cortex. The brain of a human in love is flooded with sensations, often transmitted by the vagus nerve, creating much of what we experience as emotion.” “One element that repeatedly features in the biochemistry of love is the neuropeptide oxytocin, with preliminary evidence suggesting that the simple presence of an infant releases oxytocin in the adult and the baby virtually ‘forces us to love it.’…The receptors change and adapt on the basis of life experiences”, and as such “both oxytocin and the experience of love change over time.” In fact, oxytocin’s cellular receptors are regulated by other hormones and epigenetic factors, so much so, that, the authors point out that “love is an epigenetic phenomenon; social behaviors, emotional attachment to others and long lasting reciprocal relationships are plastic and adaptive and so is the biology on which they are based.” This is very relevant and shows how we are preprogrammed for love and that programming cannot change. (continued)

142 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Box 5.2  (continued)

The authors also explain how new knowledge about OT and vasopressin has helped us to understand the ways in which these hormones serve various adaptive functions including resilience and even neurogenesis and self-healing. It, therefore, seems clear that: “a life without love is not a life fully lived. Although research into mechanisms through which love protects us against stress and disease is in its infancy, this knowledge will ultimately increase our understanding of the way that our emotions have an impact on health and disease. We have much to learn about love and much to learn from love.” (Adapted and excerpted from Carter and Porges 2013, pp. 12-16)

lead to “flow” in individuals. In a recent paper of 2019, entitled, “Beyond Personal Love: Experiencing love beyond the person,” the authors, Lukas et al. (\2019), argue that love is at the “pinnacle” of human experience and that it goes much beyond the personal or even interpersonal level to love for objects, both tangible and intangible. Techniques for Measuring the Effects of Oxytocin Three main methods have been used for investigating into the effects of OT. Firstly, research has been conducted to clarify the effects of OT introduced externally into the individual (Box 5.3). Secondly, studies have been performed to see the effects of plasma or endogenous OT, and, lastly, research has focused on the correlation of OT-related polymorphisms with behavioral measures. A recent review of studies has shown that while the impact of OT, either endogenous or exogenous, on social behavior cannot be ruled out, its effect is certainly more complicated than had been earlier visualized (Nave et al. 2015). For one thing, sex differences have emerged in responses to OT (Churchland and Winkielman 2012), and greater effects have been seen in women than in men (Jarnecke et al. 2018). Also, endogenous OT has been linked to the subjective perception of expressed gratitude (Algoe et al. 2017), with the authors professing that higher levels of OT “acted like rose-colored glasses,” helping individuals to have a more positive perception of their partner’s social responsiveness (such as gratitude, Algoe et al. 2016). The implications of findings such as these

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

143

Box 5.3  The Trust Game

Recent advances in neuroimaging have opened up new avenues of inquiry for psychologists. One such avenue is cognitive social neuropsychology, which uses a combination of functional magnetic neuroimaging (fMRI) and experimental paradigms to understand the neural basis of social phenomenon. Experimental paradigms being used in this regard include the extremely interesting Ultimatum and Dictator games. One such paradigm has been explained below which has been used to study the effect of OT on altruism and generosity in both face-to-face interactions and even when there was no faceto-face interaction (as in the case of anonymous donations to a charity). One of the common experimental paradigms is the trust game, so called because it studies the effects of OT on the trusting behavior of individuals in a game-like format. In a typical trust game, one investor (Player 1) is faced with a decision to keep a sum of money (say, $ 10) for himself or share it with another player, called the trustee (Player 2). If he decides to share it with the trustee, the original investment of $10 is tripled to a sum of $30. The trustee now faces the decision of whether he wants to repay the trust shown by Player 1 by sharing the tripled amount equally or to violate the trust and defect and keep the whole amount of $30 for himself. The crux of the game, therefore is, that the investor is left with an important social dilemma, that is, to trust the trustee and share the investment with him or not to trust him. Although it is more profitable to trust the trustee, the investor does bear the risk of betrayal of this trust reposed in the trustee. In studies on the effect of OT, this trust game is played with subjects either getting nasal sprays of OT or that of a placebo, with fMRIs and amount of behavioral trust shown being measured under the OT and placebo conditions. (Kool and Agrawal 2011, p. 149)

When subjects are administered nasal sprays of OT, they are not only more trusting of their competitors (Kosfeld et  al. 2005) but also continue trusting their partners even after repeated breaches of trust. In contrast, subjects with the placebo behaved very differently: they showed a decrease in the level of trust in their competitors (Baumgartner et al, 2008), similar to what had been clarified by Zak and his colleagues (2005) that the perception of human trustworthiness increases under OT.

144 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

show the strong link between OT and the promotion of social bonds among human romantic pairs, who become more attuned to the social behavior conveyed by the expresser’s behavior (Shamay-Tsoory and AbuAkel 2016), especially since it has also been established that people in the first stages of romantic love had higher levels of OT as compared with nonattached people (MacGill 2017). OT has also been linked to well being and happiness, with Paul Zak and his colleagues (2005) of the Claremont Graduate University, California, writing that “our findings reveal that the biological basis for social connections—OT—is part of the brain mechanism that serves to make us happy.” That altruism is related to happiness is clear from findings which show that women who shared the most money with a stranger were happiest, had stronger attachments to others and trusted others more. Another interesting finding is the implication of OT in ethnocentricism. From the laboratory of de Dreu (e.g., De Dreu et al. 2011), we learn that OT promotes group favoritism, enhancing negative effects toward the out-group. This is, once again, adaptive since if due to OT one’s trust in even strangers becomes unlimited, it could have grave negative consequences for the human race and would hamper the survival of the group. Another investigation from the same laboratory (Shalvi and De Dreu 2014) points to the importance of OT for group survival in that intranasal administration of OT in humans promotes trust and cooperation especially with familiar individuals and in-group members. The authors are of the view, therefore, that OT is a “tend and defend” hormone, acting by boosting group-serving behavior. In contrast, other researchers, as cited by de Angelis (2008), call OT the “tend and befriend” hormone since studies show that there are two faces of OT, in that it comes in at the best of times, and, in the worst of times, possibly in an attempt to fix the relationship (Whiteman 2017). The research findings mentioned above are just a small segment of the large mass of research in the area, providing ample evidence that oxytocin has functions much more highly variegated than what had been, originally, visualized. Besides being important for parturition and lactation in females, both human and subhuman, oxytocin has been found implicated in a wide variety of social behavior, especially, aspects of human behavior at the base of which is empathy. The role of oxytocin in partner bonding, group survival behavior, altruism, happiness, well being and the establishment of trust makes it amply clear that oxytocin-modulated behavior serves a highly adaptive purpose. Further, because of its role in such adaptive

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

145

behavior, oxytocin has been able to survive the evolutionary fight for survival, and we see its presence, even today, in humans as well as in a large number of subhuman mammalians (Kool and Agrawal 2010).

The Neuroanatomical Basis of Empathy: The Role of Mirror Neurons Box 5.4  Mirror Neurons: Understanding the Emotions and Actions of Others

IACOBONI: What do we do when we interact? We use our body to communicate our intentions and our feelings. The gestures, facial expressions, body postures we make are social signals, ways of communicating with one another. Mirror neurons are the only brain cells we know of that seem specialized to code the actions of other people and also our own actions. They are obviously essential brain cells for social interactions. Without them, we would likely be blind to the actions, intentions and emotions of other people. The way mirror neurons are likely to let us understand others is by providing some kind of inner imitation of the actions of other people, which in turn leads us to “simulate” the intentions and emotions associated with those actions. When I see you smiling, my mirror neurons for smiling fire up, too, initiating a cascade of neural activity that evokes the feeling we typically associate with a smile. I don’t need to make any inference on what you are feeling, I experience immediately and effortlessly (in a milder form, of course) what you are experiencing. (Lehrer 2008, Interview with Iacoboni, Scientific American) A mirror neuron is one that fires not only when an animal acts but also when it observes the same action being performed by another animal. It is as if the action is being mirrored in the brain of the observer. Surprisingly, these neurons were discovered through serendipity in the 1980s and 1990s when a group of neuroscientists headed by Giacamo Rizzolatti at the University of Parma, Italy, placed electrodes in the ventral prefrontal cortex of the macaque monkey. What a moment of surprise it must have been when they noticed that the same neuron which fired when the

146 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

monkey picked up a peanut also fired when it watched another monkey pick up a peanut! A few years later, the above-mentioned group of scientists found evidence that the Broca’s area in the human brain was homologous to the ventral prefrontal cortex in the monkey (Gallese et al. 1996). Little did they realize at that time how far reaching would be the implications of and how great would be the research interest in a paper that had been rejected by the eminent journal, Nature, on the ground that the topic was inconsequential. Twenty years later, in 2014, in the Introduction, of a special issue on mirror neurons, authors Ferrari and Rizzolatti write: It was certainly difficult to predict from the note published in 1992 how profoundly the discovery of mirror neurons would influence cognitive neuroscience in the next twenty years. Even more difficult was to forecast that the discovery of mirror neurons would have an impact on disciplines outside neurosciences, such as psychology, ethology, sociology and philosophy or that they would interest novelists (for example, The Elegance of the Hedgehog,Barbery, 2008) and laymen. (Ferrari and Rizzolatti 2014)

These mirror neurons have been found in many primates (Rizzolatti and Fadiga 1999), and more surprisingly, many bird species show some form of a mirroring system (Akins and Klein 2002). Further, it has been found that these mirror neurons form a firm neurological base for the capacity to empathize in both humans (Carrillo et  al. 2015; Zaki et  al. 2016), and other mammalian species (de Waal and Preston 2017) including rats and other rodents (Carrillo et al. 2019; Keum and Shin 2016). The early twenty-first century saw a flood of interest in attempts made to analyze the role of mirror neurons in sensations other than that of vision. Findings clarified that they fired not only on the sight of an action being performed but also when the individual heard the sound of an action being performed (Gazzola et al. 2006; Keysers 2011). But, some of the most interesting questions that mirror neurons raise cannot be answered by the motor neurons alone—researchers want to understand how we perceive other people’s emotions and sensations, not only their actions. Keysers and his colleagues are investigating just those issues. In one study, Keysers and neuroscientist Bruno Wicker used fMRI to look at the emotion of disgust. In research published in the Neuron (Wicker et al. 2003), they imaged the brains of 14 male participants as the

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

147

participants inhaled noxious odors such as butyric acid, which smells like rotten butter, and as they viewed a film of an actor wrinkling up his face into a disgusted look. Amazingly, the researchers found that both feeling disgusted and watching someone else look disgusted activated the same segment of an olfactory area of the participants’ brains called the anterior insula. Similarly, in another recent study, also published in the Neuron (Keysers et al. 2004), Keysers and his colleagues looked at tactile empathy, or how we experience the sight of others being touched. Again, he found that the same area of the somatosensory cortex was active both when the participants were lightly touched on the leg with a feather-duster-like contraption and when they viewed pictures of someone else being touched in the same spot. Thus, Keysers and his colleagues are trying to go beyond the motor description of neurons to the general phenomena of sensation, no matter through which sense organ. It is even more interesting and amazing when we try to understand the dynamics of these mirror neurons. Just imagine what would be the situation if on hearing an adult bemoaning the loss of a near and dear person, neurological mirroring causes us to also start sobbing? Would we be able to offer any help to the suffering person? Certainly not! A recent neuroimaging study reported by Helen Reiss (2017) clarifies that while we do feel the pain of others, it is in an attenuated form, such that the emotional situation does not overwhelm us to the extent that we are unable to respond in help. As Riess (2015) points out, a fine neurological balance is maintained between empathy leading to helping and distancing due to distress which helps us to maintain emotional equanimity and provide much needed help to individuals in pain. Of even greater interest are studies which are attempting to analyze whether these mirror neurons are able to decipher intentions behind actions. “You might pick up a teacup because you want to take a sip, or because you’re clearing the table,” says Marco Iacoboni (see Box 5.4). “The question is whether mirror neurons can tell the difference” (Winerman 2005). The importance of the discovery of mirror neurons can be gauged by the ways in which scholars have reacted to its discovery. While Heyes (2010) has written that these mirror neurons continue to intrigue both neuroscientists and others, and is being “celebrated as a revolution in understanding social behavior,” Jarrett (2012) calls it “the most hyped concept in neuroscience.” In a similar vein, neuroscientist Ramachandran, in his book, The Tell-Tale Brain: Unlocking the Mysteries of Human Nature (2011), explains how mirror neurons seem to have shaped our very

148 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

civilization and may be underlying what it is to be human, in terms of our capabilities of empathy, language and even culture. Ramachandran (2008) has gone so far as to call the discovery of mirror neurons, “a paradigm shattering discovery” which helps in “dissolving the barrier between the self and others” (p. 814). It is because of this aspect that he named them “Gandhi neurons,” that is, a set of neurons that could be helping us mitigate the boundaries between “us” and “them” that Gandhi stressed upon, so emphatically. Two aspects that Gandhi laid special focus on were self-sacrifice and altruism in the form of service to others. It has been hypothesized that both of these may be mere byproducts of neuronal mirroring and that we are good because we are hard-wired to be good (Kilner and Lemon 2013). In terms of the difference between violence and nonviolence, one of the ways to look at violence is from the angle of the inability to recognize oneself in another. In contrast, nonviolence reveals an ability to see ourselves in others. Emerging research on mirror neurons can go a long way in helping us to understand the biological basis of the difference between the psychology of violence and nonviolence.

The Social Brain and the Social Brain Hypothesis Considering the fact that humans are essentially social (see Box 5.5), neurosciences have shown an increasing interest in the neurological basis of the so-called social brain, culminating in the emergence of a new

Box 5.5  Welcome to Your Social Brain

“As human beings, our social interactions and connections are rich, complex, and packed with meaning. …..For starters, our social lives begin extremely early. Shortly after we come out of the womb we are faced with a barrage of buzzing social information: smiles, sounds, gestures, facial expressions, emotions…. We receive this information first from our caregivers, then other family members, friends, and many others as we develop over our lifespan. In transitioning from early childhood to adolescence and then to adulthood, we forge a sense of our social selves, complete with preferences, values, and beliefs that profoundly affect (continued)

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

149

Box 5.5  (continued)

with whom we associate and from whom we distance ourselves. ……… Folk psychology about social life has been galvanized by the pursuits of countless philosophers, political theorists, and theologians who have speculated on human nature and its core qualities—in order to reach some semblance of a consensus that could settle the big questions once and for all: is human behavior governed by the cool voice of reason, or raw, carnal emotion? Are humans fundamentally selfish and egotistical, or selfless and altruistic? ……… Within the past ten to fifteen years, a promising new instrument has appeared in the toolbox: social neuroscience. This burgeoning field holds the potential, some believe, of completely revolutionizing the study of psychology and human nature altogether.” (Excerpted from Lopez (2010, June 11, Psychology Today)

interdisciplinary field, social cognitive neuroscience, based on the union between cognitive neuroscience and social psychology. This new field attempts to understand phenomena in terms of the complex interaction between social factors and their influence on behavior, the cognitive processes underlying behavior and the neural/hormonal mechanisms serving cognitive processes. Such a multilevel, multi-disciplinary approach necessitates a multi-method research strategy, which includes in its repertoire a variety of methods ranging from behavioral measures to neuroimaging techniques and to autonomous measures. Starting with the investigation of basic social abilities (e.g., Ochsner and Lieberman 2001), researchers have moved to complex social phenomena such as the processing of social rejection (Eisnberger 2012), stereotyping (Stanley et al. 2011) and emotion regulation (van’t Wout et  al. 2010). Another important line of research is on the ability to understand other people’s beliefs, intentions and feelings, or what has been termed the theory of mind (ToM) along with the neurological basis of empathy, compassion and emotional contagion. Lastly, we are also witnessing considerable interest in the analysis of moral and social reasoning using social dilemma tasks such as the prisoner’s dilemma game and the Ultimatum game (Funk and Gazzaniga 2009).

150 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

As early as in the 1990s, Brothers (1990), on the basis of available literature, proposed that there are a set of brain regions that are dedicated to social cognition. She called this the social brain and it included, mainly, the amygdala, the orbital frontal cortex and the temporal cortex. With advances in brain imaging techniques, further areas have been added, namely, the medial prefrontal cortex and the paracingulate cortex (Amodio and Frith 2006), the superior temporal sulcus, the anterior cingulate cortex, the inferior frontal gyrus as well as the anterior insular cortex (Blakemore 2008; Frith and Frith 2007). What is the function of the social brain? These brain regions play functional roles in social cognition, with the human infant being born ready to learn through social experiences (Csibra and Gyorgy 2006). While neonates are born with multiple tendencies which facilitate social interaction, other abilities develop during infancy and early childhood. Adolescence is a time of rapid change in the social brain. As a result of the above, humans are able to learn appropriate socio-cultural behavior during childhood as well as adapt to new customs and changing social environment as an adult. As the name suggests, the social brain helps us to interact with people by making predictions about their behavior (Theory of Mind) and mentalizing. Further, imaging research has clarified that the social brain is highly differentiated in terms of function, with the amygdala being the seat for prejudice (LeDoux 2000), the temporal poles responsible for social scripting (Damasio et al. 2004) and the medial prefrontal cortex for mentalizing (Amodio and Frith 2006). But, has the human brain always been this way? As we look back into the history of mankind and that of other species in the phylogenetic scale, it is clear that the brain of almost all species has undergone extensive changes through the process of evolution. As circumstances and the environmental challenges changed, the brain also changed in line with the Darwinian principle of natural selection. Let us now attempt to understand the complex ways in which the primate, including the human brain, has evolved. While the principles of brain evolution are far from being completely understood, there is sufficient evidence to show that in most species, small-bodied animals have larger brains, as compared to their body size and vice versa. Further, with evolution, the brain size of mammals and especially that of primates increased. It has also been observed that brain evolution has not been in terms of simple expansion in volume. It actually entailed reorganizations of many types depending on the needs of that particular species. In fact, a

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

151

mosaic can be detected, with both the rate and the extent of evolution varying between components. Scientists have also observed that there have been massive changes in the neocortex (Dunbar 1998), which, from the point of evolution, is the youngest part of the brain. The neocortex shows both an increase in the amount of folding and in its thickness. In humans, it is larger and more complex than that in other mammals and primates, having six layers in all. It is hypothesized that this increase is mandated by the environmental complexities faced by human beings. An important feature of natural social networks is that in both humans and nonhuman primates, our social networks are arranged in hierarchically inclusive layers that have a natural scaling ratio of about 3. These natural layers reflect both the interaction frequency and the emotional closeness possible, having values of 5, 15, 50 and 150, with the two farthest layers of 500 and 1500 (Dunbar, 2016). Dunbar goes on to explain that the first three layers constitute real relations, while the last two are acquaintances and people whose faces we cannot put names to. A second question that demands an answer is what was the need for such increases in brain size? The cost of creating and maintaining a large brain is phenomenal, and it seems unlikely that large brains evolved without any reason, as such. Also, principles of natural selection mandate that evolutionary changes are based on need, regarding both the addition of new structures and the extinction of structures no longer considered to be necessary. As far as the human brain is concerned, the traditional view has been that the human brain became larger in order to face various ecological challenges, such as the increasing need and problems associated with foraging, the effective rearing of the young and survival, in general. For each of these, more efficient pattern recognition, color vision and speech recognition became necessary, and thus, it has been hypothesized that brains evolved to deal with these ecological reasoning and problem-­ solving tasks. More recently, it has been hypothesized that it was as and when ecological problems became increasingly difficult, human beings soon realized that solving these problems is not possible at the individual level, unaided by others, thus leading to the banding of individuals. This was when the first communities were formed mainly because the ravages of nature were far beyond the capabilities of individuals but could be effectively and efficiently handled by a group of people. Thinking along these lines soon became incorporated in what is known as the social brain hypothesis. A major assumption is that much of brain

152 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

evolution took place because of the increasing computational demands of social living and the need for the ability to manipulate information rather than simply store it in memory (Dunbar 1998). Later work by Dunbar and Schultz (2007a) has clarified some of the misconceptions that arose with the formulation of the social brain hypothesis. Rather than it being the case of ecological challenges being pitted against social and cultural challenges, Dunbar and Schultz (2007a, b) make it clear that the social brain hypothesis is in itself an ecological model. The claim of the social brain hypothesis is that ecological challenges are better met as a group or socially rather than as unaided individuals. Understanding it on the basis of computer models, one can say that as brain size increased, it led to a geometric increase in the amount of computational power available, making for more effective social relations through which the ecological challenges could be best met. Even among social relations, the trigger for increasing brain size appears to be the special type of intense pair bonding seen among humans (most cultures of the world are monogamous in nature). So, it can be concluded that the needs of social interaction appears to drive cognition, which in turn, led to the evolution of the neocortex to a very high level, spurred on by the complexities of social living (Frith 2007). Other researchers are of the opinion that the evolution of the brain took place due to a combination of reasons. Using more advanced statistical tools, Gonzalez-Forero and Gardner (2018) have been able to provide us, in quantitative terms, the extent to which brain evolution took place to deal with different types of challenges. According to their model, the present size of the human brain can be best understood in terms of the following: 60% due to ecological challenges, 30% due to cooperation challenges and 10% due to between group competitive challenges. However, the model also suggests that between individual competition has been found to be unimportant for driving human brain size evolution. Through its evolutionary history, we also observe changes in the shape of the human brain (Neubauer et al. 2018). How is brain evolution in humans different from that in other animals? Though there may be many questions that remain unanswered and many more new ones will keep popping up, one aspect that is clear is that human social cognition is special, leading to special ways through which the human brain has evolved. According to Adolphs (2009), at least three features of human sociability are different from those found in other species. These are, the ability to shift one’s conscious focus to both times and places outside the present and also into another mind (Buckner and Carroll 2007); the ability to use our abilities flexibly through both time and space

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

153

based on a gargantuan episodic memory which enables us to remember both faces and events (Stevens et al. 2005) and the ability to evaluate others from a moralistic perspective often precipitating a person to deliver various forms of punishment including altruistic punishment (Fehr and Gächter 2002) or to cooperate with so-called enemies as in altruistic cooperation (Bowles and Gintis 2004). Recent research in developmental social neuroscience has also revealed that these aspects of social interaction are not aspects that are manifested at the time of birth. It develops slowly with infants and children undergoing considerable change in their ability to understand other human beings and act on the basis of this understanding. Corroborating such data is the finding of some brain imaging studies which have also revealed that there are ontological changes in parts of the social brain with changes in social cognitive tasks (Blakemore 2008). Findings such as these have tremendous implications, demonstrating that since the child is not born with a clearly defined social brain, it is the later experiences in the home, the school and the culture at large which will help to develop the areas of the social brain in ways that would be conducive to the inculcation of cooperation or competition. Adversarialism-Mutualism and the Social Brain An issue that can be raised in this context is that if we are prewired for cooperative forms of behavior, why are there conflicts, with violence and war as the end result? In the social sciences, including psychology and sociology, this has been classed as the issue of mutualism versus adversarialism. While the former is characterized by a tendency to connect, seek support and nurture others (Erikson 1969), the latter is based on competing tendencies and opposition so as to maximize self-interest. Thus, this problem could be due to these tendencies for adversarialism, on the one hand, and mutualism, on the other, such that teaching people mutual respect and abstinence from violence becomes an uphill task. Are these exclusive water tight compartments? According to Barak (2003), “most people are neither compulsive adversaries nor compulsive mutualists” (p.  282). Then, what decides our choice between the two tendencies? Fellman (1998), in his thought provoking book, Rambo and the Dalai Lama: The Compulsion to Win and Its Threat to Human Survival, contends that, “life is about the tension between adversarialism and mutuality. Both sets of forces are inevitable: the question is how they are expressed

154 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

and in what degree of saliency” (p.  25). Felman goes on to state that, unfortunately, societies have been shaped to favor adversarialism over mutualism, which, though the ideal, is often relegated to the back burner. In other words, though the human race has been designed with a neurological structure that favors mutuality among people, in reality, one stands witness to both. While social forces often instigate adversarialism, moral forces help us to manifest mutuality in our relationships. This is where the development of morality comes in, and as posited by Piaget (1932), Kohlberg (1976) and Gilligan (1982), such development undergoes ontological changes based on the interaction with the environment. It has been pointed out above that the social brain also develops ontologically. Is it possible to couple the two—that the social brain develops into one that is prewired for mutuality? Maybe, the seminal research by Dunbar regarding the number of people our social brain is capable of handling can come to the aid of such ontological development. By limiting our interactions to the Dunbar number (at the maximum), it may be possible to limit our adversarial tendencies and allow those of mutual cooperation to rise to the surface.

The Scientific Basis of Gandhian Nonviolence: Some Conclusions Can we place Milgram’s experiments in the light of the above? It is clear that those who were obeying the authority were unthinkingly and passively obeying. Those who chose to disobey were following the call of their evolutionary history of cooperation both with members of the same kin and with non-kin members. The same may be said of the disobedient Gandhi and his followers, the satyagrahis. In other words, it is clear that there is enough in our neurological substrates, and its neurochemical basis to further the cause of mutualism. This is what Gandhi proved through his communities, that small is big. The Truth (the ultimate end) he realized through his various experiments was that there are ways by which we can build up cultures of peace and nonviolence, with love, compassion and empathy as the foundation as the means to reach the end. In an interview with The Guardian, Robin Dunbar, of Oxford University and the chief proponent of the social brain hypothesis, has explained the reason for why human beings evolved as a social species. His remarks are very interesting:

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

155

It is the key to evolutionary strategy of primates—needed for survival. The lesson is that there is something computationally very demanding about maintaining close relationships over a long period of time—that is why it is species with big brains who mate monogamously. (Dunbar, The Guardian, 2010)

The social brain hypothesis also posits that because of the very size of our brain and its neuronal features, there are constraints on the number of people with whom we can maintain relationships. In the same interview, Dunbar posits that the maximum number of people with whom we can have meaningful relationships is around 150. This has been called the Dunbar number. On how to grow the Dunbar number, he adds: You may be able to find what your friend had for breakfast, but do you really get to know the other better? Digital development helps us keep in touch with those with whom relationships may have been dead in the past. But in the end, we have to get together to make the relationship work. In the end we rely heavily on touch and we still haven’t figured out virtual touch. Words are slippery, a touch is worth a thousand words any day. (Dunbar, ibid)

In other words, when people say they have hundreds of Facebook friends, does it really mean anything? Are they able to develop close bonds with each other? In all probability, they hardly know each other, despite the fact that they may be spending more of their waking hours with them than with friends with whom they interact directly. A more recent study (Dunbar, 2016) reports two surveys conducted in the UK to see whether online relations are able to cut through the barriers of the Dunbar number. The results point out that even online media are unable to overcome the cognitive constraints of maintaining social relations. As life becomes more and more complex with the ever increasing challenges of the immensely dynamic environment, the computational needs of the human brain will have to increase. There are two ways through which these additional demands on the brain can be accomplished: one, by increasing the size of the brain and the other, by increasing the efficiency of the neuronal firing system. Maybe, the future will see improvements on both these aspects. However, are there limits to the maximum size that the brain can achieve? We have to keep in mind the fact that the brain is housed within a bony structure, that is, the skull, which not only protects it but also places limitations regarding its expansion.

156 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Another question which begs an answer? Will a bigger brain mean a better brain? Hofman (2012) has argued that the brain will reach its maximum processing capacity at a size, two, or maybe, three times that of the modern brain. Beyond this critical size, the larger the brain grows, the less efficient it will become, thereby, limiting any gains in the cognitive processing capacity of the human being. In other words, bigger does not always mean bigger. The research summarized in the previous paragraphs has ample implications for understanding the great practical insight that Gandhi had into the dynamics of nonviolence. For example, there are imaging studies which now reveal that much of the social brain evolved in order to deal with cooperative living, but there is little to suggest that inter-individual competition had any role to play in the evolution of the human brain (Gozalez-Forero and Gardner 2018). Further, Buckner and Carroll (2007) and Fehr and Gächter (2002) have clarified that human sociability is unique, the most important part of this uniqueness being the capacity to be moralistic in our orientation. For Gandhi, too, politics without its moralistic stance was considered to be of no use. One further point relevant to our understanding of Gandhian nonviolence is research on the relation between the size and structure of the social brain and the constraints that it places on our social interaction, especially on the number of people with whom we can maintain meaningful relationships. Regarded as the very cornerstone of Gandhian nonviolence are the twin concepts of the village republic and oceanic circles. According to the Gandhian vision of oceanic circles, one can visualize “A structure of innumerable villages with ever-widening, never-ascending circles”….Not “a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom”….but “a circle whose center will be the individual.” (Pim 2018)

State-of-the-art research in the field of social neuropsychology now seems to corroborate this very principle. As mentioned in the paragraphs above, the structure of the social brain is in a layered form, each layer being able to support a fixed number of social contacts. Dunbar has also pointed out that the closest contacts are those whose locus is in the innermost layer, with the degree of closeness decreasing with every additional layer. Gandhi’s concept of oceanic circles seems to echo this very idea: Gandhi’s call for a nonviolent society based on self governed village republics is a practical example of a political attempt to transfer the ….relatively

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

157

peaceful and nonviolent ethos of our hunter gatherer past to our contemporary of over seven billion. (Pim 2018)

Why did Gandhi focus on villages as the epicenter of activity and communal living? He was probably aware of the fact that for millions of years we have lived and evolved as small bands of hunters or gatherers, each characterized by an ethos of egalitarianism (rather than utilitarianism), cooperation (rather than competition), reciprocity (rather than adversariality) and moral control rather than coercive authority. Rather than it being humans versus nature, it was always been the case of humans with nature, or going a step further, humans in nature. Humans were firmly embedded in nature. This last is the essential part of Gandhi’s concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (nature is our family), which incorporates the principle of trusteeship. Humans should consider themselves as but a trustee of nature, not the owner of nature. Is it not, therefore, our duty to look after and nurture all forms of life in nature, rather than being an abuser and misuser of nature? With the passage of time, the human race is being increasingly caught in the rat race of consumerism, exacerbated by the unlimited access to computers and the World Wide Web. It is time that we stopped for a few moments to think—are we moving in the right direction? The idea of a global, boundaryless village is highly attractive. But is it leading to greater alienation, the feeling of being Alone Together (Turkle 2011) or that of The Singularity Is Near (Kurzweil 2005)? Though, few in number and existing as isolated communities, there are many communities along the lines advocated by Gandhi in existence even today. Societies such as “Occupy” and “Transition Towns” are just two of the grassroot initiatives from around the world which serve to showcase the plausibility of Gandhi’s idea of oceanic circles. We need many more such initiatives which will help us to go back to local communities with their strong interdependencies, values which will glue us together, and help us live as truly nonviolent beings, much as our ancestors of yore did. That will be realizing Gandhi’s nonviolence in its true spirit, as an active force, not one of passive resistance alone. That such communities will lead to deeper levels of interaction based on mutualistic tendencies is clear from the fact that they will be more in line with current research on the limits of the social brain, whether, anatomically, neurologically or physiologically. That such communities will not be asking for people to choose between the disobeying or obeying of an immoral or amoral authority could also be envisaged.

158 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

References Adolphs, R. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human social behavior. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 165–178. Adolphs, R. (2009). The social brain: Neural basis of social knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 693–716. Akins, C., & Klein, E. (2002). Imitative learning in Japanese quail using bidirectional control procedure. Animal Learning and Behavior, 30, 275–281. Algoe, S. B., Kurtz, L. E., & Grewen, K. (2017). Oxytocin and social bonds: The role of Oxytocin in perceptions of romantic partners’ bonding behavior. Psychological Science, 28, 1763–1772. Algoe, S.  B., Kurtz, L.  E., & Hilaire, N. (2016). Putting the “you” in “thank you”: Other-praising behavior explains the role of expressed gratitude in social life. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 658–666. Amodio, D.  M., & Frith, C.  D. (2006). Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscence, 7, 268–277. Anderson, C., & Franks, N. R. (2003). Teamwork in animals, robots, and humans. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 33, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-3454(03)33001-3 Barak, G. (2003). Violence and nonviolence: Pathways to underustanding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport, 11, 3829–3834. Baumgartner, T., Heinrichs, M., Vonlanthen, A., Fischbacher,U. and Fehr, E. (2008). “Oxytocin Shapes the Neural Circuitry of Trust and Trust Adaptation in Humans,” Neuron, 58: 639–650 Biernaskie, J. M. (2011). Evidence for competition and cooperation among climbing plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1714), 1989–1996. Blakemore, S.  J. (2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 267–277. Boesch, C., & Boesch-Achermann, H. (2000). The chimpanzees of the Taı¨ Forest. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bose, N.  K. (1948). Selections from Gandhi. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2004). The evolution of strong reciprocity: Cooperation in heterogeneous populations. Theoretical Population Biology, 65, 17–28. Brothers, L. (1990). The social brain: A project for integrating primate behavior and neurophysiology in a new domain. Concepts in Neuroscience, 1, 27–51. Brosnan, S. F., Talbot, C., Ahlgren, M., Lambeth, S. P., & Schapiro, S. J. (2010). Mechanisms underlying responses to inequitable outcomes in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Animal Behaviour, 79(6), 1229–1237. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.019

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

159

Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2007). Self-projection and the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 49–57. Burstein, E., Crandell, C., & Kitatama, S. (1994). Some neo-darwinian decision rules for Altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 773–789. Carrillo, M., Han, Y., Migliorati, F., Liu, M., Gazzola, V., & Keysers, C. (2019). Emotional mirror neurons in the rat’s anterior cingulate cortex. Current Biology, 29, 1301–1312. Carrillo, M., Migliorati, F., Bruls, R., Han, Y., Heinemans, M., Pruis, I., Gazzola, V., & Keysers, C. (2015). Repeated witnessing of conspecifics in pain: Effects on emotional contagion. PLoS ONE, 10, e0136979. Carter, C.  S., & Porges, S.  W. (2013). The biochemistry of love: An oxytocin hypothesis. EMBO, 14, 12–16. Cheney, D.  L., & Seyfarth, R.  M. (1997). Reconciliatory grunts by dominant female baboons influence victims’ behaviour. Animal Behavior, 54, 409–418. Choleris, E., Pfaff, D. W., & Kaveliers, M. (Eds.). (2013). Oxytocin, vasopressin and related peptides in the regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Churchland, P.  S., & Winkielman, P. (2012). Modulating social behavior with Oxytocin: How does it work? What does it mean? Hormonal Behavior, 61, 392–399. Clutton-Brock, T. (2002). Breeding together: Kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science, 296, 69–72. Clutton-Brock, T. (2009). Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies. Nature, 462, 51–57. Cornwallis, C. K., Botero, C. A., Rubenstein, D. R., Downing, P. A., West, S. A., & Griffin, A. S. (2017). Cooperation facilitates the colonization of harsh environments. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(3), 0057. Csibra, G., & Gyorgy, G. (2006). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. Attention and Performance, 21, 249–274. Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Grabowski, T., Adolphs, R., & Damasio, A. (2004). Neural systems behind word and concept retrieval. Cognition, 92, 179–229. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London, UK: John Murray. Darwin, C. (1859/1958). The Origin of Species Ch VIII (The Modern Library). Davies, N. B., Krebs, J. R., & West, S. A. (2012). An introduction to behavioral ecology. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Davis, M. H., Luce, C., & Kraus, S. J. (1994). The heritability of characteristics associated with dispositional empathy. Journal of Personality, 62, 369–391.

160 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

De Dreu, C.  K. W., Greer, L.  L., Van Kleef, G.  A., Shalvi, S., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 1262–1266. de Waal, F.  B. M. & Berger, M.L. (2000). Payment for labour in monkeys. Nature, 404–563. de Waal, F. B. M., & Preston, S. D. (2017). Mammalian empathy: Behavioural manifestations and neural basis. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18, 498–509. DeAngeles, T. (2008). The two faces of oxytocin. Science Watch, 39(2), 30. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb08/oxytocin.aspx. Dreher, J.  C., & Tremblay, L. (Eds.). (2017). Decision neurosciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Du, E., & Chang, S. W. C. (2015). Neural components of altruistic punishment. Frontiers of neuroscience, 9 February, https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnins.2015.00026. Dunbar, R.  I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 6, 1. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016). Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks? Royal Social Open Science, 3150292, http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150292 Dunbar, R.  I., & Shultz, S. (2007a). Evolution in the social brain. Science, 317(5843), 1344–1347. Dunbar, R.  I., & Shultz, S. (2007b). Understanding primate brain evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 649–658. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). We can only have 150 friends at most. Interview with the Guardian, March 14. DuVal, E. H. (2007). Cooperative display and lekking behavior of the lance-tailed manakin (chiroxiphia lanceolata). The Auk, 124(4), 1168–1185. Eisnberger, N. I. (2012). The pain of social disconnection: Examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 421–434. Erikson, E. (1969). Gandhi’s Truth. New York: Norton. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140. Fellman, G. (1998). Rambo and the Dalai Lama: The compulsion to win and its threat to human, survival. Albany: State University of New York Press. Ferrari, P. F., & Rizzolatti, G. (2014). Mirror neuron research: The past and the future. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 369(1644). https://doi.org/10.1098/ rstb.2013.0169. Frith, C. D. (2007). The social brain? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 671–678.

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

161

Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2007). Social cognition in humans. Current biology, 17, R724–R732. Funk, C.  M., & Gazzaniga, M.  S. (2009). The functional brain architecture of human morality. Current opinion in neurobiology, 19(6), 678–681. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609. Gandhi, M. K. (1940). Sewagram. August, 5. Gangrade, K.  D. (2004). Moral lessons from Gandhi’s autobiography and other essays. New Delhi: Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti. Gardner, A., Griffin, A.  S., & West, S.  A. (2009). Theory of Cooperation. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 1–8. Gazzola, V., Aziz-zadeh, L., & Keysers, C. (2006). Empathy and the somatotopic auditory mirror system in humans. Current Biology, 16(18), 1824–1829. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gimpi, G., & Fahrenholz, F. (2001). The oxytocin receptor system: Structure, function, and regulation. Physiological Reviews, 81, 629–683. Gore, J., Youk, H., & van Oudenaarden, A. (2009). Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast. Nature, 459, 253–256. Gozalez-forero, M., & Gardner, A. (2018). Inference of ecological and social drivers of human brain-size evolution. Nature, 557, 554–557. Griffin, A. S., & West, S. A. (2003). Kin discrimination and the benefit of helping in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Science, 302(5645), 634–636. Griffin, A. S., West, S. A., & Buckling, A. (2004). Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature, 430(7003), 1024–1027. Haruno, M., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Activity in the amygdala elicited by unfair divisions predicts social value orientation. Nature Neurosciences, 13, 160–161. Hattori, Y., Kuroshima, H., & Fujita, K. (2005). Cooperative problem solving by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): Spontaneous division of labor, communication, and reciprocal altruism. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119, 335–342. Hauser, M. D., Chen, M. K., Chen, F., & Chuang, E. (2003). Give unto others: Genetically unrelated cotton-top tamarin monkeys preferentially give food to those who altruistically give food back. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 270, 2363–2370. Heinsohn, R., & Packer, C. (1995). Complex cooperative strategies in group-­ territorial African lions. Science, 269(5228), 1260–1262. Heyes, C. (2010). Mesmerising mirror neurons. Neuroimage, 51, 789–791. Hofman M.  A. (2012). Design principles of the human brain: an evolutionary perspective. Progress in Brain Research, 195, 373–390. Hsu, M., Anen, C., & Quartz, S. R. (2008). The right and the good: Distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science, 320, 1092–1095.

162 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Jacobs, G.  M. (2017). Cooperation among animals. IASCE Newsletter, 36(2), 5–7. Retrieved from http://www.iasce.net/home/newsletters Jarnecke, A. M., Barden, E., Back, S. E., Brady, K. T., & Flanagan, J. C. (2018). Intimate partner violence moderates the association between oxytocin and reactivity to dyadic conflict among couples. Psychiatry Research, 270, 404–411. Jarrett, C. B. (2012). Mirror neurons: The most hyped concept in Neuroscience? Psychology Today [Blog] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainmyths/201212/mirror-neurons-the-most-hyped-concept-in-neuroscience. Judge, P.  G., & Mullen, S.  H. (2005). Quadratic postconflict affiliation among bystanders in a hamadryas baboon group. Animal Behaviour, 69(6), 1345–1355. Keum, S., & Shin, H. S. (2016). Rodent models for studying empathy. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 135, 22–26. Keysers, C. (2011). The empathic brain. Kindle. Keysers, C., Wicker, B., Gazzola, V., et al. (2004). A touching sight: SII/PV activation during the observation and experience of touch. Neuron, 42, 335–346. Kilner, J.  M., & Lemon, R.  N. (2013). What we currently know about mirror neurons. Current Biology, 23, 1057–1062. Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K., Trever, V., & Fehr, E. (2006). Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science, 314(5800), 829–832. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-development approach. In T.  Lockina (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. New  York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2006). Applied social psychology: A global perspective. New Delhi: Atlantic. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2010). The psychology of nonkilling. In J. E. Pim (Ed.), Toward a nonkilling paradigm (pp.  349–367). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2011). From empathy to altruism: Is there an evolutionary basis for nonkilling. In D. J. Christie & J. E. Pim (Eds.), Nonkilling psychology (pp. 65–93). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Kool, V.  K., & Agrawal, R. (2013). Whither Skinner’s science of behavior, his assessment of Gandhi, and its aftermath? Gandhi Marg, 35, 487–518. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2018). Gandhian philosophy for living in the modern world: Lessons from the psychology of satyagraha. In S.  Fernando & R.  Moodley (Eds.), Global Psychologies: Mental health and the global South. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.  J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

163

Kummer, H. (1995). In quest of the sacred baboon: A scientist’s journey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near. New York: Viking Books. LeDoux, J.  E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155–184. Lee, H. J., Macbeth, A. H., Pagani, J. H., & Young, W. S. (2009). Oxytocin: The great facilitator of life. Progress in Neurobiology, 88, 127–151. Lefevre, A., & Sirigu, A. (2017). Oxytocin’s influence on decision making. In J.  C. Dreher & L.  Tremblay (Eds.), Decision neuroscience (pp.  387–393). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lehrer, J. (2008). The Mirror Neuron Revolution: Explaining What Makes Humans Social. Interview with Iacoboni, Scientific American, July 1. scientificamerican.com. Lockwood, P.  L., Sebastian, C.  L., McCrory, E.  J., Hyde, Z.  H., Gu, X., et  al. (2013). Association of callous traits with reduced neural response to others’ pain in children with conduct problems. Current Biology, 23, 901–905. Lopez, R. (2010). Welcome to Your Social Brain. Psychology Today, July 11. Lucas, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2019). Beyond-personal love— Experiencing love beyond the person. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14, 789–798. Lutzoni, F., Pagel, M., & Reeb, V. (2001). Major fungal lineages are derived from lichen symbiotic ancestors. Nature, 411(6840), 937–940. MacGill, M. (2017). What is the link between love and oxytocin? Medical News Today, Monday, September, 4. Martin, G. B., & Clark, R. D. (1982). Distress crying in neonates: Species and peer specificity. Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 3–9. Massen, J. J., Ritter, C., &Bugnyar, T. (2015). Tolerance and reward equity predict cooperation in ravens (Corvuscorax). Scientific Reports, 5, 15021. Melis, A. P., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators. Science, 311, 1297–1300. Murray, H., Lyubansky, M., Miller, K., & Ortega, L. (2014). Toward a psychology of nonviolence. In E.  Mustakova-Possardt, M.  Lyubanski, et  al. (Eds.), Toward socially responsible psychology for a global era (pp.  151–182). New York: Springer. Nave, G., Camereri, C., & McCullough. (2015). Does Oxytocin increase trust in humans? A Critical Review of Research Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 772–789. Neubauer, S., Hublin, J., & Gunz, P. (2018). The evolution of modern human brain shape. Sci Adv, 4(1), eaao5961. ecollection Jan 2018. Ochsner, K. N., & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 56, 717–734.

164 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Onishi, K.  H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. Pim, J. E. (2018). Exploring the village republic: Behavioral processes and systems of peace. In P. Verbeek & B. A. Peters (Eds.), Peace ethology: Behavioral processes and systems of peace. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Ramachandran, V. S. (2008). Reflecting on the mind. Nature, 452, 814–815. Ramachandran, V. S. (2011). The Tell-tale brain: Unlocking the mystery of human nature. New York: Random House. Reiss, H. (2017). The science of empathy. Journal of Patient Exp, 4, 74–77. Riess, H. (2015). The impact of clinical empathy on patients and clinicians: Understanding empathy’s side effects. American Journal of Bioethics and Neuroscience, 6, 49–51. Rizzolatti, G., & Fadiga, L. (1999). Resonance behaviors and mirror neurons. Italiennes de Biologie, 137, 85–100. Robinson, E. J. H., & Barker, J. L. (2017). Inter-group cooperation in humans and other animals. Biol Lett, 13(3), 20160793. Rodrigues, S. M., Saslow, L. R., Garcia, N., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2009). Oxytocin receptor genetic variation relates to empathy and stress reactivity in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(50), 21437–21441. Ruff, C. C., Ugazio, G., & Fehr, E. (2013). Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation. Science, 342, 482–484. Scheele, D., Wille, A., Kendrick, K. M., Stoffel-Wagner, B., Becker, B., Gunturkun, O., & Hurlemann, R. (2013). Oxytocin ehnances brain reward system responses in men viewing the face of their female partner. PNAS, 110(50), 20308–20131. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20308. Seed, A. M., Clayton, N. S., & Emery, N. J. (2008). Cooperative problem solving in rooks (Corvusfrugilegus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 275(1641), 1421–1429.doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0111 Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Positive psychology: Fundamental assumptions. The Psychologist, 16, 126–127. Shalvi, S., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty. PNAS, 15, 5503–5507. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., & Abu-Akel, A. (2016). The social salience hypothesis of oxytocin. Biological Psychiatry, 79, 194–202. Sherif, M., Harvey, O.  J., White, B.  J., Hood, W.  R., & Sherif, C.  W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange. Singer, T., Snozzi, R., Bird, G., Petrovic, P., Silani, G., Heinrichs, M., & Dolan, R. J. (2008). Effects of oxytocin and prosocial behavior on brain responses to direct and vicariously experienced pain. Emotion, 8, 781–791.

5  THE EVOLUTION OF NONVIOLENCE AND ITS NEUROLOGICAL BASIS 

165

Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18, 587–592. Spitzer, M., Fischbacher, U., Herrnberger, B., Grön, G., & Fehr, E. (2007). The neural signature of social norm compliance. Neuron, 56, 185–196. Stanley, D. A., Sokol-Hessner, P., Banaji, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2011). Implicit race attitudes predict trustworthiness judgments and economic trust decisions. PNAS May 10, 108(19), 7710–7715. Stevens, J. R., Cushman, F. A., & Hauser, M. D. (2005). Evolving the psychological mechanisms for cooperation. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 36, 499–518. Surian, L., Caldi, S., & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-­ old infants. Psychological Science, 18, 580–586. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–691. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books. University Of Minnesota. (2002, December 27). Experiments suggest animals can cooperate with each other if benefits accumulate and partners reciprocate. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 20, 2019, from www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2002/12/021227072231.htm. van’t Wout, M., Chang, L. J., & Sanfey, A. G. (2010). The influence of emotion regulation on social interactive decision-making. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 10(6), 815–821. Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301–1303. Whiteman, H. (2017). Oxytocin: The ‘relationship crisis hormone’? Medical News Today, May 20. medicalnewstoday.com. Wicker, B., Keysers, C., Plailly, J., Rovet, J. P., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2003). Both of us disgusted in my insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron, 40(3), 655–664. Willems, E. P., Hellriegel, B., & van Schaik, C. P. (2013). The collective action problem in primate territory economics. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 280, 20130081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0081. Winerman, L. (2005). The mind’s mirror, APA Monitor, 36, 9. October 2005. Wittig, R. M., & Boesch, C. (2003). ‘Decision-making’ in conflicts of wild chimpanzees: An extension of the relational model. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 54, 491–504. Wittig, R. M., & Boesch, C. (2005). How to repair relationships—Reconciliation in wild chimpanzees. Ethology, 111, 736–763.

166 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Wittig, R. M., Crockford, C., Wikberg, E., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2007). Kin-mediated reconciliation substitutes for direct reconciliation in female baboons. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 274, 1109–1115. Yamagishi, T., Li, Y., Fermin, A.  S. R., Kanai, R., Takagishi, H., et  al. (2017). Behavioural differences and neural substrates of altruistic and spiteful punishment. Scientific Reports, 7, 14654. Published online 2017 Nov 7. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-017-15188-w. Zak, P.  J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W.  T. (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48, 522–527. Zaki, J., Wager, T. D., Singer, T., Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2016). The anatomy of suffering: Understanding the relationship between nociceptive and empathic pain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 20, 249–259. Zhang, F., & Smith, D. L. (2002). Interorganismal signaling in suboptimum environments: The legume-rhizobia symbiosis. Advances in Agronomy, 76, 125–161.

CHAPTER 6

Measurement of Nonviolence

Opening Vignette

In Born to Rebel: An Autobiography, Benjamin E. May describes a meeting with Gandhi at Wardha on December 31, 1936, and we quote: My ninety minutes with Gandhi were spent mainly in his replying to two of my questions. I asked him, (1) to tell me in his own way what nonviolence meant to him; and (2) why he didn’t declare war on the caste system as well as make an attack on untouchability. I shall give his answers as I recorded them in my diary at that time.

Regarding the first question, Gandhi emphasized that, Nonviolence is not passive resistance but rather an active force. It is three fourths invisible, one quarter visible. Likewise its results are likely to be invisible and not capable of measurement…when one retreats in nonviolent effort, he must never retreat out of fear, nor because he believes the nonviolent technique will never win. His faith must teach him that nonviolence can never lose because three fourths of it is invisible and cannot be measured. So it can never be said that the method is impractical, or that it has failed, if a campaign is called off.

© The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_6

167

168 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

The above statement made by Gandhi regarding the invisibility of nonviolence and its measurement may come as a surprise to many people. However, is this not true of many of our characteristics? Think about the self-esteem of an individual, her needs, her personality or even her attitudes and values: are they visible as is her complexion, the color of her eyes, her height or her gender? While nonviolence is invisible, as pointed out by Gandhi, in no way does it detract from the power and importance of nonviolence. When the world is grappling with problems related to the sustainability of the environment and climate change, poverty, corporate governance, education, lowered moral standards, increasing crime, cross-border violence and many more, there is much that can be gleaned from a psychological analysis of Gandhi and his followers. In fact, scientists from across a variety of disciplines ranging from physics and astronomy to ethics, philosophy and political science have pointed out the relevance of Gandhian principles in solving many of the problems listed above. This august list includes Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen; French philosopher, Grinevald; astronomer and former President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees; Australian ethicist, Clive Hamilton; British climate scientist, Chris Rapley; veteran scholars, Ray Kurzweil and Steven Pinker, to name just a few. Current work in neuroscience (e.g., the work of Robin Dunbar on the social brain) and evolutionary biology also validates many of the principles enunciated by Gandhi. Moreover, we must remember that this conversation took place in 1936, when experimental psychology was seeking its roots to become an independent discipline. Yet, in the times of Gandhi, the science of measurement had already been established in many other disciplines and was being used in a variety of facets of life, for example, in the measurement of mass, volume, time, length and distance, to name just a few. Research in disciplines such as physics and chemistry had already reached a number of milestones, having as it does a long history, starting with the times of Galileo and Copernicus. In contrast, the history of scientific research in the behavioral sciences is much shorter, not even one century old. At the same time, today, in the twenty-first century, behavioral sciences, including psychology, have come a long way, using methodology which is both scientific and rigorous. Despite such advances in the scientific nature of psychology, research has often been lopsided, with some phenomena receiving ample interest while others have been more or less neglected. Such is also the case with aggression and its sister, nonviolence. A cursory glance at books of

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

169

psychology, including those on social psychology, reveals that the brunt of the focus has been on behavior which comes under the rubric of aggression and even violence, with nonviolent behavior receiving negligible attention. Theoretical analyses of aggression and violence are abundant, ranging from the Freudian approach to the sociological basis and to the evolutionary basis. Even when one thinks of measuring the degree of aggression or violence among individuals, one finds a number of psychometric instruments (e.g., the well-known and widely used Buss-Durkee Scale of aggression and hostility, 1957). Can we say the same of nonviolence? While we note that there are countless organizations engaged in the promotion of nonviolence, are there enough psychometrically sound scales available for assessing the efficacy of such programs being conducted for the inculcation of nonviolence? As far as the measurement of nonviolence is considered, one is forced to think of what Gandhi had said, “His faith must teach him that nonviolence can never lose because three fourths of it is invisible and cannot be measured. So it can never be said that the method is impractical, or that it has failed, if a campaign is called off.” This last has been proved by empirical research on nonviolence, its measurement and dynamics. We have already mentioned the research undertaken by Chenoweth and Stephan (2011) regarding the efficacy of nonviolence in movements around the world, showing that the number of times that nonviolent movements have been successful is far greater than when violence has been used. At the same time, in contrast to what Gandhi had professed, it has also been proved that nonviolent tendencies can not only be measured but that such measurements are highly reliable and valid. In the rest of this chapter, we will provide an overview of the psychometric analysis and emerging attributes of nonviolence in order to establish the idea that nonviolence, determined through either, heredity, environmental forces or the combination of both, is a more or less stable characteristic of human beings, dictating the unique reactions made by individuals. As such, it can be measured and used for prediction of the degree to which individuals will manifest nonviolence. One of the first steps in psychological measurement is to develop a clear and complete definition of the construct. Unless and until an operational definition of the construct has been arrived at, its measurement becomes difficult.

170 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

The Construct of Nonviolence: Its Meaning and Definition As pointed out in an earlier chapter too, you are bound to find a chapter on aggression in most textbooks of social psychology. But is the same true for nonviolence? At the most you are likely to come across a brief description regarding the control of aggression toward the end of the chapter and maybe pictures of a few nonviolent leaders. The impression you are left with is that nonviolence is the flip side of aggression, or that it is nonaggression. This is probably the easiest way to define nonviolence that is making it equivalent to nonaggression. However, such a definition would, to say the least, be a highly oversimplified one, failing to take into account the complex connotations of the concept of nonviolence. For example, when we say that something is hazardous, we mean that it is dangerous. Add the prefix “non” to the word and you get the word “non-hazardous”: would something which falls in the category of non-hazardous substances be safe to use? Similarly, everything that is non-vegetarian does not mean that it is fit to eat or that an avowed non-vegetarian would eat it. Using the above as an analogy will help us understand the construct of nonviolence or its counterpart in Hindi, namely, ahimsa. While “himsa” means harm or injury, “ahimsa” means much more than non-injury. According to Joan Bondurant (1965), it also takes into its fold the creation of love and understanding with the adversary. Thus, we cannot represent violence and nonviolence as two ends of the same continuum, and any attempt to do so will lead to an overlapping gray area (Fig. 6.1) consisting of behaviors difficult to categorize as violent or nonviolent (Kool 2008). In fact, the ultimate source of differentiation between the two rests on the intention of the person. An act meant to harm a person would Fig. 6.1  Overlapping area between violence and nonviolence

violence

nonviolence

Area overlapping between violence and nonviolence

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

171

definitely be labeled as violent, while an act that is meant to help a person (even though constituting an act of violence) such as a parent slapping her child for its own betterment cannot really be classified as violent. Nor can we claim that such behavior is nonviolent. Or take the disobedience of the child: how do we categorize it—violent because it ended up breaking a piece of fine expensive crockery? Or should we categorize it as nonviolent, because the intent of the child was simply to help her mother in housecleaning? Along the same vein, recall the disobedience shown by some of Milgram’s subjects, who refused to obey, and Gandhi (as pointed out in Chap. 1). Should it be classified as behavior which is violent or one that is nonviolent? How would you view the title of the award winning book by Erikson, Gandhi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence? The above portrays the many difficulties faced by social scientists while developing a workable definition of nonviolence. One of the simplest definitions of nonviolence is that provided by Gene Sharp (1973), a noted Harvard University scholar, who, while stating that it is not easy to define multidimensional concepts such as nonviolence, defined it as “non-injury in thought, word, and deed to all forms of life” (p. 134). In other words, Gene Sharp was looking at nonviolence from the perspective of one who views nonviolence as a principle or as Gandhi would call it, as a “creed” and not just as a short-term, convenient method for the resolution of some conflict. A more comprehensive analysis of nonviolence has been given by Hare (1968), helping us to comprehend the multidimensional character of nonviolence. According to Hare, the following three dimensions can be used to understand the nonviolent actor: . Dominant (upward)/submissive (downward) domain 1 2. Positive (right)/negative (left) domain 3. Forward (goal oriented)/backward (deviant) domain Using the above dimensions, Hare posited that the direction taken by the nonviolent person would be in the submissive direction. Yet, this should not be construed as cowardly submission. Using submission as a route for communication with the adversary, the nonviolent actor takes the positive direction, attempting to forge a healthy constructive relationship with the adversary. Lastly, the truly nonviolent person would move in the backward direction, identifying with power but only to help the downtrodden. Factor analysis of data by Hare supported the conclusions

172 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

reached above, in that, “If the actor did play the submissive positive part, he should pull a dominant-positive response from the opposition which would lead to the desired change” (p. 524). Further, “Thus it is apparent that when the demonstrators can maintain their downward-positive-­ backward role under the influence of their leaders, the campaign goes as planned” (p. 527). Another psychologist who has added to our understanding of nonviolence and has provided a definition is Theodore Herman (1990) of Colgate University. Herman defined nonviolence as follows: Nonviolence is both an attitude and a course of action that leads both an individual and a group of people to resist tyranny and injustice other than by physical force and to build a community of caring by the reconciliation of adversaries. It also has a positive meaning as people strive to remove the causes of violent conflict, both human and environmental. (p. 269)

The above definition is well in line with the philosophy and practice of nonviolence by Gandhi. While ahimsa is the attitude, Satyagraha is a course of action, which has proved successful in ridding people of injustice at the hands of the oppressor. An added virtue of the above definition is that it brings into its fold not only the twin ideas of compassion and constructive action but also the concern for the environment or “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,” all three of which had been stressed upon by Gandhi.

On Measuring Nonviolence How do we prove the validity of any phenomenon? Further, to what extent can one say that the phenomenon exists in actuality and is not just a figment of imagination of the researcher? One way is to see the extent to which it is measureable. Measurements serve a variety of purposes in daily life, from enabling us to take the right amount of medicine to being able to reach somewhere at a specified time; to playing sports to the development of the structure of anything. It is through measurements that we can isolate the structure of an object, either tangible or intangible, and remove the chaos that would result if there were no congruent method of measurement, be it weight or mass of a concrete object or even any psychological phenomenon. Without the ability to measure, it would be difficult for scientists to conduct experiments or to even form theories. In fact,

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

173

measurement is the cornerstone of trade, science, technology and quantitative research in many disciplines. As has often been remarked, “The things that get measured are the things that get done.” The same would hold true of nonviolence. If we want nonviolence to flourish, we should first be able to prove that we can measure it. As far as variables of interest to psychologists are concerned, many of them are straightforward and simple to measure. These include gender, age, height, weight, birth order, and so on. But the vast majority of variables studied by psychologists are not so straightforward and nor are they simple to measure. Thus, we cannot assess a person’s level of intelligence by looking at him or her (as we can do for gender) and nor can we put their personality on a bathroom scale (as one can do for weight). Such variables, called constructs, include personality traits, emotional states, attitudes and even abilities. The difficulty with such constructs is that they cannot be observed directly since they involve internal processes. We can simply draw inferences about them from different aspects of behavior. Further, many of them are tendencies, meaning that the person does not manifest that particular form of behavior all the time; rather, it is being manifested most of the time. Nonviolence, too, is one such psychological construct and, thus, shares all of the above problems with other constructs of psychology. Despite these problems, we cannot say that research into the psychology of nonviolence is absent. It has been undertaken, even though comprehensive books on this subject are few and far between. The most comprehensive book on this very important subject is Gandhi’s Truth written way back in 1969 (Erikson 1969). This is probably what has led Murray and his colleagues (Murray et al. 2014) to conclude that, …although there have been some efforts to develop a psychology of nonviolence (for example, Kool 2008) and the APA has a division of peace since 1988, the potential for contribution of psychology to the study and practice of nonviolence has been largely untapped. The possibilities, however, are exciting. (Murray et al. 2014, p. 179)

A perusal of the literature over the latter half of the twentieth century to the present, however, does reveal a few scales which have been adequately validated and have known psychometric properties. On the basis of these scales which have proved to be adequately reliable and valid across

174 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

a wide range of cultures and populations, it may be concluded that much like aggression, nonviolence, too, is a stable aspect of human personality and that it can be measured. Some of these scales have been used for inculcating nonviolence among prisoners (the NVT, in Maryland) and among children and youth (the TNT). The present chapter brings into focus some of the well-known scales of nonviolence. These include: . The Pacifism Scale (Elliott 1980) 1 2. The Nonviolence Test (NVT) by Kool and Sen (1984) 3. The Teenage Nonviolence Test (TNT) by Mayton et al. (1998) 4. The Gandhian Personality Scale (Hasan and Khan 1983) 5. The Multidimensional Scales of Nonviolence (Johnson et al. 1998) 6. Nonviolent Relationship Questionnaire (Eckstein and La Grassa 2005) 7. Attitudes Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence Scale (Slaby 2005) 8. Attitudes toward nonviolence scale (Craven et al. 2017)

The Pacifism Scale (Elliott 1980) This was one of the first scales to be developed for the measurement of nonviolent tendencies. Though nomenclatured as Pacifism Scale, it was basically a scale of nonviolence, constructed using the Gandhian ideology. The Pacifism Scale consists of 55 items using a Likert type of format and 2 items in the forced choice format, such that the total number of items in the scale is 57. The scale consists of four subscales, namely: . Physical violence (avoidance of any physical harm) 1 2. Psychological violence (open and direct communication) 3. Active value dimension (value orientation) 4. Internal/external locus of control These four subscales were decided on the basis of highly advanced statistical analysis, including factor analysis, which yielded the above mentioned four components. However, though psychometrically sound, it has not been found to be useful in the cross-cultural context (Heaven et al. 1984). The Pacifism Scale is, however, important because it has been used as the basis for another widely-used scale of nonviolence, namely the Teenage

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

175

Nonviolence Test by Mayton and his colleagues, described later in this chapter. This latter scale consists of six subscales, the first three of which were based on the first three subscales in Elliot’s measure. The Nonviolence Test—NVT (Kool and Sen 1984) One aspect that has ignited many a psychologist is an empirical result which seems to go against the expectations of the researcher. Such is the case with the results obtained in the famous experiment undertaken by Stanley Milgram and detailed in Chap. 1 of this book. Milgram was, himself, surprised at the large percentage of subjects who willingly accepted the researcher’s idea of giving electric shocks to another individual for something as paltry as making mistakes on a simple learning task. This result excited Milgram to such an extent that, thereafter, he conducted a number of experiments in order to clarify the causes of these results, so as to arrive at the plausibility of the results. At the same time, the experiment revealed another aspect which failed to perturb Milgram: these were some subjects (albeit small in number) who refused to deliver electric shocks to the learner. Some years later, in the 1980s and 1990s, Kool became interested in the likes of those few subjects who had refused to deliver shocks in the Milgram study Kool, 1988, 1990, 1992a, 1992b, 1993. As described by Kool, Imagine how a dedicated Buddhist or Jain would behave when asked to deliver shocks to an erring learner. And it is not only devoutly religious people who kept their non-violent behavior intact. Even ordinary members of the community of New Haven, Connecticut (CT), USA were capable of defying the violent procedure set up by a very well respected professor of Yale University, Stanley Milgram. Did Milgram continue to study those 2% ordinary individuals who simply declined to punish the learners for their errors? No, Milgram never followed them in his research, because his interest was in exploring the etiology of violence and to draw a parallel between the subjects in his research and Hitler’s henchmen, who blindly followed violence. (Kool 2010)

In view of the lacuna mentioned above, Kool, along with his doctoral student, Manisha Sen, conducted a series of studies (reported in Kool and Sen 1984) to analyze the behavior of people who refuse to deliver electric shocks to other human beings for minor lapses.

176 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Kool and Sen were of the opinion that it was, probably, certain deep seated personality differences which caused the majority to deliver shocks but a few to show dissent. They hypothesized that one such difference would be the degree to which the subjects believed in nonviolence. In order to empirically establish this hypothesis, they constructed a 65 item scale, using the forced choice format, 36 of which were related to nonviolence while the remaining 29 were filler items, introduced so as to reduce response biases, so common to any psychometric measure. In order to give the reader an idea, some representative items have been presented below: 1. When a stranger hurts me, I believe (a) forgive and forget is the best policy. (b) a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye is the best policy. 2. When someone is rude to me I want to (a) be rude back to that person. (b) overcome the temptation to be rude.

The endorsement of all nonviolent oriented choices for the 36 nonviolence items gives the respondent a maximum total score of 36.The complete NVT along with the scoring key is given as an Appendix at the end of this chapter. The validity of the scale has also been established by Kool and his colleagues. Kool and Keyes (1990) found that the NVT was clearly able to discriminate between populations expected to score high/low on nonviolence. In their study, they found that while Buddhists and Quakers had a mean score of 31.86 on the NVT, delinquent adolescents from a residential facility in Wisconsin scored the lowest, that is 19.83. Correlations with other scales also proved its validity. The NVT showed a negative correlation (r = −0.43) with the overall score on the Buss-Durkee scale of aggression. It was also negatively correlated with each of the subscales of the Buss-Durkee Scale, namely physical aggression (r = −0.51), verbal aggression (−0.28), negativism (−0.34), and irritability (−0.30). Another personality attribute normally taken to lead to manifestation of violence and aggression is Machiavellianism, often measured by the so-called Mach scales. The scores on the NVT correlated significantly, but negatively, with the score on the Mach scale.

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

177

The NVT has also shown considerable cross-cultural validity. It has been used in several countries and has been translated into different languages, including Japanese (Matsumoto 1993). It has also been translated into Polish and Arabic, and data from samples across cultures have demonstrated its usefulness in understanding nonviolent tendencies among respondents. More recently, an online version of the test has been developed with the help of some of Kool’s students. Comparing a number of scales of nonviolence and commenting on the status of the NVT, Mayton (2001), former President of the American Psychological Association’s Peace Division, remarked, the NVT (Kool and Sen 1984) has the best-documented validity and has a record of effective use cross-culturally. (Mayton 2001, p. 351)

Through the use of highly advanced statistical methods of factor analysis, Kool and his colleague (Kool and Keyes 1990) have also made attempts to clarify the factor structure of nonviolence. Seven factors of the nonviolent personality have been identified. These have been listed below: . Self-control including understanding and negotiation 1 2. Anti-punitiveness including passion and forgiving 3. Forbearance including tolerance and judging the intentions of others 4. Equity of justice including equality of adjudicating justice 5. Self-defense 6. Constructive reform 7. Affective control including emotional control in the face of irritation Even a cursory glance at the above list shows how well the factor structure of the nonviolent personality as measured by the NVT matches the attributes of Gandhi and Gandhian nonviolence, providing evidence for not only the validity of the scale but also proving that the NVT measures nonviolence as defined by Gandhi. At the same time, scores on the NVT have also been found to correlate with certain factors of the big five scale of personality developed by Costa and McCrae (1992). A study by Kool and Sen (1984, 2005) revealed that of the five factors postulated by Costa and McCrae (viz., openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism and extraversion), scores on the NVT correlated positively with scores on the openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness factors. Additional indices regarding the validity of the

178 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

NVT have been provided by various researchers. Box 6.1 describes some of these studies. In view of the results presented in Box 6.1 regarding the tendency of nonviolent people of not blaming others, we would like to point out that this was also a characteristic of Gandhi. In fact, he went to the extent of

Box 6.1  Attributions Made by High and Low Scorers on the NVT

It has been contended that human beings are intuitive scientists, attempting to understand events taking place around them and drawing conclusions in the process. We are constantly trying to judge the “why” of situations and even of the behavior of people. Such judgments have been called attributions (Heider 1958) in social psychology. Heider has also identified the two categories of factors that we use to understand the causes of any event or behavior. First, we may attribute the event to internal causes (causes within us or within any other person), and, second, we may attribute the event to external causes (causes external to us or lying in the situation or the environment). An important aspect of these attributions is that they are prone to judgmental errors, akin to much of our perceptions. As a result, we tend to understand, in our own egocentric manner, why events are happening and the ways in which they are happening leading to wide individual differences in the attributions we make and to even errors in attribution. While such individual differences abound, studies surprisingly reveal a high degree of similarity in the attributions made by people characterized by violent tendencies and those characterized by nonviolent tendencies. Also, whether we adhere to nonviolence or to violence has been seen to be influenced by the ways in which we draw attributions. This premise has been tested using the NVT. Thus, Hammock and Hanson (1990) found that scores on the NVT varied with the extent that subjects endorsed malicious intentions of the actor. They also concluded that there was a clear negative relationship between scores on Dogmatism and the NVT, such that those who were more dogmatic tended to have lower scores on the NVT. In another ingeniously designed study, Asthana (1990) (continued)

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

179

Box 6.1  (continued)

compared responses on the TAT of subjects who were low or high scorers on the NVT. Commenting on the attribution style of the nonviolent respondents, he concluded, The attribution of blame is mainly on oneself. The fault is perceived to lie in one’s own imperfection. There is a readiness to own responsibility unless otherwise indicated. (p. 51)

Baumgardner (1990), too, has attempted to study the attribution patterns of violent and nonviolent people with respect to a rape scenario. Those who obtained a high score on the NVT (i.e., characterized by nonviolent tendencies) tended to make internal attributions and tended to put greater blame and responsibility for the incident on the victim than on their violent counterparts. The results clarified that nonviolent people tend to blame wrongdoers to a lesser extent than their violent counterparts, because the former tend toward self-­ blame and suffering, attempting to thereby transforming evil into good. He interpreted the results in the following manner, Present results add to the construct validity of the Nonviolence Test by showing differences in the attribution judgments between violent and nonviolent persons, as defined by the test. Such differences increase the meaningfulness and salience of a violence/nonviolence dimension in people’s judgments or violent acts. (pp. 61–63)

saying that even if someone else errs, he would take it on himself that he had probably erred on some count. The reliability of the NVT has been found to be high. Measurement of reliability indices across all samples was found to be 0.80, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.78 to 0.85 (Kool and Keyes 1990). These values demonstrate a high degree of inter-item reliability for the entire 36-item test and meet the conventional standards reliability for tests of psychological attributes. Further, the NVT has shown its usefulness in several research studies conducted to demonstrate the nature of aggression (Sen 1993),

180 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

attributions (Baumgardner 1990), dogmatism (Hammock and Hanson 1990), moral exclusion (Kool et al. 2002) and aging (Matsumoto 1993). A three-­dimensional model based on the results of the NVT and other empirical data had been formulated by Kool (1994) and has been detailed in Chap. 7 of this volume. For the interested reader, the NVT has been given in full at the end of this chapter, along with the scoring key. For further details, please also see Kool’s book, Psychology of Nonviolence and Aggression (2008). The Teenage Nonviolence Test (Mayton et al. 1998) Another scale with a great potential for use in the promotion of nonviolence is the Teenage Nonviolence Test (TNT) developed by Mayton and his co-workers (Mayton et al. 1998). While writing about the rationale for developing a test for the measurement of nonviolence especially among teenagers and youth, Mayton professed: Nearly every day across the United States news reports containing violent acts committed by teenagers is uncovered. The US media has repeatedly been drawn to the exploitation of violence by adolescents. The issues range from adolescents involved with gangs to those involved in school shootings of classmates and/or teachers to the disturbing news of adolescent sex offenders. These are just a few of the headlines that have been surfacing recently in the media. (Mayton et al., ibid., p. 9)

While the above is true of the USA, it is not that other parts of the world do not face similar problems (Kool and Agrawal 2006). Thus, Mayton writes: With the rise of violent teenage crime, with an alarming number of child soldiers across the globe, and with the continually increasing number of children and adolescents who are victimized by violence and war an instrument that measures nonviolent tendencies would be very useful. The implication of the development of a nonviolent test appropriate for adolescents is far reaching. The TNT could be used by school officials, psychologists, and other professionals to determine the nonviolent behavior of their student or clients. This may indicate a way of objectively assessing violence prevention programs, conflict resolution programs, cooperative learning programs and other programs designed to increase nonviolent

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

181

behaviors or preventative programs to reduce the occurrence of violent crimes by the teenage population. (Mayton et al., ibid., p. 9)

The TNT is a Likert type of scale with 55 items selected on the basis of their psychometric properties out of a total of 140 original items constructed by Mayton and his colleagues. These 55 items can be categorized in terms of six subscales. These are as follows: 1. The physical nonviolence subscale consisting of 16 items measuring attitudes of conscious rejection of tendencies to inflict bodily injury on others in order to coerce them. 2. The psychological subscale, again consisting of 16 items and measuring the attitude of conscious rejection of using threats, humiliation or even intimidation as a means to solve the conflict. 3. The active values orientation subscale is a short four-item subscale attempting to assess a willingness to perform behaviors which are aligned to one’s norms, values and goals. 4. The empathy subscale consisting of five items and measures the degree to which one is willing to help others. 5. The satyagraha subscale consists of ten items and measures the respondent’s active search for wisdom and the willingness to change one’s concept of truth. 6. The tapasya subscale is a short four-item subscale assessing one’s willingness to endure hardship rather than to engage in violence. The last two subscales are drawn directly from the philosophy of Gandhian nonviolence, while the first three are based on the psychometric measure developed by Elliott (1980) and described earlier in this chapter. Both the reliability and validity of the test has been found to be high. The alpha coefficients were found to range from 0.77 to 0.90 for the different subscales, while the test-retest reliability ranged from 0.65 to 0.88 for 5 of the subscales. The sixth scale, namely, the active orientation subscale, was not found to be sufficiently reliable. As far as the validity of the scale is considered, the concurrent and discriminant validity had been obtained (Konen et al. 1999) and were found to be sufficient for all subscales except the active orientation subscale which seemed to be an independent construct. Thus, the TNT appears to be

182 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

…a promising instrument for five of the six subscales. The active value orientation subscale appears to be an independent construct. The satyagraha subscale is very highly related to both social desirability and self-efficacy and this needs further scrutiny. (Mayton et al. 1998, p. 9)

A more recent analysis of scores on the TNT by Mayton and his colleagues (Gerstein et al. 2014) reveals, on the basis of a factor analysis, that the originally proposed six subscales should be reduced to three, namely, physical and psychological nonviolence, empathy and Satyagraha. The potential usefulness of the scale has been commented upon by the authors, Responses to the scale have the potential to provide researchers, educators, and counseling professionals with the ability to assess this population’s use of different nonviolent strategies and to further develop innovative, relevant, and effective programs to facilitate and strengthen young individuals’ repertoire of nonviolent skills when faced with conflict situations. (Gerstein et al. 2014, p. 11)

The Chinese translation of the TNT (Bang-chun 2013) reveals that while there are differences between the psychometric properties of the English and Chinese versions, the latter holds considerable promise as far as its use for the assessment of nonviolent tendencies in China is considered. A more recent attempt has been reported from Indonesia. The principal findings of the study are mentioned in the abstract of the paper. This study aims to develop a scale of early detection of peace thinking in the context of standardized Indonesian culture. The study uses a descriptive method for 1118 students from several public high schools in Bandung through Rasch modeling analysis. It is reported that all items are correctly perceived by students, with excellent internal consistency and good unidimensionality. The implication shows that there is still a need for further scale research based on a more diverse level of education units, including among santri (student) in Islamic boarding schools (pesantren) so that the results are conclusive and comprehensive, with urban or rural backgrounds. This research explains a dynamic, progress, and a second stage that is good in developing TNT’s scale into an ethnically diverse Indonesian context. (Sudrajat et al. 2019)

The TNT has also been used in Pakistan (Ashraf and Iram 2014) in order to assess the role of personality and spirituality in the nonviolent behavior of young adults.

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

183

The utility of the above discussed two scales, namely, the NVT and TNT, can be assessed by its usage in both research and practice of nonviolence in various parts of the world. While the NVT has been used in the Gemstone Prison project in Maryland, USA to inculcate nonviolent tendencies among prisoners, the TNT has been successfully used in various parts of the world to both assess prevalent nonviolent tendencies and to promote such tendencies among the youth. Other Scales of Nonviolence and Related Concepts Besides these there are a variety of other scales which assess the degree to which the respondent engages in nonviolent tendencies. These include the following: The Gandhian Personality Scale (Hasan and Khan 1983) was constructed to identify personality characteristics such as Machiavellianism/ anti-Machiavellianism, authenticity, cynicism/anti-cynicism, openness to experience and tolerance, tenderness and generosity and trust in human nature. Attitudes Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence (Slaby 2005) is a 14-item scale which looks into the extent to which young persons’ have passive or violent attitudes toward violence and their knowledge and skills related to nonviolent conflict resolution. The Teen Conflict Survey (Bosworth and Espelage 1995) assesses students in order to look into their intentions and perceived self-efficacy in using nonviolent strategies to manage conflict and anger, as well as their ability to listen, care and trust others. The Multidimensional Scales of Nonviolence (Johnson et  al. 1998) attempts to assess six dimensions of nonviolence, namely, direct nonviolence, systems-level nonviolence, compassion and connection, indirect oppression, nonviolence toward the planet and spirituality. The Nonviolent Relationship Questionnaire (Eckstein and La Grassa 2005) consists of 24 items and measures principles of nonviolent communication, such as nonthreatening, respect, honesty, parenting together, equal responsibility, economic partners, fairness and trust. Attitudes toward nonviolence scale (Craven et  al. 2017) was constructed using data obtained from high school students of Australia. A confirmatory factor analysis revealed two subscales, namely, a cognitive subscale (proactive understanding) and affective subscale (do not endorse violence). The scale was found to have both high convergent and

184 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

discriminant validity. The scale proved efficacious for use in educational settings especially where there is a high risk of attitudes of violence. In addition to the above, several other scales have been designed over the years to measure constructs and attitudes related to nonviolence. The majority of them seek to measure attitudes toward war and include a couple (Droba 1931; Stagner 1942) that were developed during the time of Gandhi, though maybe not influenced by him. Some of those that were developed later are the Restraint in the Conduct of War Scale (Levy 1995), with two clear components, namely, opposition to war and humane treatment; a scale to measure attitudes toward disarmament (Herr 1992) and one to measure militaristic attitudes (Nelson and Milburn 1999). Three other scales have been developed more recently and include the ten-item Attitudes Toward War scale developed by Cohrs and Moschner (2002) in Germany, a Peace Test based on Bandura’s concept of moral disengagement (Grussendorf et al. 2002) and the Nonviolent Norm Questionnaire (McAlister 2001). The description of scales for the measurement of nonviolent tendencies given in the previous few pages reveals that there are a fairly large number of tests available for the assessment of nonviolent tendencies for use with a variety of populations. The majority are psychometrically sound, with proven reliability and validity, while some are even available in different languages so that they may be used across cultures. In other words, the literature surveyed indicates that firstly, nonviolence is a stable personality characteristic that can be operationally defined. Secondly, it also brings to the fore the idea that nonviolence is amenable to psychometric measurement like most other personality variables. What seems to be lacking is the extensive use of such tests for the assessment of nonviolence programs being conducted around the world. It is, but obvious that psychologists can play an effective role in the dissemination and use of these tests.

Appendix: The NVT with Scoring Key 1. A car driving through a parking lot splashes water on you. You feel like (a) making him apologize and pay for damages. (b) telling him to be more careful in the future. 2. The more I think of how bad someone’s actions or thoughts are (a) the more I try to understand how to get along with that person. (b) the more I get irritated and want to tell that person off.

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 



185

3. My reaction to groups is (a) I like the feeling of belonging to a social group. (b) for some reason I really don’t like groups. 4. If someone keeps bothering me even though I ask him/her to stop, I will (a) lose control. (b) control myself. 5. I think of myself first of all as (a) an individual person. (b) a social being responsible to society and those like me. 6. When a stranger hurts me I believe (a) forgive and forget is the best policy. (b) a tooth for a tooth an eye for an eye is the best policy. 7. Workers on an unlawful strike should be (a) approached and a compromise should be negotiated. (b) fired without notice. 8. Being different from my friends (a) makes me feel uncomfortable. (b) does not bother me; I like it. 9. When someone is rude to me I want to (a) be rude back to that person. (b) overcome the temptation to be rude. 10. I am inspired by (a) ideas. (b) some people. 11. If I were in charge and some high officials were found guilty of taking bribes, I would (a) pardon them with minimum punishment if they apologized. (b) publicly humiliate and physically punish these people. 12. If someone breaks something that belongs to me (a) I will probably become enraged. (b) I understand that accidents happen. 13. I consider myself to (a) be like everyone else. (b) be different from everyone else. 14. Judgments about me (a) should be made on my own merits. (b) should be made according to the people I associate with.

186 



V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

15. Lawbreakers must be (a) brought to justice, yet be dealt with mercifully. (b) severely punished. 16. I am (a) loyal. (b) independent. 17. A boy was very mischievous and would beat up other boys. I would (a) kick him out of the group. (b) try to change his habits. 18. I am responsible to (a) other people, those I love, and those who depend on me. (b) myself, my ideals, and my ambitions. 19. When I hold a poor opinion of a person (a) I do not try to hide the way I feel. (b) I try to hide my feelings and improve them without their knowing. 20. Criminals that are physically abused (a) deserve it. (b) should not be abused. 21. My reaction to crowds is (a) I dislike crowds. (b) I enjoy the excitement of crowds. 22. If an employee refused to follow orders I would (a) threaten to fire him unless he did what he was told. (b) persuade him to do what he was told. 23. I admire (a) no one very much. (b) some people, and would not question their opinion. 24. I see myself as (a) an important person. (b) a social person. 25. A person who commits a murder should be (a) placed in a rehabilitation program and given minimum punishment. (b) put on death row. 26. I like to (a) get to know people. (b) be alone.

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 



187

27. Governments should deal with rebellious people by (a) punishing them. (b) treating them in a humane way. 28. I like a person (a) to say he/she is a good person provided they are. (b) to be modest, even if they are good. 29. When someone does something bad to me (a) I will get back at them if I can, just because of the principle of the matter. (b) I do not get back at him, but try to show him his mistakes. 30. I have confidence in (a) myself. (b) things me and others like me represent. 31. When a person makes fun of me, I (a) try to convince the person that it is not always good to make fun of others. (b) retaliate. 32. I live for (a) the good of everyone else. (b) myself. 33. If someone criticizes me, I (a) do not criticize them back; rather, I defend myself with good argument. (b) I find it is best to criticize the person back. 34. Sex crimes such as rape and attacks on children deserve (a) imprisonment and psychiatric care. (b) more than mere imprisonment, such criminals ought to be physically punished or worse. 35. When a friend does me a favor (a) I feel that I must return the favor. (b) I do not feel that I must return the favor. 36. Sometimes, when my parents scolded me I (a) showed resentment. (b) tried to reason with myself to understand whey they acted as they did. 37. I like to (a) give gifts. (b) receive gifts.

188 



V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

38. When I am disturbed by another, say while studying, (a) my first reaction will be to get angry. (b) I will explain to the person I do not want to be bothered. 39. The majority of my schoolwork involves (a) reading. (b) writing. 40. If a person skips me in line (a) I will pass him and stand ahead of him. (b) I will persuade him to go back. 41. When I was younger (a) I did not care to be a member of a crowd or gang. (b) I was always a follower. 42. If students misbehave in school, the teachers should (a) punish them as needed. (b) think of things they may have done to cause the behavior. 43. If a teacher grades me unfairly I will (a) complain to my friends. (b) seek an explanation. 44. If someone harms my family, and me I will wait for an opportunity to (a) retaliate. (b) make them understand what they did. 45. If my friend has a problem I would like to (a) counsel that friend on his problem. (b) recommend that my friend see a counselor. 46. I like (a) team sports. (b) individual sports. 47. If a judge were found guilty of corruption, I would recommend (a) a stronger penalty for him than for a common citizen. (b) the same penalty for him as for a common citizen. 48. I am (a) forgetful. (b) organized. 49. Our nation’s history is glorified by (a) great fighters and conquerors. (b) great writers and social reformers. 50. I follow (a) ethical standards. (b) my conscience.

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 



189

51. All citizens should be allowed to carry weapons (a) only when there is a war. (b) to defend themselves. 52. My attitude about groups is (a) I do not join groups. (b) I am proud to be in some groups. 53. If a teacher is involved in a sex crime involving a student, they should be given (a) harsher punishment than usual to set an example for other teachers. (b) the same treatment as someone who was not a teacher. 54. I look forward to social events with (a) parents and relatives. (b) friends and neighbors. 55. I like instructions to be (a) general. (b) specific. 56. A good social system needs (a) rugged and tough discipline. (b) people who can tolerate others. 57. A clergyman who is involved in immoral behavior should (a) be allowed to return to his position in the church after he repents and changes his ways. (b) never be allowed to return to his position in the church. 58. I appreciate (a) music. (b) art. 59. When I see a parade go by I (a) enjoy watching it but have no desire to be in it. (b) wish I could be in it. 60. When I am in a bad mood I (a) feel like smashing things. (b) relax and tell myself things will get better. 61. People who drink and drive should (a) be imprisoned and severely fined. (b) undergo counseling and education on the effects of drugs and drug abuse.

190 





V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

62. I would rather watch (a) mystery movies. (b) humorous movies. 63. If someone I know is engaging in deviant behavior I feel I should (a) tell him that what he is doing is wrong, then talk him out of doing it. (b) let him do what he wants as long as I am not affected. 64. If a country is supporting terrorist acts, I think the coun try should be (a) attacked by military action until these acts end. (b) persuaded through negotiations to withdraw their support of terrorism. 65. People who try to force their religious beliefs on others should be (a) ignored until they are ready to listen to others’ beliefs. (b) asked to leave and threatened if they refuse to go.

The NVT code sheet 1. B 2. A 3. FILLER 4. B 5. FILLER 6. A 7. A 8. FILLER 9. B 10. FILLER 11. A 12. B 13. FILLER 14. FILLER 15. A 16. FILLER 17. B 18. FILLER 19. B 20. B 21. FILLER 22. B

23. FILLER 24. FILLER 25. A 26. FILLER 27. B 28. FILLER 29. B 30. FILLER 31. A 32. FILLER 33. A 34. A 35. FILLER 36. B 37. FILLER 38. B 39. FILLER 40. B 41. FILLER 42. B 43. B 44. B

45. FILLER 46. FILLER 47. B 48. FILLER 49. B 50. FILLER 51. A 52. FILLER 53. B 54. FILLER 55. FILLER 56. B 57. A 58. FILLER 59. FILLER 60. B 61. B 62. FILLER 63. A 64. B 65. A

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

191

References Ashraf, R., & Iram, F. (2014). Role of personality and spirituality in nonviolent behavior in young adults. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 24(1). Asthana, H.  S. (1990). TAT responses of some nonviolent individuals. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bang-chun, L. (2013). The peacefulness of Chinese teenagers. International Journal of Educational Research and Development, 2(3), 60–66. Baumgardner, S. R. (1990). Attributions of cause, responsibility and blame among violent and nonviolent individuals. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bondurant, J. V. (1965). Conquest of nonviolence: The Gandhian philosophy of conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bosworth, K., & Espelage, D. (1995). Teen conflict survey. Center for Adolescent Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN (Unpublished). Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(4), 343–349. Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. New York: Columbia University Press. Cohrs, J. C., & Moschner, B. (2002). Antiwar knowledge and generalized political attitudes as determinants of attitude toward the Kosovo war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 139–155. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Craven, R. G., Seaton, M., & Yeung, A. S. (2017). Attitude to non-violence scale: Validity and practical use. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 13. Droba, D.  D. (1931). A scale of military-pacifism. Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 96–111. Eckstein, D., & La Grassa, L. (2005). The Non-Violent Relationship Questionnaire (NVRQ). The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 205–211. Elliott, G.  C. (1980). Components of pacifism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 27–54. Erikson, E. (1969). Gandhi’s truth. New York: Norton. Gerstein, L. H., Mayton, D., Hutchison, A., & Kirkpatrick, D. (2014). The teenage nonviolence test: A factor analytic investigation. Revista de cercetare [i interven]ie social, 44, 9–19. Grussendorf, J., McAlister, A. L., Sandstrom, P., Udd, L., & Morrison, T. (2002). Resisting moral disengagement in support for war: Use of peace test scale among student groups in 21 nations. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 73–83.

192 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Hammock, G., & Hanson, D. (1990). Nonviolence attribution of intentionality and dogmatism. In V.  K. Kool (Ed.), Perspectives on nonviolence. New  York: Springer-Verlag. Hare, A.  P. (1968). Introduction to theories of nonviolence. In A.  P. Hare & H.  H. Blumberg (Eds.), Nonviolent direct action: American cases and social psychological analyses. Washington, DC: Corpus Books. Hasan, Q., & Khan, S. R. (1983). Dimensions of Gandhian (nonviolent) personality. Journal of Psychological Researches, 2, 100–116. Heaven, P.  C., Rayab, D., & Bester, C.  L. (1984). Psychometric properties of Elliott’s measure of pacifism: Cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 15, 227–232. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Herman, T. (1990). Seven forms of nonviolence for peace research: A conceptual framework. In V.  K. Kool (Ed.), Perspectives on nonviolence. New  York: Springer-Verlag. Herr, C. (1992). Psychological variables discriminating differential response to nuclear armament. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Johnson, P., et al. (1998). Nonviolence: Constructing a multidimensional attitude measure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Konen, K., Mayton, D. M., Delva, Z., Sonnen, M., et al. (1999). Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Kool, V. K. (1988). Patterns of nonviolence: A cross cultural study of Polish, Indian and American samples. Paper presented at the International Cross-Cultural Psychology Convention, University of New Castle, New Castle, Australia. Kool, V. K. (Ed.). (1990). Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kool, V.  K. (1992a, May). Correlates of nonviolence. Paper presented at the Symposium on Nonviolence, SUNYIT, Utica, NY. Kool, V. K. (1992b, August). Main speaker at the symposium on the social psychology of nonviolence. American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, DC. Kool, V.  K. (Ed.). (1993). Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kool, V. K. (1994, August). The measurement of nonviolence as multi-dimensional concept. Paper presented at the Peace Psychology Division, American Psychological Association, Los Angeles. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K. (2010). Foreword. In N. Rathee (Ed.), Violence and conflict resolution: Contemporary perspectives (pp. v–vi). New Delhi: Global Vision Publishing House.

6  MEASUREMENT OF NONVIOLENCE 

193

Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2006). Applied social psychology: A global perspective. New Delhi: Atlantic. Kool, V.  K., Diaz, J., Brown, J., & Hama, H. (2002). Psychological research, nonviolence and cultural orientation: An empirical analysis. Regional Peace Studies Consortium Annual Journal, 55–74. Kool, V. K., & Keyes, C. M. L. (1990). Explorations in the nonviolent personality. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kool, V. K., & Sen, M. (1984). The nonviolence test. In D. M. Pestonjee (Ed.), Second handbook of psychological and sociological instruments (pp.  48–54). Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management. Kool, V. K., & Sen, M. (2005, June). Research based on the nonviolence test by Kool and Sen. Paper presented at the German Peace Psychology Conference, University of Erlangen, Germany Levy, S.  G. (1995). Attitudes toward the conduct of war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 1, 179–197. Matsumoto, M. (1993). The nonviolent personality of student nurses: A pilot study. Juntendo College report, Urayasush, Japan. Mayton, D. (2001). Nonviolence within cultures of peace: A means and ends. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 143–155. Mayton, D. M., Nogle, K. S., Mack, J. L., et al. (1998, August). Teenage nonviolence test: A new measure of nonviolence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. McAlister, A.  L. (2001). Moral engagement: Measurement and modification. Journal of Peace Research, 38, 87–99. Murray, H., Lyubansky, M., Miller, K., & Ortega, L. (2014). Toward a psychology of nonviolence. In E.  Mustakova-Possardt, M.  Lyubanski, et  al. (Eds.), Toward socially responsible psychology for a global era (pp.  151–182). New York: Springer. Nelson, L. L., & Milburn, T. W. (1999). Relationship between problem-solving competencies and militaristic attitudes: Implications for peace education. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 5, 149–168. Sen, M. (1993). An empirical study of nonviolence in India. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. New York: Springer-Verlag. Sharp, G. (1973). The politics of nonviolent action. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent. Slaby, R. G. (2005). Attitude toward interpersonal peer violence. In L. L. Dahlberg, S. B. Toal, M. Swahn, & C. B. Behrens (Eds.), Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Stagner, R. (1942). Some factors related toward war. Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 131–142. Sudrajat, D., Kartadinata, S., & Suherman, U. (2019). Early detector scale of student peace levels. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Education and Technology (ICET 2019).

CHAPTER 7

The Psychology of Nonviolence: Models and Their Validation

Opening Vignette: The Science of Nonviolence

Gandhi knew that understanding nonviolence, let alone practicing it, was difficult, mainly because of the complexities involved. In fact, he has professed this at different times and at various places. But, he has also professed that nonviolence is scientific and is of the view that it is because of this scientific nature that nonviolence is bound to be successful. We give below some of Gandhi’s thoughts regarding these aspects of nonviolence: Nonviolence is not an easy thing to understand, still less to practice, weak as we are. (Gandhi, Young India, 7-2-1929, p. 46) I am but a humble explorer of the science of nonviolence. Its hidden depth sometimes staggers me just as much as they stagger fellow workers. (Gandhi, Young India, 20-11-1924, p. 382) I have been practicing with scientific precision, nonviolence and its possibilities, for an unbroken period of over 50 years. I have applied it in all walks of life—domestic, institutional, economic and political. I know of no single case in which it has failed. Where it has seemed sometimes to have failed, I have ascribed it to my imperfections. (Gandhi, Harijan, 6-7-1940, pp. 185–186)

© The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_7

195

196 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

The quotations in the Opening Vignette are from the writings of Gandhi and provide ample validation for the inherent depth and underlying difficulties in understanding and practicing nonviolence. At the same time, Gandhi was convinced regarding the efficacy of nonviolence and that it works, the reason being his experiments with nonviolence “in all walks of life.” Despite the fact that Gandhi was not a scientist nor a psychologist, he has often been called a “practical psychologist,” one who was able to use the results of his experiments on himself to devise how best to carve out the nuances of nonviolence for himself and for use in protests at the sociopolitical level. And, as he has emphasized, these were experiments wrought within the utmost rigors and precision of a science and could, therefore, not be dismissed as mere armchair deliberations. Amazing though it may seem, he was able to achieve all of this without the facility of either a laboratory or advanced statistical tools. Has psychology, with its repertoire of scientific research methods and advanced statistical techniques, been able to provide sufficient validity for the concept of nonviolence? Has it been able to formulate a psychology of nonviolence? Has it been able to provide a comprehensive theory to explain nonviolence, or in the absence of a theory, has psychology been able to frame a model on the basis of which we can understand the dynamics of this complex concept? In short, has psychology been able to validate what Gandhi wrote and talked about, what Gandhi practiced, what Gandhi lived for, namely, nonviolence? In the words of Gandhi: I claim no perfection for myself. But I do claim to be a passionate seeker after Truth, which is but another name for God. In the course of that search the discovery of nonviolence came to me. Its spread is my life mission. I have no interest in living except for the prosecution of that mission. (Gandhi 1940, pp. 185–186)

Need for a Comprehensive Model of Nonviolence Before going into whether we have empirical answers for the above, it would be of interest to delineate the need for a comprehensive psychology of nonviolence. Seeing the abundance of research, models and theories regarding violence and violent behavior, one may very easily hypothesize that there is no need for a separate conceptual framework for nonviolence and nonviolent behavior. One should simply be able to invert the factors underlying violence to arrive at the antecedents of nonviolence. However,

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

197

such an inversion would fail to provide the answers for the very reason that it can hardly be said that nonviolence is the flip side of violence. The roots and the dynamics of the two seem to be vastly different. As such, if the study of violence can be a legitimate area of study, there is no reason why the scientific study of the psychology of nonviolence cannot also be a legitimate area of study. A second argument in favor of a comprehensive model of nonviolence is in terms of the antecedents of behavior in general and nonviolent behavior in particular. For every act of behavior that any individual enters into, there is a clear cognitive and affective basis. While Skinner and other behaviorists were wont to consider behavior as a simple stimulus-response (S-R) function, more recent formulations consider behavior to be an S-O-R function, the O being the organism that mediates between the stimulus and the response. This organism, as far as humans are considered, include a variety of complex, interrelated aspects such as attending, manner of perceiving, past experience, personality, attitudes, motivations, not to speak of factors such as age and gender and other socioeconomic factors. It is because of this O factor that we see such wide individual differences in the responses to even the same stimulus. This is also a cogent reason for why one individual tends to respond in a violent manner, while another may respond in a nonviolent manner. A psychology of nonviolence would, therefore, want to delineate these O factors, to understand in a systematic fashion the unique cognitions and emotions underlying nonviolence. Further, as pointed out by another noted scholar of nonviolence, Daniel Mayton, there is always a need for a sound theory in psychology and for nonviolence particularly (Mayton 2009). For one, a sound theory helps to frame conjectures about causal relationships and causal inferences in very coherent terms (Fiske 2004). As far as nonviolence is concerned, a sound theory will help us build suitable hypotheses which will go a long way in advancing the psychology of nonviolence. At the same time, a good theory will help researchers abandon unproductive areas of research (McCarthy and Kruegler 1993). Yet, as pointed out by Gandhi himself (and quoted in the Opening Vignette), attempts to understand and explain why individuals engage in nonviolence tend to stagger people. It even staggered Gandhi, implying the inherent difficulties in understanding the concept and the behavior. One reason for this could be that it is a multidimensional concept and as such can be understood only at the interface of several psychological variables. While, there is some research regarding the correlates of

198 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

nonviolence (see Chap. 6 of this volume), we are still far from clear regarding the complex ways in which they interact with each other. It, therefore, becomes imperative to study the links between these variables and frame them into a cogent model which could be then tested and verified leading to a theory of nonviolence, much as we have theories of violence.

The Beginnings of Psychology of Nonviolence More than 25 years ago, Kool (1993) had pointed out that despite the problems, establishing a psychology of nonviolence is not impossible. According to him: It is contended here that the psychology of nonviolence can be a subject of research in much the same way as psychologists studied successfully the concept of love–another multidimensional concept involving several sets of psychological structures. Although it is not easy to define love, several psychologists have attempted to describe its nature in the form of combinations of psychological characteristics. Sternberg (1986) found that the varying combinations of passion, intimacy and commitment, though each one independently did not constitute love, at their combined high and low levels reflected different forms of love. (p. 14)

History stands testimony to the fact that the two World Wars impacted many areas of human endeavor, including the discipline of psychology. A cursory glance at the early research on nonviolence reveals the impact of the Wars, in that it clarified the concern about the widespread destruction caused by the Wars. In fact, some of the earliest literature on the psychology of nonviolence had its genesis in anti-war attitudes. As pointed out: The destruction caused by the two World Wars raised the conscience of many psychologists from different backgrounds and various schools of thought in interpreting, analyzing and in some cases, actively opposing war efforts. (Kool 2008, p. 16)

An excellent example of this is the contribution by William James, regarded as the father of modern psychology, whose very article (discussed in earlier chapters) was entitled Moral Equivalent of War. Further, Kool (ibid.) has enumerated the various psychologists who have contributed to the psychology of peace and nonviolence, along with the schools of

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

199

thought in psychology with which they had been associated. The list starts with William James (1899/1983, 1910/1995) and goes on to many of the psychologists who had leanings toward the psychoanalytic school, including Freud (1920) and Erikson (1969); humanistic psychologists such as May (1972), Maslow (1954) and Rogers (1961); cognitive psychologist Tolman (1942); behaviorist Skinner (1987); and many others from varied schools of thought, including Kohlberg (1976), Gilligan (1982), Bandura (1977, 1997), Allport (1945), Stagner (1961), Deutsch (1983), Kelman (1965) and Feshbach (Feshbach and Feshbach 1986).

Scientific Research on Attributes of Nonviolence If we make an attempt to analyze nonviolence from Gandhi’s point of view, it is amply clear that the fabric of ahimsa was woven lovingly, with a warp of truth and truth alone and a weft of love and compassion. Within this fabric we can discern the deft patterning of various motifs, namely, that of justice and morality, constructive action, tapasya or self-sacrifice, aparigriha or non-possession, abhaya or fearlessness and sharirikshrama or physical labor or what Gandhi calls bread labor. Each of these motifs is further outlined by the bold lines of discipline and self-control. Let us go into the details of research, nascent though it is, that helps us to lay a foundation for the psychology of nonviolence, based on the fabric woven by Gandhi. A cursory glance at research in psychology reveals that, over the years, research has been undertaken in some of the areas delineated above. We will focus on a few of them, detailed as below: • Love, compassion and nonviolence • Justice and morality • Justice and care: the nonviolent approach • Self-control and nonviolence • Tapasya/self-sacrifice and nonviolence • Power and nonviolence Love, Compassion and Nonviolence According to Gandhi, love is essential for not only the nonviolent person but for all, as is evident from the line below: Where there is love, there is life. (Gandhi, quoted by Lucas et al. 2019, p. 1)

200 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Love can be of many types and for a variety of objects, living, nonliving, tangible or intangible. Thus, we love people, pet animals and even the plants in our garden and grieve for them much as we would for people; but, we also love our nonliving car or our latest phone, anthropomorphizing them (attributing human-like qualities to them), and even intangible ideas, ideologies (e.g., political ideologies, MacMullen 2014) and activities, such as physical activities (Maher et al. 2015). Generally, love for the intangible is seen through the lens of passion, being defined as “a strong inclination toward a loved, valued and self-defined cause, ideology or group in which people invest considerable time and energy” (Rip et  al. 2012). While having a passion has generally been looked at as a positive trait and in its unselfish form becomes the foundation for altruism (Sorokin 1950), it can become counterproductive once it takes the form of an obsession (Lucas et al. 2019) or if it is being exhibited out of vested interests. The interesting finding is that whether it is harmonious or obsessive passion, the neurochemical process is more or less the same. In other words, our brain is unable to distinguish between the two (Lucas et al., ibid.). At the same time, evolutionary theory has proved that no matter what the nature and object of love, in most cases, it serves adaptive purposes (Kool and Agrawal 2010, 2011; also, Chap. 5 of this volume). This love may be filial love in which case it helps to preserve the primary social group, or it may be romantic love which helps in creating a stable social environment for procreation and parenting (Galperin and Haselton 2010). Even compassionate love is adaptive, with those manifesting compassion living significantly longer than those who fail to do so (Ironson et  al. 2018). So important has love been found to be that Charles Darwin posited that it is this capacity to love to which can be credited the success of the human species (Loye 2000). Later, the capacity to love was seen as a need, as important as hunger, and was labeled “affect hunger” by anthropologist Walter Goldschmidt. It has been postulated that affect hunger is the evolutionary mechanism through which the basic mammalian bond between mother and child has been expanded and co-opted in the human species to act as a social and physiological bonding system between individuals of all ages and gender. That love is of great adaptive value is clear from the fact that no matter what the type of love, maternal, fraternal or romantic, the physiological basis is the same, based as it is on various

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

201

hormonal and neurotransmitter systems such as prolactin, testosterone, oxytocin, vasopressin, serotonin and dopamine. In other words, the antecedents and the consequences of attachment and love of any type are similar in nature. Thus, whether it is positive love or a virtue, in the form of sympathy, empathy, compassion or passionate love, or negative love as a vice, manifested as selfishness, vanity, egotism and last but not the least narcissism, it is the same biological system that is called into play. Over the years, much psychological research and theory has been accumulated on the concept of love and its sister emotions of empathy, sympathy, compassion, agape and compassionate love. While a thorough discussion of the work would not be within the confines or the scope of this volume, we will focus on the salient features so as to give the reader a fair idea as to what and how psychology has come to draw insights into this fascinating subject. We start with the color wheel theory of love put forth by Canadian psychologist John Lee (1973, 1977), in which various styles of love have been depicted through the traditional color wheel. It includes three primary, three secondary and three tertiary styles of love, using various terms drawn from Roman and Greek literary sources. As far as our discussion of nonviolence is concerned, Lee’s theory is important due to having introduced empirical validation for a love style named agape, which is the Greek term for altruistic love. A definition of agape can be stated as follows: Agape is sacrificial, placing the welfare of the other person above one’s own. (Hendrick and Hendrick 2006, p. 153)

The characteristics of an individual manifesting the agape style are as follows: • Attracted to several types of people • Meets people easily so most likely will begin with a stranger • Feels concern and care for each partner they have • Is neither jealous nor obsessive • Enjoys sex and is willing to improve it Another theory which has generated considerable research is the triangular theory proposed by Robert Sternberg of Yale University. On the basis of empirical research, Sternberg (1986) proposed that love is characterized by three components, namely, intimacy, commitment and passion,

202 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

being present in varying proportions, according to the individual, the nature of the love and the situation. Moreover, while non-love does not include any of these components, there are other forms of love in which only one or two of them may be present. Compassionate Love Though research on love has been primarily in the area of romantic love, there are other forms that have been of interest to a wide range of social scientists, including psychologists. One such form is that of compassionate love, that is, the combination of love with compassion. Over, the last two decades, various models and theories (reviewed by Fehr et al. 2014) have been proposed to help understand this concept, including those by Neff and Karney (2005, 2009), Berscheid (2006, 2010) and Underwood (2002, 2009). It is probably Underwood’s seminal research which can be said to have spearheaded this concept into prominence. Let us start with the definition of compassionate love given by Underwood. According to him, compassionate love consists of the: Attitude and action related to the giving of the self for the good of the other. (Underwood 2009, p. 4)

At the same time Underwood has also delineated the characteristic features necessary for the manifestation of compassionate love, namely: • Free choice of the giver, in the sense, that there is no coercion to show compassionate love, she is doing it voluntarily. • It requires an accurate understanding of the situation and the needs and feelings of the other person. • The giver must value the other at a fundamental level. • There must be openness and trust. • It must be a “response of the heart” or it presumes an emotional engagement with the receiver. It is on the basis of the above that compassionate love can be differentiated from similar forms such as empathy, sympathy, compassion or romantic love. At first glance, it appears that the term compassionate love is just another name for agape suggested by Lee and referred to extensively in Greek literature. However, Fehr et  al. (2014) have attempted to

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

203

empirically establish the difference between the two. According to the researchers, while another name for agape is altruistic love, the fundamental difference is that while agape is manifested mainly in romantic love, compassionate love can be manifested in romantic love and in other forms and for other persons, over and above the one with whom we are romantically engaged. The last theory we would like to delve into is the broaden and build theory (Fredrickson 1998, 2001) which has been widely acclaimed by positive psychologists the world over. The basic postulate of this theory is that the consequence of the experience of positive emotions compounds over time and has important implications for the mental, emotional and physical health of the individual. The trajectory followed is that positive emotions could help broaden a person’s attention and thinking, enabling them to draw and discover novel ideas and percepts, which in turn would help them build a variety of personal resources including those from the cognitive, psychological, social and physical realms. Indirect though the empirical support has been, there are important implications of this theory as far as the optimism, ego resilience, mental health and happiness of the individual are concerned. In a novel piece of research by Frederickson and her colleagues, direct evidence for the above has been presented in an article entitled “Open Hearts Build Lives: Positive Emotions, Induced Through Loving-Kindness Meditation, Build Consequential Personal Resources” (Fredrickson et al. 2008). Justice, Morality and Nonviolence The psychology of nonviolence can be said to be based, essentially, on the justice and moral concerns of individuals, that is, the growing ability of the child and adult, to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. Morality is normally associated with a code of conduct derived from one’s culture, religion and personal philosophy. Looking back through the history of mankind, we find that notions of morality have been developed over the centuries and include in-depth analyses by the likes of Aristotle, Confucius and Rousseau. Modern psychology has also made attempts to understand morality, whether it be through the lens of psychoanalysis, for example, the work of Freud or through the cognitive development approach of Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan and others. More recently, attempts have been made to isolate the neural basis of morality and include contributions by scientists from various disciplines, including neurosciences, cognitive psychology and social psychology.

204 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Probably, the most comprehensive theory of moral development has been put forward by Kohlberg (1976). Kohlberg, while agreeing with the basic postulates of Piaget’s (1932) theory of moral development, wanted to explore it further. According to Piaget, the young child is highly egocentric and considers rules in absolute terms, something which cannot be changed. However, as the child grows older, he develops new cognitive structures which enable him to judge situations in relative terms, that is, in terms of the intentions of the actor. Thus, morality was seen to develop in parallel to the development of cognition. Besides providing a cognitive basis for the development of morality, a major contribution of Piaget was that he provided an empirical basis for the study of intentions in psychology. Using the same technique as that used by Piaget, namely, storytelling, Kohlberg devised a number of situations in each of which the child was faced with a dilemma—that of going according to law or some other authority or taking a decision that would be against authority but in favor of the needs of some deserving person. One of the best known among these dilemmas is that faced by a character named Heinz (presented in Box 7.1), and the stages of moral development have been detailed in Table 7.1.

Box 7.1  The Case of Heinz

One of Kohlberg’s stories was concerned with a person named Heinz, who lived in Europe. His wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said that a new drug could save her life. Heinz even found a druggist who had developed the drug but was asking an exorbitant price for the drug, as much as ten times the money it would cost to make the drug. This was much more than what Heinz could afford, and even after help from family members and friends, Heinz was able to raise only half the required sum of money. He made earnest requests to the druggist to give him the drug since his wife was dying and that he would pay the rest of the money later. The chemist, however, refused saying that he had made the drug to profit from it and that he would not give it for even a penny less. Heinz, on seeing the druggist’s refusal to give him the drug and being desperate to save his wife’s life, broke into the drug store at night and stole the drug. (continued)

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

205

Box 7.1  (continued)

This was the scenario that Kohlberg presented to his subjects, who were then asked questions such as: Should Heinz have stolen the drug? Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife? What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference? Should the police arrest the druggist for murder if the woman died? By analyzing the answers children of different ages gave to questions such as these, Kohlberg hoped to arrive at how moral reasoning changed as people grew. The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys, aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three yearly intervals for 20 years. Each boy was given a two-hour interview in which he was faced with ten such dilemmas. Kohlberg found that, indeed, the reasons tended to change with age. On the basis of his analysis, Kohlberg identified three distinct stages of moral development with each stage being further divided into two substages.

Table 7.1  Stages of moral development according to Kohlberg (1976) Preconventional level (age 4–10 years): Moral values basically related to one’s own needs  Stage 1: Obedience to avoid punishment  Stage 2: Instrumentality of purpose and social exchange, for example, you hit me, I hit you Conventional stage (age 10–13 years): Based on the observation of others with some internalization of rules  Stage 1: Seeking approval—am I good girl/boy?  Stage 2: Based on the social system and a developing personal conscience Post-conventional stage (age 13+): Based on the personal decision to follow the social order or not (not just blind following of the social demands)  Stage 1: Understanding that there could be a conflict between social order and a changing circumstance  Stage 2: Development of a universal ethic: doing what one considers right

206 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Looking at Table 7.1, a question that could be raised is whether every person, who believes in nonviolence as a principle or disobeys orders which go against one’s value system, can be said to have reached the final stage. In other words, where does the nonviolent person, or for that matter, the disobedient subjects of Milgram’s experiment, stand with reference to Kohlberg’s stages? While empirical research in the psychology of morality fails to provide any definite answers, it can be hypothesized that confronted by dilemmas such as that of Heinz, they would certainly not use violence to steal the drug. If forced to use violence, they would continue to show considerable self-restraint and self-control. The pacifist or Gandhi’s satyagrahis would, in all probability, use methods of nonviolent resistance such as a hunger strike or other methods of self-punishment in order to convince the druggist to part with the drug. Where would Gandhi stand in reference to Kohlberg’s stages? The ways in which he tackled problems in South Africa and later in India, his Satyagrahas, his disobedience, his adherence to principles of Truth even when they violated custom and tradition, all point to the fact that he can be said to have reached the highest stage of moral reasoning, namely, Stage 2 of the post-conventional stage of doing and calling upon others to do what he considered to be in the best interest of the world. However, if one analyzes Gandhi’s morality in depth, it is clear that he is in a class apart and even this final stage fails to account for it. In fact, Flanagan (1991) is of the view that Kohlberg’s stages fail to provide enough space so as to accommodate the types of moral reasoning or moral competence manifested in the behavior of Gandhi, Desmond Tutu or Martin Luther King, Jr. Where do we fit in activism? Where does the soldier fit in—one who shows patriotism and therefore obeys orders to kill at war, even though he is personally against war? What about the person who is drafted into the army despite being convinced that he does not want to kill or even harm anybody? We described one such person, David Cortright, a well-known academician and writer who was tremendously influenced by Gandhi, in Chap. 2 of this volume. Questions such as these remain unanswered in Kohlberg’s framework. Another question that deserves an answer is why people obey the law? For the vast majority, Sanderson and Darley’s (2002) statement, “I am moral but you are deterred,” seems to hold true, in that I am essentially a moral person and therefore I obey the law but you (a criminal) obey the law because of the fear of punishments. Such arguments are, basically, in line with attribution theory and inherent attributional errors such as the

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

207

self-serving bias and the fundamental attribution error. Very often, we may profess high levels of morality when being asked to judge the behavior of some other person, but when we are put in the same situation, we are at a loss of how to behave: we believe that honesty is the best policy but cheat on our tax returns. In fact, it is extremely difficult for most people to make choices such that both individual and social interests are served. In most cases they seem to be at cross purposes with each other, forcing a person to pay heed to either her personal good or the social good. At this point, the psychology of morality becomes an uphill task, especially for the psychologist interested in empirical truths, and he may discover to his dismay that moral judgments, moral feelings and moral behavior may fail to show any degree of alignment and, therefore, may not lead to the same conclusions. Justice and Care: The Nonviolent Approach The analysis provided above clarifies that there are countless instances from the lives of people, even ordinary people, from which it is clear that moral reasoning is not enough to understand moral behavior, let alone moral development. While Piaget and Kohlberg based their analysis using the concept of justice, Carol Gilligan is of the view that the lens of justice fails to fit in all the nuances of moral behavior. Using one of the moral dilemmas used by Kohlberg (see Box 7.1), Gilligan (1982) has proceeded to show a basic flaw in Kohlberg’s research, in that it had not considered gender differences. There could lie the possibility that boys and girls tend to analyze the same situation in different ways. On the basis of the responses obtained on various children who participated in a rights and responsibilities study, Gilligan sets forth her arguments through a detailed analysis of the protocols obtained on two children, a boy, Jake, and a girl, Amy. Both were students of the same sixth grade class of a school; both were highly intelligent. As put by Gilligan, “The two children in question, Amy and Jake, were both bright and articulate and, at least in their eleven-year-old aspirations, resisted easy categories of sex-role stereotyping, since Amy aspired to become a scientist while Jake preferred English to math.” However, they differed widely in their understanding of the problem put to them. So divergent were these views, that in the light of Kohlberg’s definition of stages of moral development:

208 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

…Her moral judgments appear to be a full stage lower in maturity than those of the boy. Scored as a mixture of stages two and three, her responses seem to reveal a feeling of powerlessness in the world, an inability to think systematically about the concepts of morality or law, a reluctance to challenge authority or to examine the logic of received moral truths, a failure even to conceive of acting directly to save a life or to consider that such action, if taken, could possibly have an effect. As her reliance on relationships seems to reveal a continuing dependence and vulnerability, so her belief in communication as the mode through which to resolve moral dilemmas appears naive and cognitively immature. (Gilligan 1982, p. 5)

However, according to Gilligan, Amy is not lower than Jake on moral development; it is just that the trajectory being followed by the two children is different: while Jake sees the moral problem as a conflict between life and property which can be resolved through logic, Amy construes it as “a fracture of human relationship that must be mended by its own thread.” It is clear that these two cannot be seen as two stages, one being lower and the other, higher: instead we must view them as two completely different modes of thought—two trajectories. Kohlberg’s theory is able to answer the question of “what does he see that she does not see?” But can the theory answer another equally important question: “what does she see that he does not see?” It seems not to be so, forcing Gilligan to propose that boys and girls tend to look at the same problem in different ways, or that girls speak in a “different voice.” Rather than being morally naïve or immature, Amy construes the world and its problems in the light of the complex ways in which she has seen her mother deal with situations: Her world is a world of relationships and psychological truths where an awareness of the connection between people gives rise to a recognition of responsibility for one another, a perception of the need for response. Seen in this light, her understanding of morality as arising from the recognition of relationship…. Amy’s judgments contain the insights central to an ethic of care, just as Jake’s judgments reflect the logic of the justice approach. Her incipient awareness of the “method of truth,” the central tenet of nonviolent conflict resolution, and her belief in the restorative activity of care, lead her to see the actors in the dilemma arrayed not as opponents in a contest of rights but as members of a network of relationships on whose continuation they all depend (underline by present authors). Consequently her solution to the dilemma lies in activating the network by communication, securing the inclusion of the wife by strengthening rather than severing connections. (Gilligan 1982, p. 6)

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

209

In view of the above arguments, Gilligan proposes two ethics, one of care and the other of justice. Moreover, these justice and care orientations often compete with one another, forcing the individual to oscillate between them. While Gilligan uses these examples to show that there are clear gender differences in our understanding of morality and moral development, our understanding of these two ethics is also important for understanding the difficulties and dilemmas faced by the nonviolent person. However, despite such difficulties, those who believe in nonviolence as a principle or in nonviolence as a creed are able to establish a balance between justice and care. Gandhi would see that he followed the principle of equity (justice) but on humanitarian grounds. The well-known incident of Gandhi and the thief is one such example, in which he asked his followers to take care of the thief before punishing him: he had to be provided breakfast and then only could the punishment be meted out to him. It is interesting to note that the analysis made by Gilligan almost parallels that of Gandhian nonviolence. In fact, she even uses the phrase “method of truth” (see underlined portion in quote above). The ways in which the nonviolent person tends to reify these two ethics have been explained by Kool (1993). He writes: Thus, if a moral viewpoint is challenged by another moral viewpoint, the result will be a new synthesis, a new ethic embodying a higher moral principle. (Kool 1993, p. 16)

Like Amy in Gilligan’s study, the nonviolent person is faced by the moral dilemma of wanting to maintain the relationship between Heinz and his wife though that could only happen if Heinz is able to save his wife. Hence, the seeming indecisiveness manifested by Amy is construed by many as being a sign of moral immaturity or the inability to take a decision. An explanation is provided by Rollo May (1972). May writes of five types of power, the last of which is integrative power, in which one sees a blending of power with the interests of all concerned. This would be the hallmark of the power of the nonviolent person, for whom the community comes first. They attempt to seek social harmony and merge individual good with the social good, much like the ways of thinking of Amy, who is sure that the wife can be saved even without Heinz having to steal the drug.

210 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

All of the abovementioned researchers based their results and analyses on responses obtained from children attending school and living in what can be called normal middle-class family environments. What about children who are living in conditions as adverse as that of persistent war or to say the least, cross-border conflict? Take, for instance, the Graca Machel study, sponsored by the UN, which reported that 300,000 children are being used in armed conflicts and that they have participated in at least 31 armed conflicts, resulting in over two million deaths (Klot 1998). In Guatemala and Angola, the entire generation grew up in conditions of armed conflict (Wessells 1998). Not only do such children show heightened aggression but also emotional numbing and even a lack of empathy (Boyden 2003). What happens to their moral development, even though they may show better coping strategies and resilience? Do we not need a re-examination of the development of moral reasoning in human beings? Self-Control and Nonviolence If justice and morality provide the fuel for nonviolence, self-control may be said to be the brakes which stop us and force us to resist the temptation to hit back, to react with violence or even to resist the urge to hurl abuses at another person. Through the history of mankind, the ability to control oneself in the face of temptations has been given considerable importance. As professed by noted psychologist Baumeister (2012): The capacity of the human mind to alter its own responses is one of the wonders of nature. It is a vital foundation for culture, progress, achievement, morality and individual success…What is the most important and desirable trait? What would you most wish for your child to have or your rivals to lack? What trait is most important for helping people lead happy, successful and useful lives? Decade after decade, psychologists keep coming up with the same two answers. One is intelligence. The other is self-control. Nothing else comes close. (p. 112)

This amazing capacity of the human being has been known by a variety of names, including self-regulation, will power and self-control. The term self-regulation is somewhat of a misnomer, because it brings to mind the automatic involuntary processes of the body to regulate itself and bring it back to its normal condition through various homeostatic processes, while the capability being discussed is a voluntary process, involving active volition and attention.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

211

The roots of the interest in self-control can be traced back to the Victorian ages of the industrial revolution in the mid-nineteenth century, during which a swelling population was seen to be tending toward moral degradation and a decline in religious values. One of the first publications on this topic dates back to that era, 1859, to be specific, and was entitled Self Help putting forth the argument that national progress requires not merely material progress brought about by high production levels but also uprightness of character. As psychology developed and started having an identity of its own, Sigmund Freud introduced self-control through the concept of Superego as that part of the personality which keeps the instinctual Id in reign. For many decades thereafter, the concept of self-control received scant attention from researchers in psychology. What is this self-control or will power? According to Kelly McGonigal (2012), will power is the capacity or “the ability to do what you really want to do when part of you really doesn’t want to do it.” It consists of three competing elements, namely: • I will—the ability to do what you need to do • I won’t—the other side of self-control; the ability to resist temptation • I want—your true want, the ability to remember the big picture of your life Earlier, in the 1970s, Stanford University professor, Walter Mischel, conducted some of the first experiments (e.g., Mischel and Ebbesen 1970) on the dynamics of self-control among children. A typical experiment and its implications have been described in Box 7.2.

Box 7.2  The Stanford Marshmallow Experiments

Way back in the 1970s, a Stanford professor, Walter Mischel (that by  Mischel and Ebbesen 1970, was one such study) carried out a series of experiments, commonly called the marshmallow experiments, to look into the dynamics of self-control among children. A typical experiment conducted on preschoolers constituted providing the kids with two choices, one of which was clearly preferable. They could choose between getting one marshmallow or two marshmallows. But that was not the end of the experiment—the experimenter (continued)

212 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Box 7.2  (continued)

would tell the children that he had some urgent work for which he would have to leave them for about 15 minutes. If they wanted one marshmallow, they could have it immediately, but if they wanted two, they would have to wait for him to return. In a typical experimental setup, the child was left alone with one marshmallow in front of him. Just imagine the situation: there was the marshmallow sitting in front of her, waiting to be devoured. One can literally see the drooling youngster! But, if she waited and did not eat the single marshmallow, she would be able to get two of them. In other words, the experiment was attempting to measure the results of being able to delay gratification—would the child wait for the 15 minutes and then take two as a reward or simply give in to the temptation and devour the one available, being unable to resist the temptation that was so accessible. As was expected, there was considerable variation in the capacity to delay their gratification in lieu for a more valuable prize. Some of them ate the single marshmallow right away, not being able to resist the temptation, others waited for varying lengths of time. Mischel noted that about one-third of the children waited for the full 15 minutes to get the second marshmallow. But even more interesting were the findings of the follow-up study about 10 years later. He found that those kids who had shown maximum self-control as preschoolers manifested a variety of positive characteristics—their parents found them to be more verbally fluent, attentive, competent, skillful, academically successfully and also socially adept. Of even greater importance was the finding that the length of time for which they were able to delay gratification was positively correlated to their SAT scores.

Self-control has also been a key concept in criminology as can be seen from the publication of the book titled A General Theory of Crime published in 1990 by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, in which they pointed out that criminals generally show low self-control and tend to be impulsive, insensitive toward others, risk-takers, short-sighted and nonverbal.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

213

Areas of Self-Control According to Gandhi, nonviolence is not simply nonaggression or resisting the urge to act in violent ways. Nonviolence, in fact, includes nonaggression in not only action or deed but also in thought and speech. When we look at the psychological analysis of self-control, it is gratifying to see that the same has been brought out by empirical research, proving that when Gandhi eschewed upon people to show the highest levels of self-­ control in thought, feelings, speech and action, he was not asking for the impossible. Self-control may be exerted in four domains (Baumeister 2012), namely: • Regulation of thought, such as when we try to concentrate or shut out irrelevant thoughts • Regulation of moods and emotions, such as when we voluntarily try to get out of a bad mood or negative emotions • Regulation of impulses as in resisting temptations • Regulation of performance seen in the trade-off between speed and accuracy or persistence despite frustrating failures The latter part of the twentieth century witnessed a revival of interest in the concept from the point of view of the dynamics of self-control with some groundbreaking research by Baumeister and his colleagues. According to Baumeister, self-control can be called “the moral muscle,” and in an important paper published in 2012, he has highlighted the basic ideas gleaned about this concept through the studies being conducted in his laboratory.  he Dynamics of Self-Control T What made Baumeister call self-control “the moral muscle”? There is more than one reason for this. Firstly, both muscles and self-control are characterized by power, the former giving us the power to move various parts of our body in a particular direction and with a definite intensity. Self-control, too, serves to move us into one line of action while resisting another. Further, like muscle power, self-control, too, has a particular strength and direction. Secondly, muscles get fatigued through use, so does self-control. Studies show that having shown restraint on one task, individuals are unable to resist temptation, thereafter. An interesting study conducted by Baumeister and his team (Baumeister et al. 1998) reveals that when participants were forced to choose between a plate of radish and

214 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

another of delicious cookies, those who resisted the cookies and chose to eat radish instead were unable to resist a piece of cheesecake later. It is as if the psychological resource used in exercising self-control had depleted, forcing Baumeister to call this condition, ego depletion. A meta-analysis of the combined results from 83 such experiments confirmed that ego depletion does, in fact, take place (Hagger et al. 2010). However, a third analogy of self-control to muscles is even more interesting: one can train an individual in self-control just as one can train an individual to use his muscles so as to be able to withstand strain and fatigue (reviewed by Baumeister et al. 2006). Lastly, just as the effects of muscle fatigue can be seen instantaneously with the effects of training being seen only in the long run, so is the case with training in self-control. On the basis of the above, it has been concluded that, one, all forms of self-control draw upon a common resource and, two, that this resource is limited. Day-to-day behavior seems to follow much along the lines of the above. DeWall et al. (2011) give the example of political and other leaders who have to take multitudinous decisions to prove their point. Since considerable ego energy is used for such decisions, these very same people who show such high self-restraint in public life and office often fall prey to temptations in their private lives. They may be said to be existing in a stage of ego depletion after office hours. A physiological basis for self-control has also been revealed (Gailliot et al. 2007; Danziger et al. 2011). The researchers clarify that the level of glucose in the blood is directly linked to the level of self-control manifested by the person. Later findings confirm that it is not just glucose but the amount of caloric intake that has been found to be directly correlated to the amount of self-control exerted. Whenever an individual starts showing lower blood glucose levels, the degree of self-control is also found to be lower. An interesting example to validate this finding has been provided by Danziger et al. (2011). It has been seen that in most courts of law, the tendency for judges to grant parole to criminals varies with the time of day, with more paroles being granted during the early working hours, becoming less as the lunch period draws near, increasing again after lunch to show a further drop as the day moves on. The reason that has been posited is that sending a criminal on parole is a more risky decision than refusing parole to a criminal. The former decision is, therefore, possible only if the judge is able to resist the temptation to take the easiest decision, which under the circumstances, is to refuse parole. As pointed out above, in the section on justice and care, most individuals manifest extreme

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

215

ambivalence, not being able to decide between the two ethics. Would this not be the case with judges? While it would be just to refuse parole, the caring dimension sometimes makes the judge want to grant parole: The judges then have a break for a mid-morning snack, and another for lunch, and their rates of granting parole  shoot up dramatically at these points—and then resume dropping. A convict whose case comes up just before lunch has a near zero probability of being paroled, whereas one who comes before the board right after lunch has a good (65 per cent) chance of getting out of prison. (Baumeister 2012, p. 114)

Psychological research has also revealed the repercussions of low self-­ control in various domains of life, ranging from the eating of more fattening food (Vohs and Heatherton 2000) to increased aggression (DeWall et  al. 2007), more difficulty in restraining prejudices (Richeson and Trawalter 2005) and greater willingness to steal (Mead et al. 2009). Close relationships also benefit from self-control (Vohs et al. 2011) to the extent that even among nonviolent couples, it has been found that they engage in more abusive language when self-control resources are low (Finkel et al. 2009). At the same time, it has been clarified that even after people have undergone ego depletion, they can perform well if there is a compelling reason to do so. Once again, Gandhi’s call to persist in the use of self-restraint even after long periods of oppression seems to be validated by empirical work. While a vast majority of the research seems to point at the theory of limited psychological resources and even depleted physiological resources as being behind our inability to manifest self-control, there is some research that has pointed to the contrary. One of the most extensive studies taken in this direction was by Hagger et al. (2016) involving a meta-­ analysis of multinational data from over 23 laboratories involving over 2100 participants. While an earlier meta-analysis (Hagger et  al. 2010, mentioned earlier) had revealed significant levels of ego depletion after performing tasks which required self-control, a reanalysis by Carter and McCullough (2013, 2014) followed by another meta-analysis by the same group of researchers (Carter et al. 2015) revealed results to the contrary. The last named study, in fact, challenges the ego depletion conceptualization and even the idea that self-control functions as if it were relying on a single psychological or physical resource. Keeping the results of these meta-analyses in mind, a multi-laboratory, multinational replication study

216 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

was planned across laboratories in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA. The replication clarified that there was no significant amount of ego depletion as measured on a standard laboratory test (Hagger et al. 2016). Does this mean that we reject outright the ego depletion model? Further studies are required including those which vary the length of the initial task to see whether ego depletion has, in fact, occurred (Lee et al. 2016). Alternative perspectives have also been provided. For example, a leading cognitive scientist from Ohio State University, Fujita, advocates for a dual motive conceptualization of self-control, the view that self-control is a form of bargaining that occurs between some distal goal and a more proximal one, in that self-control with respect of the proximal goal leads to the attainment of the distal goal. We would also like to point out the analysis undertaken by Kirby (2013) (and discussed in an earlier chapter), of individuals faced with such dilemmas, wherein an immediate reward competes with a reward due later in time. Kirby has very deftly analyzed how vows of the type undertaken by Gandhi helps people forego these immediate rewards in lieu for a more salient reward at a later date through the bundling effect. According to Fujita, impulse inhibition through voluntary effort could be just one of the many ways through which people restrain their behavior.  go Depletion and Training E While most studies show that ego depletion does, in fact, take place, there is empirical evidence to show that this ego depletion can be negated through appropriate training programs. Thus, Oeten and Cheng (2006) have found that while students manifested the oft found ego depletion due to examination stress, they were able to not only improve the regulatory strength and the dampening effect of exam stress but were also able to manifest many positive behaviors. These effects could be obtained when they were put through a study intervention program consisting of repeated practice of self-control. Further, these students also reported significant decreases in smoking, alcohol and caffeine consumption. Of even greater interest was the fact that there was a consequent increase in healthy-eating behavior, emotional control, maintenance of household chores, attendance to commitments, monitoring of spending and an improvement in study habits. In other words, the intervention not only helped to

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

217

overcome the deficits caused by examination stress but also led to actual increments in self-control during the examination period. Similarly, a study by Finkel et al. (2009) was able to clarify that self-­ control exercises led to the strengthening of will power among intimate partners and a consequent decrease in interpersonal violence. Inzlicht et al. (2014), too, have conducted research which clarified that self-­control is a skill that can be improved with practice. The authors also confirm that no matter how difficult it was for a person to delay gratification in the preschool age, with some training and practice, considerable improvements could be seen (Inzlich et al., ibid.). A more recent study (Englert et  al. 2017) has clarified that though this central resource can become depleted temporarily, it can also be strengthened and improved for use in educational settings.  go Depletion and Shifting Priorities E Another aspect that needs due consideration is the attentional and motivational aspects of self-control. In a recent publication, The Routledge International Handbook of Self-Control in Health and Well-Being (2018), authors Milyavskaya and Inzlicht point out that, rather than considering self-control as being simply dependent on a central limited resource (viz., ego energy undergoing ego depletion after usage), the role of shifting priorities should also be taken into consideration. What is, at one point of time, a temptation that should be put off can also be construed as important for the achievement of some distal goal at a later time. For example, eating fattening food can be construed as a temptation that has to be controlled but it can also be construed as leading toward the distal goal of living life to the fullest. The final call depends on our priorities which seem to shift over time, leading to consequent shifts in the motivation for performing or resisting an act. In view of the above, the authors are of the view that increases in self-­ control can be seen by increasing attentional or motivational mechanisms, such that the wanted behavior becomes the “want to” behavior rather than a “have to” behavior. This can be brought about by a variety of ways, each empirically established. We are detailing them below: • By increasing the extrinsic reward or other interpersonal rewards for the distal option, the value of this distal option increases, and the person is likely to show self-control even after ego depletion (Muraven and Slessareva 2003).

218 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

• “Want to” motivation can also be increased by setting goals tied to one’s identity or by “bolstering the inherent enjoyment of the distal self-control option.” It is clear that although intrinsic rewards can increase self-control to a certain extent, long-term changes can be achieved only if the person really wants it (Ryan and Deci 2000; Sheldon and Elliot 1998). • Framing a goal as intrinsic (e.g., related to helping the community) can also lead to subsequent increase in self-control (Vansteenkiste et al. 2008). • Developing superordinate category labels in terms of why they are pursuing the long-term goal is also a big help (Fujita et al. 2006). • Change the effort required for self-control. Making self-control easier leads to a consequent change in the valuation of the goal. This can be done by having clear implementation specific “if-then” plans, which in the long run will make the self-control effortless or automatic (e.g., “when I am hungry, I will eat an apple” Gollwitzer 1999). • Performance decrements due to ego depletion can also be prevented by increasing the degree of autonomy that the person has with reference to the choice of goals (Moller et  al. 2006; Muraven 2010; Muraven et al. 2008). Once people start feeling that it is their decision to engage in a particular task or not, less self-control is required and the act of restraint seems less aversive (Muraven 2010). In other words, anything that shifts our attention to those features of the situation that helps highlight the value of self-control will help in increasing self-control or making it an automatic process not requiring the limited cognitive resource even after ego depletion has set in.  he Neurological Basis of Self-Control T Now that we have advanced techniques of imaging, the neurological underpinnings of many forms of behavior are being discovered. Recent imaging studies in socio-cognitive-neuropsychology clarify that the ability to delay gratification or manifest self-control is dependent on what can be called a “push-pull theory” or as a tussle between two areas of the brain. One is the frontal cortex, especially the prefrontal cortex, known for its role in planning and thinking which allows us to realize the value of delaying gratification in return for a more satisfying reward at a later time. The other is the limbic system and its components, known for its deployment

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

219

in emotional processes, impatience and short-term reward seeking. While one system tries to pull the person away from the immediate reward, the other system is bent on pushing it toward this reward. De Ridder et al. (2018) also make a similar point when they write that self-control operates at the neurocognitive level, with two types of processes: a top-down process, namely, cognitive control, and a bottom-up process in terms of temptations. In other words, they agree that both the frontal areas and the limbic system are called into play. Other researchers have also pointed to the role of the frontal areas (e.g., Nachev et al. 2005; Hare et al. 2009). According to Brass and Haggard (2007), neuroimaging studies also clarify another interesting aspect of self-control: what happens when we decide to do something and then change our minds? Is such an intention backed by neurological structures? It may sound amazing but it is true: there is a clear neural signature for such inhibitory self-control through a control structure for self-initiated inhibition of intended action. So, even though you may have decided to do something but later intentionally cancel it, such actions, too, are modulated by brain networks in the frontal-­ median cortex. What about free will? Caspar et al. (2016) have shown how the activations in the human brain change with whether the actions have been performed under coercion or because we willed to do it, in other words because of our own free will. But, is the same true for when we specifically inhibit some action? Current research shows that, as of now, we do not have unequivocal results and that we are still unsure about whether specific brain areas are activated when we specifically inhibit some action from taking place. As pointed out by Filevich et al. (2013) in an article entitled “There is no free won’t,” the neural precursors of free decisions to inhibit have hardly been studied, but currently available research does suggest “that free won’t may be no more free than free will,” both being based on neural mechanisms. Thus, as more research takes place, it is becoming increasingly clear that a better understanding of the phenomenon of self-control may be had by combining psychological models with the neural substrates. Some groundbreaking research in this direction has been conducted by Posner and his associates (Posner et al. 2007; Yang et al. 2015). Some of these results and their implications for the psychology of nonviolence have been presented in Box 7.3.

220 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Box 7.3  Neurosocial Psychology of Nonviolence as a Correlate of Self-Regulation and Self-Control

Gandhi always insisted that every freedom fighter must have love and respect for each British citizen, irrespective of his or her rank but, at the same time, must disobey the laws that led to oppression and exploitation of the people of India. It was not easy for an ordinary Indian to distinguish between the evil acts and the perpetrators of these acts. But, that was Gandhi’s creed of nonviolence that involved utmost self-control by not retaliating to the physical and emotional harm suffered by them at the hands of British soldiers and administrators. Inspired by Gandhi’s life and work, a measure of nonviolence was developed by Kool and Sen (1984) in which self-control emerged as the highest principal factor of nonviolence. Later, the concept of self-control became a central topic of research in the 1990s with the work of criminologists (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990) and psychologists (e.g., excellent work by Roy Baumeister 1999). More recently, several scholars have been examining the neurological underpinnings of the mechanism of self-control. It has been quite common in psychological research to look into the negative aspect of a concept, that is, what its impairment can do to individuals. Work on self-control, too, is seen to follow the same history, and subsequently, researchers found that impaired self-control (such as impulsivity and compulsivity), negative moods and stress reactivity lead to reduced activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), adjacent prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and striatum. The critical factor in the regulation of self-control is the intention of an individual which governs his motivated behavior to control the level of his/her violence and leads to engagement in many forms of destructive behaviors including substance abuse, alcoholism and smoking. It is heartening to note that neuropsychological research in self-­ control has moved a long way to find applications in positive domains such as meditation, mindfulness and wellbeing. Eminent psychologist Michael Posner, who has dedicated his entire career on studying the neuropsychology of the human attentional system and was awarded US highest scientific honor (National Medal of Science by (continued)

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

221

Box 7.3  (continued)

President Obama; see photo below) for his pioneering work in this field, demonstrates through his research that self-control is necessary for everyday functioning. It is a key element in focusing our attention on issues of survival and wellbeing and, above all, in enhancing the levels of our cognitive executive functioning including the broadening and sustaining of our will power (Posner et al. 2007). More simply, the development of self-control, which is initially low in children owing to their inability to connect adjacent areas of brain, helps to develop upper spirals of cognitive functioning.

Michael Posner with the National Medal of Science that he received from President Obama (2009)

Was Gandhi, without any credentials in neurosocial psychology and the psychology of self-control, tempted to condition the brains of his comrades to search for alternatives to violence by insisting that they consider options other than retaliation while, at the same time, (continued)

222 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Box 7.3  (continued)

using disobedience to authority (traditionally, such behavior being considered as a negative mode of functioning) in the positive context of a conscious and well-articulated action plan rather than exhibiting a primordial automatic response? In doing so, he was augmenting the functioning of the human brain for achieving the intended goal of freedom using positive means and volitional control. Was it not a Herculean task to help millions of Indian to learn the virtue of selfcontrol in engaging with their adversary? It remains to be seen how our moral brain functions while obeying or disobeying to authority in two contrasting frames—positive and negative.

Despite the vast amount of empirical work that has been undertaken, one limitation remains that of ecological validity, namely, the degree to which laboratory results are able to replicate day-to-day life. Almost all research on self-control has been conducted in the precincts of the psychology laboratory and have generally used standard techniques often far removed from what people would encounter in their daily lives. This has been pointed out by Inzlicht and Frieze in a special issue of the journal Social Psychology, entitled Ego Depletion and Self-Control: Conceptual and Empirical Advances, published in 2019. Authors Michael Inzlicht and Malte Frieze make the following recommendation: We recommend that scholars leave the laboratory to conduct field research in the real world. The popularity of ego depletion was due, in no small part, to how widely applicable the idea was in the real world. Despite this broad applicability, work on depletion has mostly been conducted in the sterile confines of the experimental laboratory. Instead, we recommend that scholars interrogate depletion in the wild (e.g., Baumeister, Wright, & Carreon, 2019; Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs, 2012; Milyavskaya & Inzlicht, 2017; Wilkowski, Ferguson, Williamson, & Lappi, 2018). More than that, we recommend that scholars conduct observational studies that examine depletion as it impacts important outcomes in the real world (Allan et  al., 2019; Dai et  al., 2014). Every paper in this special issue used an experimental laboratory approach; we hope to see more work bridging laboratory and field in the future. (Inzlicht and Friese 2019, p. 374)

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

223

From the above section on self-control, various conclusions can be drawn regarding the psychological and neurological basis of self-control. First and foremost, there has been considerable research time and effort expended to gain insights into the dynamics of self-control. While the majority of the researches seem to suggest that self-control can be likened to a muscle, being the “moral muscle” in more ways than one, there is newer data revealing that there may be more to loss of self-control than mere ego depletion. Of special importance are some of the research findings that have importance for the understanding of the kind of self-control shown by people espousing nonviolence as a creed or for that matter in day-to-day life. For one thing, research clarifies that even after ego depletion has taken place, people may still continue to show self-control if the reason is important enough. This is perhaps what in common parlance has been called indomitable will, a will power that refuses to be shaken or broken. While such will power and utter restraint can be seen among people in general, it is perhaps the hallmark of people who are nonviolent by nature. S elf-Control and Self-Restraint by Gandhi Such was the restraint and self-control shown by Gandhi during his first trip to foreign soil, to England, when he refused to touch meat, wine or women despite temptations from various quarters because of his vow to his mother. We see it coming to the foreground once again when Gandhi was thrown out of the first-class compartment while travelling in a train in South Africa. He could have retaliated against the action, but he showed restraint. The night was cold and windy on that winter night. But, he preferred to spend it at the station rather than use violence to get his way, setting the stage for his entire life, thereafter. The same can be seen when he gathered Indians and led them on a nonviolent agitation against many oppressive laws in South Africa or during his Satyagraha movements in India. And once again, it was this indomitable will that was evinced by the followers of Gandhi, who despite repeated acts of oppression by the British were ready to follow Gandhi through his nonviolent campaign. In 1906, when the Transvaal government passed the Asiatic Amendment Act forcing Indians to register and submit a full set of fingerprints, much like that used exclusively for criminals, Gandhi decided to counter this unjust law. Through his appeal to the people of Transvaal, he was able to start a movement of passive resistance so intense that the government was caught off guard. Even putting people in prison had no effect on either

224 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Gandhi or his followers. They stood steadfast, undergoing the torture they were being subjected to. The same level of self-control was seen time and again, whether it was at other Satyagrahas in South Africa or even later in the Kheda and Bardoli Satyagrahas or the fight for independence in India. Violence was never responded to by violence. The question that can be asked is how did Gandhi manage to script such high levels of self-control, of the nature never before seen in any political struggle? An even more important question is can research on the psychology and neurology of self-control provide justification for the methods used by Gandhi? Let us now consider some of the characteristics of self-control as extrapolated from empirical work and see the extent to which it is able to validate the methods of self-control used by Gandhi and his followers. Research by various psychologists has clarified that the effort needed for self-control can be reduced to the extent that it could become an automatic activity through the use of specific “if-then” plans. Gandhi would often create such “if-then” plans for his followers, namely, that if the oppressors behaved in a particular fashion, such should be their response. One example is “when slapped on one cheek, turn the other cheek to the oppressor.” Empirical work mentioned above clarifies that there is an increase in self-control if community wellbeing is pointed out. Is this not what Gandhi always focused on? How else can you interpret his emphasis on antodaya, sarvodaya and finally Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. One of the most important aspects of Satyagraha was constructive action, action meant to help the community. For him independence from the British did not mean simply political independence. For Gandhi, independence without consideration of the wellbeing of every person in the country was no independence. We have pointed out in the preceding sections that self-control can be increased through increasing the valuation of the distal goal either through extrinsic rewards or through interpersonal rewards. Gandhi, through his experiments, found that he could get the villagers to rally around his methods of nonviolence when there was a bonding between them. Did he make efforts to create such a bonding? He certainly did, through his community prayer meetings and community spinning. In fact, if one looks at the workings of his ashrams, including Tolstoy Farm and Phoenix Settlement, and ashrams at Wardha and Sabarmati, community action was the focus—whether it was farming, cooking, cleaning, printing of pamphlets, looking after the ill or any other work for that matter.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

225

Why was it that a scientific psychologist such as Skinner was unable to get the community to come together and stay together? Much as he wanted this to happen, his efforts did not lead to success. In contrast, Gandhi was not only able to establish communities but was also able to maintain them. The difference was in the type of motivation behind the two—while Skinner based his communities on extrinsic reinforcements, Gandhi operated on the twin principles of the inner voice and soul force (see Kool and Agrawal 2013, for further details). An important point made by psychological research is that self-control is better when it is induced by the person herself rather than being forced by someone else. Gandhi would always compel people who came to him to become satyagrahis that they should look inside, turn inward and join only at the behest of their inner voice. It is amazing how each one of the points made regarding ways to increase self-control was actually initiated and followed by Gandhi, way back in the early 1900s, whereas research in the psychology of self-control took place only in the late twentieth century and more so in the early twenty-first century. It is because of such characteristics of Gandhi that made Einstein, once, write: Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.

Tapasya, Self-Sacrifice and Nonviolence Endure and persist; this pain will turn to good by and by.

This exhortation by the Roman poet, Publius Ovidius Naso (Ovid), during the ancient Roman times has found many takers over the years, ranging from sages and saints in almost all the religions and cultures of the world (Fields and Owens 2004) to heroic acts related to national identity (Dehghani 2009), to children’s stories (Sachdeva 2010) and to the common man on the streets who is fighting for his rights, such as that of the fruit vendor in a distant village in Tunisia who galvanized thousands into action into a wave of revolution known as the Arab Spring (Kirkpatrick et al. 2011). Such an ability to endure pain and suffering for either personal good or for the welfare of others is known as tapasya. While tapasya or self-sacrifice is a key feature in the religions of the East (e.g., in Hinduism, Jainism,

226 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

etc.), Gandhi used it in a special sense. In Gandhi’s philosophy, tapasya is one of the key elements of the nonviolence process and is one of the building blocks of nonviolence, as pointed out in Chap. 4. For Gandhi, it was not just penance but also a practice for the enhancement of personal discipline, self-control, tolerance and total personal transformation. For him, it was a way to the soul force on which the entire philosophy of Satyagraha and ahimsa is based according to which the sincerity to never injure an opponent while holding on firmly to the truth could not be had without a willingness to undergo self-sacrifice, even sacrifice to death. In a very succinct manner, in his book, Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence, Rynne (2015), describes the power of tapasya: “when push comes to shove in a dispute, rather than retaliate with force, the satyagrahi takes it, endures the suffering.” Or as Gandhi puts it: I believe implicitly in the ancient saying that nonviolence real and complete will melt the stoniest hearts.

Tapasya, therefore, seems to be at the core of nonviolent practice, providing it with energy and keeping it going, helping one to concentrate one’s thought and force. The purpose of Satyagraha was to bring about a change of heart in the opponent, failing which “he would be prepared to bear any injury that his opponent might inflict upon him, not in a spirit of cowardice or helplessness but bravely with a smile on his face.” This ability to bear physical pain and emotional insult is the very training of the satyagrahi: Nonviolence training must be of a different kind…I am of the opinion that it used to be given in the past and is even now being given in a haphazard way. The various exercises of Hatha Yoga are in this direction. The physical training by means of these imparts among other things physical health, strength, agility and the capacity to bear heat and cold…the object of the various exercises was to strengthen and purify the body in order to secure control over the mind…as we are thinking of a nonviolent army, that is to say of bringing into being a satyagraha Sangh, we can but build a new accepting the old as our foundation. (Gandhi 1927, p. 272)

It is through such training that the satyagrahi behaves in ways through which rather than inflicting pain on the opponent, he becomes ready to bear the pain himself. Gandhi used tapasya in two ways: one, to purify

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

227

himself so that he was able to follow the path of Truth. The other was to use tapasya as a tool to make the suffering of his followers and himself visible to others, especially to the oppressors. In fact, he argued that visible suffering “opened the eyes of understanding.” Let us now try to understand the evolutionary basis of self-sacrifice.  he Evolutionary and Psychological Basis of Self-Sacrifice T A question that has always been asked is why people are ready to sacrifice their lives for others, including strangers. In fact, it seems to be an evolutionary puzzle, as far as human behavior is considered (Parvez 2017). Commonly seen across the animal kingdom is behavior in line with the famous Hamilton’s rule regarding kin selection, according to which readiness to help is directly related to genetic relatedness. As a result, animals are ready to sacrifice their lives or bear a cost for those through whom there is a chance of their genes to be propagated. Such self-sacrifice, for the benefit of the group, is seen in many species. Even in organisms as minute as bacteria, we see the phenomenon known as “abortive infection,” in which bacteria undergo self-destruction when attacked by a bacteriophage to prevent parasitic transmission to nearby relatives (Refardt et al. 2013). In the insect world, many species of ants and termites have perfected an art seen today in human suicide groups of many terrorist organizations, in that they are able to blow themselves up (Maschwitz and Maschwitz 1974) and can contract their abdomens so violently that their body walls split open and compounds from the mandibular gland are ejected into the bodies of the predators (Davidson et  al. 2009, 2012). Similar suicidal action is seen in honey bee and wasp species and even among birds and mammals. It is clear that no matter which organism it is, the aim is to power the group so that its survival is ensured (Bélanger et al. 2018). Coming higher up the phylogenetic ladder, we witness similar self-­ sacrificial behavior among humans, whether it is to save a band of brothers, a nation at peril or a particular cause, but the process is far more intricate than that found in other organisms. Before we enter the complexities of self-sacrifice among humans, let us attempt to understand what psychologists mean by self-sacrifice. According to Bélanger et al. (2014), self-sacrifice is “a psychological readiness to suffer and die for a cause,” thereby seen to be involving three major aspects, namely, a motivational component (i.e., the readiness), a cost (i.e., suffering or death) and an ideological component (i.e., for a cause). From the

228 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

examples given above, it can be seen that this definition, including all three aspects, holds for both human self-sacrifice and also for organisms lower down the phylogenetic scale. At the same time, it is clear that as far as the human tendency to sacrifice oneself for the wellbeing of others is concerned, it is not a uniform trait. There are wide individual differences in the degree to which this tendency is seen. In view of such individual variation, it becomes imperative to devise psychometric techniques to measure it. Measuring Self-Sacrifice The Self-Sacrifice Scale (Bélanger et al. 2014): In this ingeniously devised scale, the respondent is asked to think of a particular cause in which she/ he is very much interested. Keeping this particular cause in mind, the respondent then responds to ten items indicating the degree to which she/he is ready to forfeit objects/goals of worth for the cause. The scale has been found to have sound psychometric properties and has been translated into a number of languages including Arabic, French, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, Tagalog and Tamil. The Boom Task: Since it has been seen that almost all self-report measures suffer from certain deficiencies including a whole host of response biases, efforts have been made to devise an implicit measure of self-­ sacrifice. The Boom Task is one such measure, developed by Bélanger et  al. (ibid.), in which individuals play a science fiction computer game through which their tendency for self-sacrifice can be tapped, without the player realizing the real purpose of the game.  he Dynamics of Self-Sacrifice: The 3 N Theory T Why are people ready to sacrifice pleasure and actively search out pain, whether it is in walkathons, marathons or even walking over fire or through extremely cold water in an endeavor to raise funds? What is the reason behind this hedonic puzzle? According to Olivola and Shafir (2013), such behavior is due to what has been called the martyrdom effect, and their research has shown that the greater the pain and effort to be endured, the greater is the willingness to contribute to the charity. According to Gandhi, at the base of self-sacrifice is tapasya. Through the process of self-purification and the practice of certain austerities, the person is able to draw mental strength to neither bow down nor cow down in front of an opponent or even more so in front of an oppressor. While Gandhi did use the term self-sacrifice as an equivalent for tapasya,

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

229

his writings make it amply clear that the two cannot be used interchangeably. Tapasya is more of a mental and spiritual process, producing heat and mental energy so as to enable the person to conquer all other vices and ills and open up the mind to higher virtues. It is a type of training, which according to Gandhi is essential for every satyagrahi (see above) and had been devised in the ancient times by the great Indian yoga master, Patanjali. Having undergone such austerities, one becomes not only more disciplined but is also able to bear atrocities without the desire to retaliate. Such tapasya is difficult for any person to undertake and becomes even more so when undertaken at the behest of some other person. Yet, why did people who were followers of Gandhi, or why do people involved with any other cause, go along despite the great costs involved? Though there is scant empirical work on tapasya per se, extrapolations can be made from research on the related phenomenon of self-sacrifice. The psychology of self-sacrifice points to a number of factors, personal, social and situational. The 3N Theory (Kruglanski et  al. 2014; Webber and Kruglanski 2016): One type of group in which endurance is often put to the test is radical groups. In a bid to explain involvement in radical movements, Kruglanski and his associates posit three elements, namely, needs, network and narrative, and hence called the 3N theory. The first of these three, namely, need, refers to the extent to which an individual joins a radical group in order to fulfill certain personal needs not being fulfilled otherwise. Since groups often serve to provide the individual with a sense of legitimacy, respect, prestige, status, reward and significance, people who join such radical groups may have a strong need to avoid stigmatization or humiliation and may feel that group membership will save them from such negative societal actions. Network, on the other hand, refers to the extent that one is embedded in the social group in order to get status, prestige and group recognition. The third element, narrative, is the ideology of the group. An ideology can be defined as ideas and beliefs that influence an individual’s decision-making or goal-related behavior. According to Jost et al. (2008, p. 1), ideologies are: Prepackaged units of interpretation that spread because of basic human motives to understand the world, avoid existential threats and maintain valued interpersonal relationships.

230 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

It has been found that ideologies differ in strength and salience, for individuals and for groups—some being more salient for the individual or group and therefore followed to a greater extent. Those ideologies that are of high salience have been denoted as sacred values and can be thought to be: Nonnegotiable preferences whose defense compels action beyond—calculable costs and consequences. (Atran 2016, p. 2)

It is not just religious values which can become a sacred value for a person; it could even be a secular value (e.g., democracy and justice, caring for the environment or compassion). People who adhere to a value that is sacred for them do so because they think it to be morally right rather than because it is rational (based on a cost-benefit analysis). At the same time, so great is the effect of sacred values on adherents that no amount of material concessions or other temptations are able to sway them. Rather than acting in isolation, these three elements, namely, need, network and narrative, act in highly orchestrated ways. There is a burgeoning mass of empirical data to support them (reviewed by Bélanger et  al. 2018). The complex ways in which these three elements act to produce radicalists have been summarized by Bélanger et al. (ibid., p. 476) as follows: To summarize, individuals transition from wanting significance to joining a powerful group to which they become fused, which in turn leads them to project familial ties and adhere to sacred values. When these values are imperiled, fighting against its detractors becomes a moral obligation, and those willing to answer the call of duty are bestowed with significance and glory.

Identity Fusion and Its Role in Producing Self-Sacrifice

He who has a ‘why’ to live for can bear almost anyhow. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Identity fusion, a term coined by Bill Swann and his colleagues, at the University of Texas, refers to that very crucial stage when after joining a group, there comes a point when the identity of the person fuses with the identity of the group. At this stage, their personal self becomes fused with the social self, and they start experiencing a sense of oneness with other group members (Buhrmester and Swann 2015). Once this occurs,

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

231

members are more ready to bear costs or engage in self-sacrifice for the attainment of group goals (Buhrmester and Swann, ibid.). What is, however, more relevant is that while most people will acknowledge the moral virtue of sacrificing themselves for the good of others, there are only a few who will actually do so: A similar role of self-interest was found by Huebner and Hauser (2011) in a three-track variation of the switch version of the trolley car problem. Participants in this version were told that they could redirect the trolley toward another person, toward themselves or do nothing. A plurality of the participants chose to redirect the trolley toward the other person (48%) and away from themselves. However, there was also a substantial group (33%) that chose to redirect the trolley toward themselves. This finding was surprising for the authors of the study but to us it suggests that self-sacrifice is a vital component of the trolley car dilemma and one that needs to be addressed more carefully. (Sachdeva et al. 2015, p. 2)

Through an ingenious set of seven experiments, Swann Jr. et al. (2014) have been able to delineate the factors that differentiate between people with a professed attitude of self-sacrifice and those actually endorsing sacrificial behavior. Surprisingly, 50% of the participants endorsed saving their own lives rather than saving the lives of five other people. A common thread appearing through all the seven experiments was that this difference between attitude and behavior depended on the degree to which the person showed fusion with the group, this in turn interacting with various other cognitive and affective factors, such as priming, time pressure and the degree of emotional engagement with the group. The researchers distinguish between two levels of fusion, those who are strongly fused and those who are fused with the group but to a weaker extent. The findings clearly show that although nearly all the participants knew what was right, only those who were strongly fused endorsed self-sacrifice for group interests. The difference between these two groups was not only in the extent of self-sacrifice but also in the psychological pathways being followed. As pointed out by the authors of the research: Our findings indicated that strongly and weakly fused persons differed not only in how often they endorsed self-sacrifice to save others, but in the psychological pathway they followed to this destination. When they recognized that their group members were in danger, strongly fused persons immediately felt as if they themselves were in danger and it did not matter whether

232 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

one or several ingroup members were threatened. At the same time, weakly fused persons focused on their own survival and endorsed the sacrifice of group members. On those relatively rare occasions that weakly fused people winded up endorsing self-sacrifice, they were inspired to do so by a cool calculus that focused on utilitarian concerns such as the impact of their decision on the number of people who would live or die. (Swann Jr. et  al. 2014, p. 725)

The work on identity fusion can be linked to that of the 3N theory mentioned earlier, especially with reference to the narrative factor. It is clear that strong fusion relates to the salience of the ideology, that is, the narrative provided by the group. Where group ideology is salient and is taken up as a sacred value, both the group and its members become devoted actors, and fusion will be strong, with strong in-group feelings and consequent high degree of self-sacrifice. Putting the two theories together, one can clearly see the complex ways in which the narrative factor or the ideology becomes intertwined with the other two and can even override them. Along the same lines, research by Oxford University professor, Whitehouse (2018), has clarified the psychological reasons for such identity fusion. In an interesting paper, entitled Dying for the group: toward a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice, Whitehouse has analyzed how the sharing of intense emotional life-shaping experiences with others, coupled with the idea that the other group members are like biological kin, helps to fuse people together. Self-Sacrifice as Counterfinality of Means

Every man must decide whether he will walk in the creative light of altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life’s persistent and most urgent question is, what are you doing for others? (Martin Luther King, Jr. 1963)

Using the goal systems theory, Kruglanski et al. (2002) have pointed out that we can think of three types of means-goal configurations, each of which has clear psychological properties. These three are: • Unifinal means, that is, those that serve the attainment of a single goal • Multifinal means, that is, those that simultaneously serve the attainment of several goals

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

233

• Counterfinal means, that is, those through which one goal is attained but is detrimental for the attainment of other goals It is this last, namely, counterfinal means to goals, that comes under the rubric of self-sacrifice, wherein one is ready to pursue a means that apparently is counterfinal—one is ready to even sacrifice one’s life for the furtherance of ideological goals. Why should any individual be ready to pursue such a means? On the basis of empirical work in the area (e.g., by Bélanger et al. 2016; Schumpe et al. 2017), Bélanger et al. (2018) point out that one reason could be the costs associated with the sacrifice, with the greater the costs of the sacrifice, the more instrumental it is perceived to be as far as the attainment of the alternative goal is concerned. Thus, among a group of environmental activists, extreme forms of activism were perceived as more efficacious for advancing the cause they were fighting for, simply because these forms of activism were more detrimental to the attainment of other goals (Schumpe et al., ibid.). The more out of reach the achievement of the goal appears, the more attractive do counterfinal means become. The more participants were uncertain about reaching their focal goal, the more they were ready to use counterfinal means such as neglecting sleep to study or neglecting one’s friends to spend time with one’s partner (Bélanger et al. 2016). Moreover, the greater the degree of self-sacrifice needed, the more is the commitment of the participants toward the cause which is in line with self-perception theory (Bem 1972), indicating that degree of sacrifice and level of commitment can act in an ever-increasing spiraling or cyclical fashion.  he Role of the Leader in Self-Sacrifice T Who are the people who are capable of inspiring such unwavering commitment to a cause? Why do people become ready to fight even using means that are clearly counterfinal as far as normal life goals are concerned? One answer to this seeming puzzle lies in the nature of the leader. A leader who has the ability to focus on the need for sacrifice and the extra effort tends to increase tendencies of self-sacrifice among followers (Bass 1985). In fact, such self-sacrifices can be contagious for the followers (Bélanger et al. 2018). Such leaders have been, more often than not, found to be charismatic leaders (Conger and Kanungo 1994) and show a remarkable ability to formulate and, even more so, articulate an inspirational vision:

234 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

They are the type of leaders who galvanize their followers with an inspirational ideology to which they become faithful, respectful and emotionally attached. (Bélanger et al., ibid., p. 477)

The leaders, themselves, engage in counterfinal behavior making it clear to the followers that they are committed to the organization. Choi and Mai-Dalton (1998) delineate an analytical model of leadership identifying three areas in which the leaders show self-sacrifice. These are as follows: • Division of labor, taking more of the load for themselves • Distribution of rewards, reserving fewer rewards for themselves • Distribution of power, reserving less power for himself Through these types of sacrifices, charismatic leaders are able to inspire admiration, trust and loyalty (Choi and Mai-Dalton 1998). S elf-Control and Self-Restraint by Gandhi From the above section on the psychology of self-sacrifice, what can we extrapolate regarding Gandhi’s use of personal self-sacrifice and his exhorting his followers to engage in similar behavior? First and foremost, since the ability of undertaking self-sacrifice for the sake of the group has been found down the phylogenetic scale, it is clearly an adaptive form of behavior that has undergone natural selection in the Darwinian sense. Thus, what Gandhi was expecting from his followers is nothing new, “it is as old as the hills.” However, we must keep in mind that Gandhi’s satyagrahis were certainly not suicide bombers of the type seen in ants and other animals. Another aspect clarified by recent research is regarding the dynamics of such self-sacrifice and include the 3N theory, identity fusion and counterfinality. Of the three factors proposed in the 3N theory, namely, need, network and narrative, the research regarding the last two definitely help in understanding Gandhi’s satyagrahis. The groups created by Gandhi had strong in-group feeling, in that they were driven by a common cause and a strong family feeling. One can see the identity fusion in Gandhi’s groups: he specifically worked on creating such fusion through various group activities such as collective spinning and collective prayer meetings. He has said that he does not believe in passive icons, but instead on an active one, and the charkha was one such symbol, active and reinforced by collective

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

235

action. But it is the role played by the narrative factor that helped to create the level of endurance shown by the satyagrahis. That they could endure pain at the hands of the oppressors, including being beaten and imprisoned, was because of the strong narrative created by Gandhi: not only regarding the oppression but also regarding the means to be used, namely, the ideology of nonviolence. At the same time, goal salience was always high, and in most cases Gandhi would start a satyagraha only when he felt that all other forms of nonviolent action had failed. He always sought to convince the oppressors first, whether in South Africa or in India, and then only resorted to passive resistance. This is again in line with empirical work on counterfinal means. While all of the points mentioned above are important and help us to understand that Gandhi was indeed a practical psychologist who could through his experiments on truth, establish practices that almost always succeeded, perhaps the most important is the type of leadership he afforded. Little did the British realize that this half-clad, lean Indian would be able to literally mesmerize his followers. But he was truly a charismatic leader, in all senses of the word, manifesting all the characteristics of a charismatic leader. Here, we would also like to point at the difference between negative and positive charisma as has been pointed out in the empirical work and theorization on leadership. Gandhi was an example of positive charisma. He never used his charisma to lure a person into doing anything that was morally wrong or that would exploit the follower. Nor did he use his charisma for personal gain. Rather, he used his charisma to transform the people and galvanize them into action to attain ends that were important for them. At the same time, he also galvanized them to use only one type of means, nonviolence, to get to those ends. Power and Nonviolence If I have power over another person, the first thing that comes to mind is that I can influence the other person; the implication is that I can pressurize the other person into doing something that she/he does not want to do. Now, let us think of power in the context of nonviolence. On the face of it, it appears that the nonviolent person refrains from using power, influence or pressure in any form, so much so, that it has often been confused with the term passive resistance, not involving the active use of force of any type. Yet, as a detailed analysis of Gandhian Satyagraha reveals,

236 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

there are many essential aspects of Satyagraha that do not meet the eye and the subtleties or basic principles of Satyagraha may not always be understood. One such aspect is the ways in which power is used. Joan Bondurant provides greater clarity in her chapter in the book Gandhi: His Relevance for Our Times (1967). According to her: for nonviolence alone can be weak, noncooperation in itself could lead to defeat, and civil disobedience without creative action may end in alienation. (Bondurant 1967, p. 113)

It is for such creative action that pressure is applied by the nonviolent actor. Attempting to contrast Satyagraha with its opposite, duragraha, Bondurant is of the view that pressure is used in both but in ways that are vastly different. While the duragrahi uses pressure to obtain concessions and to overcome and destroy the position taken by the opponent, the satyagrahi uses pressure to develop alternatives, to pressurize the opponent to use his creativity to enlarge the pie. Another difference in their use of power is that for the duragrahi, the objective is clear, the end is conclusive. Not so for the satyagrahi for whom there is no fixed end. In fact, the two opponents must work out an end that is mutually satisfying; Satyagraha is a process, ongoing and open, to say the least. As pointed out in Chap. 4, it is essential that the practitioner of nonviolence understands the distinctions between Satyagraha and duragraha. At the same time, while Gandhi’s Satyagraha holds great promise, we need people who will take it forward. Are there such people available today? If so, who are they and what has been their contribution? Two sets of thought can be isolated. One is the work of Fisher and Ury (1981) with reference to integrative negotiation, now widely used by organizations all over the world, including business organizations. Both practice and empirical results clarify that distributive conflict resolution, wherein one party wins and the other loses, creates more dissatisfaction in both parties, while integrative conflict resolution creates a win-win solution (see Kool 2008 for an in-depth analysis). As can be seen, the ways in which integrative negotiation is applied to solve conflicts in the world today closely parallels that of satyagraha. The other line of thought is how people have drawn inspiration from Boulding’s work and have made attempts to build up on that.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

237

Kenneth Boulding Almost a quarter of a century after the book was written by Kenneth Boulding (1990), people are still drawing inspiration from it, and we quote from the preface of a volume, Places of Power (Westcoat Jr. and Johnston 2007): The overarching theme on places of power comes from Kenneth Boulding’s (1990) Three Faces of Power, which linked political power, economic power, and what he called integrative power—the power of love—of people, place, and planet. When we write about places of power, we draw inspiration from Boulding’s hopeful spirit alongside those that courageously expose political and economic disasters. We acknowledge the debt to Kenneth and his wife Elise Boulding (2000) who wrote persuasively about integrative power as the hidden side of history that has enormous transformative potential. Geographer Gilbert F. White (1958) showed how integrative inquiry broadens the range of choice for harmonizing human-environment relations. Landscape architecture professor Robert “Doc” Reich has exemplified these ideals in a life devoted to cultivating the progressive power of design in thousands of students, treating each one as a creative individual (2005). We dedicate this volume to these four visionaries. (Westcoat Jr. and Johnston 2007, p. 6)

Box 7.4  On Boulding and the Three Faces of Power

An excerpt from a review of Three faces of power (Boulding 1993) on the Amazon website: Kenneth E. Boulding did not just write this book. He also used it as a text for an evening course which contained a large number of adult students (“More than half the students had fulltime jobs in a great variety of fields” (p. 258), and he asked each student to review the book. Fall of 1989 was such a modern time, most of them were subject to “the very act of thinking about power in our lives and experiences creates a process of revelation and self-analysis that may even make us look at ourselves in a new light. The internal search for the way in which the various forms of power have been exercised by a person and upon a person may have effects resembling a mild psychoanalysis.” (p. 259)

238 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

In his book, The Three Faces of Power (1993), noted peace activist, economist and ex-president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Kenneth Boulding (see Box 7.4) has analyzed the advantages of using integrative power. According to Boulding “power is the ability to get what we want” (p. 15) and shows up in three forms or has three faces, threat power, economic power and integrative power. The first of these is threat power wherein fear is used to control behavior. Thus, kings from the days of yore, for example, Genghis Khan, used this policy— either you surrender or we will massacre the inhabitants, and, because of such threats, many rulers surrendered to him and to various other brutal kings. Economic power is based on the economic concept of the marketplace economy, where every buyer has the right to buy and the seller has the right to sell. Economic power derives from the power to produce and exchange goods. Integrative power is totally different. It is power based on love, respect, loyalty and legitimacy. Boulding (1993) describes it as follows: This is the power of legitimacy, persuasion, loyalty, community and so on. In a very real sense, power is a gift to the powerful by those over whom the power is to be exercised, those who recognize that the power is legitimate. Threat power and economic power would be hard to exercise if they were not supported by integrative power, that is, if the former were not regarded as legitimate. (Boulding 1993, p. 201)

Rollo May In a similar vein, but from a more individualistic point of view, Rollo May (1972) analyzed power in terms of five individual orientations: • Exploitative power: Characterized by the use of force and subjects people to abuse and be tyrannical, for example, as was seen in the practice of slavery. • Manipulative power: A tendency to control others, by forcing them to change their ways of thinking. • Competitive power: A tendency to remain ahead of others and keep the opposition down. • Achievement motivation: A strong need to be successful similar to the concept offered by McClelland (1961). • Integrative power: It is the blending of power with others and is in line with Boulding’s analysis of integrative power.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

239

From the perspective of nonviolence, it is clear that the only kind of power ever used by the nonviolent person is integrative power: The notion of power in the minds of nonviolent persons lies in their efforts to align themselves to the goodness of their community, a process which leads to self cultivation and self perfection. They are comfortable with criticism or even hatred because they tend to look beyond the existing social order and do not play by the conventional rules. In doing so, they never manipulate others because they do not promote their personal interests. (Kool 1993, p. 16)

There are at least three ways in which we may view the relationship between nonviolence and integrative power. First, nonviolent people are forever ready to become aware of the problem. Second, they do not hesitate in accepting blame and responsibility. And third, for them, their community comes first rather than their self-interest. In terms of the bases of power (French and Raven 1959), the nonviolent person has personal power derived from his ability to take the opponent and the society along, while the violent person often derives his power from the position he enjoys in the social order, that of the king, the officer or the manager. We can, therefore, conclude that both violent and nonviolent persons use power but in ways that are essentially different from each other: while one uses power for social good, the other abuses and misuses power for his personal interest. Gene Sharp Often called the “Machiavelli of nonviolence” and the “‘Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare” and a many-time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Gene Sharp made notable contributions to our understanding of nonviolence and nonviolent actions. His 1993 book, From Dictatorship to Democracy, written specifically for the Burmese, has been translated into 31 languages (the book was first published in 1993, in the form of a small brochure). Since then it has been published in various editions including Sharp (1994). In an interview with Sharp, some months before he passed away, Mathew Wills (2017) writes: Can nonviolence be as strategic as war? Ask Gene Sharp.

240 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Probably, one of the most cogent analyses of Sharp’s theory is by Brian Martin (1989) in which he has commented that Sharp has played a twofold role in shaping theorization about power. Firstly, he has classified methods of nonviolent action and has catalogued hundreds of different techniques, each coupled with historical accounts of their usage. Secondly, Sharp has elaborated on a theory of power which has special relevance to nonviolent action, and his ideas have been widely accepted by both practitioners of nonviolence and trainers in nonviolent action. In his theory of power, Sharp has divided society into two categories: the ruler and the ruled, with the power of the ruler being derived from the consent given by the ruled. In other words, power is not intrinsic to the ruler. It must come from somewhere—it has to have a source. According to Sharp there are different sources to such power, namely, authority, human resources, skills and knowledge, intangible factors, material resources and sanctions, and the basis for these sources “depends intimately upon the obedience and cooperation of the subjects.” It exists only so long as the subjects allow it to exist. The ruler, therefore, has power only in so far that the people consent to his having power to rule over them. This is the consent theory of power: Sharp counterposes his analysis to the common idea that power is a monolithic entity residing in the person or position of a ruler or ruling body. Sharp argues instead that power is pluralistic, residing with a variety of groups and in a diversity of locations, which he calls ‘loci of power’. The loci of power provide a countervailing force against the power of the ruler, especially when the loci are numerous and widely distributed throughout society. (Martin 1989, p. 214)

Now, where does nonviolence fit in? The nonviolent actor withdraws this consent by refusing to cooperate with the ruler and by showing disobedience to the demands of the ruler. Through such noncooperation, many key problems of the modern world, such as genocide, dictatorship, oppressive systems and war, can be challenged: Non-violent action constitutes a refusal by subjects to obey. The power of the ruler will collapse if consent is withdrawn in an active way. The ‘active’ here is vital. The ruler will not be threatened by grumbling, alienation or critical analyses alone. Passivity and submissiveness are of no concern to Sharp; he is interested in activity, challenge and struggle (1973, p. 65), in particular with non-violent methods of action. (Martin 1989, p. 214)

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

241

Though Martin has critiqued the theory and analyzed many limitations, Gene Sharp’s theory had certainly set the stage for further empirical work on the psychology of nonviolent action as also on nonviolence praxis and thus forms an important addition to our understanding of nonviolent action. In fact, Gandhi, too, would have agreed with Sharp. As pointed out by Butigan (2012): Simply put, he reasoned that 175,000 British soldiers were able to manacle 300,000,000 Indians because they allowed this to happen. These chains would break, Gandhi believed, when Indians withdrew their power. Every nonviolent action and project fostered by Gandhi—both civil resistance and what he dubbed the Constructive Program, which created parallel organizations designed to wean people from British institutions and to create a new society—sought to demonstrate this power and inspire people to re-channel it to transform their world. (Butigan 2012)

Models of Nonviolence From the empirical results described in this chapter, it is apparent that a reasonable amount of research has been undertaken to establish the science of psychology of nonviolence. It is also encouraging to note that with the advent of the twenty-first century, we seem to be witnessing a renewed interest in nonviolence, not only by psychologists but by thinkers and researchers in various fields. At the same time, we note that despite the bulk of the empirical data, a comprehensive, cogent theory of nonviolence has not been formulated. The few models that have been devised are being now discussed. While the first two models aim to describe the variety of ways in which nonviolence manifests itself as also the complexities regarding how nonviolence operates in the private and public domains of life, the last model attempts to delineate the basic differences between the attributes of the violent and the nonviolent individual. We present a brief sketch of the models below. The 4 P Theory (Summy 2009) This theory is an extension of the traditional difference between the use of nonviolence as a pragmatic technique as compared to it being used as a guiding principle of life. Using Gene Sharp’s theory of power as the starting point, Summy extends it to three other types. According to Summy,

242 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

while Sharp’s work can be considered groundbreaking in more ways than one, there are certain limitations. The most important limitation is that in Sharp’s conceptualization of nonviolence, we see the pragmatic use of nonviolence, but what about the principle used? Sharp confines his analysis to nonviolence being used in the public domain, but what about it being used in the private domain? In view of these limitations, Summy presents a model based on four generic types of nonviolence. These four types are formed through using two orthogonal axes: on the horizontal axis, he represents the use of nonviolence in the two domains, that is, the private domain and the public domain. On the other axis, that is, the vertical axis, he represents the two forms of nonviolence, namely, pragmatic and principled forms. He, thereby, arrives at four quadrants that can be presented in a diagrammatic form as given in Fig. 7.1. Naming the four quadrants, thus obtained, as A, B, C and D, Summy has described the characteristics of each. Quadrant A: Principled/Personal Nonviolence: This is the type of nonviolence that is of the principled type and used in the personal domain. For such an individual, nonviolence is a matter of principle; he actually believes in nonviolence and is not using it for convenience sake. Such a person constantly looks inward, focusing on purity of thoughts, words and deeds. Under the rubric of this quadrant would come the teachings of

Principled

A

C

Personal

Public B

D

Pragmatic Fig. 7.1  The 4 P Theory (Summy 2009)

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

243

most religions of the world, including Christianity, Anabaptists, Judaism, Islam, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and secular bodies such as those believing in Stoicism and Humanism, and the likes of people such as Tolstoy. Quadrant B: Pragmatic/Personal Nonviolence: This quadrant deals with nonviolence that is of the pragmatic type, that is, nonviolence being used for personal ends. Such people enter into nonviolent behavior for their personal benefit and are of the view that engaging in nonviolence would enable them to attain certain personal goals. Behaviors such as praying, the chanting of mantras, enjoying the serenity of music, meditating, dieting and using alternative dispute resolution strategies would be part of this quadrant. Quadrant C: Principled/Public Nonviolence: Though accepting nonviolence as a matter of principle, people who fall in this quadrant use nonviolence for public ends. In other words, they regard nonviolence as a philosophy, a way of life to be directed toward peace in the world. Most people whom we consider as advocates of nonviolence would come under this category, including Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama and Ikeda. It would also include cultures such as the native Hawaii’ian society and Quakers. Basically, they believe that the means and ends are indivisible, in that morally correct ends cannot be served by morally incorrect means (including violence). Quadrant D: Pragmatic/Public Nonviolence: People in this quadrant use nonviolence because they feel that it is an effective tool to gain certain specific ends in the public domain. These are generally political ends to be achieved within a limited and immediate time span, and the means and ends may not be compatible. The outstanding example of people advocating this type of nonviolence would be Gene Sharp, who for six years directed the Program on Nonviolent Sanctions within the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University and later established the independent Einstein Institution for research on his approach and for the dissemination of his ideas. Summy also points out that though each quadrant has been analyzed individually and independently, most practitioners of nonviolence operate in at least two of them, if not in all four. It is therefore important not to categorize people into this or that type but to acknowledge the fact that there might be overlapping categories and that people might also change, moving from one quadrant category to another, and that people might leave the nonviolent sector completely. As an example, Summy points out

244 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

that people in Quadrant C tend to be involved in all four types of nonviolence. One such person is Gandhi: Gandhi is the paradigmatic case. He believed that good works were rewarded in reincarnation at a level closer to Absolute Truth (Quadrant A). He also followed a rigorous personal set of vows and routines that strengthened him physically, intellectually and morally for the challenges of the other quadrants (Quadrant B). And finally, Gandhi was undoubtedly a shrewd strategist, knowing when to launch, how to conduct, over what issues to call a nonviolent action (Quadrant D). Because Gandhi, through his vigorous commitment to the principled/public domain, was reflecting the full range of nonviolence at such a high level of dedication and proficiency, he is generally recognized as the archetypal practitioner of nonviolence—showing the student and activist the alpha and omega of nonviolence. (Summy 2009, p. 32)

In drawing up this model, Summy is of the opinion that such a conceptualization will make nonviolence more intelligible to both academicians, students and practitioners alike and will remove some of the common confusions ensuing because of the varying ways in which nonviolent behavior is manifested. The Diamond Model of Nonviolence (Mayton 2014) Another model that attempts to explicate the various nuances of nonviolence is a fairly comprehensive model devised by Mayton and his team. Dan Mayton describes the theory in a chapter in the book, Personal Peacefulness (Sims et al. 2014), and is of the view that the nonviolent personality cannot be seen merely in terms of the absence of violence but should be understood as a pattern of thoughts, attitudes and behavior that are consistent across the life span and across one’s life space (in other words, that one should be manifesting it consistently across a variety of life situations). Based on the works of Nelson (2005) that nonviolence can be seen in five specific domains and that of Anderson (2004) who advocated seven domains of nonviolent action, the diamond model posits 16 different configurations of levels of nonviolence that might be manifested by any individual. Using Fig. 7.2, Mayton has analyzed these levels. The four corners of the diamond represent the four primary domains or levels at which nonviolence may be manifested. These four domains are the intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal and world domains. Using

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

245

Fig. 7.2  A simplified figure of the diamond model of nonviolence (based on Mayton 2014)

various combinations of these four, Mayton arrives at 14 different configurations. Two other levels are posited, namely, complete absence of nonviolent tendencies and total nonviolence, that is, nonviolence manifested at all levels. The following gives a brief description of these 16 configurations: • The person may not express nonviolence at any level and would thus fall outside the precincts of the diamond. • The person may show nonviolence at any one of the four levels designated by the four corners. Thus, she may show it only at the intrapersonal level, the interpersonal level, the societal level or the world level. This yields a total of four configurations. • It is possible that the person may exhibit nonviolence at any two of the abovementioned four levels, for example, at the intrapersonal-­ interpersonal level or the intrapersonal-societal level or the societal-­ world level. This would yield a further six configurations. • The individual may manifest nonviolent action in any three of the four levels, for example, at the intrapersonal-interpersonal-societal level or the intrapersonal-societal-world level. We would get another four configurations from such a classification.

246 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

• The sixteenth possibility would be of that person who shows nonviolent behavior at all the levels and may, therefore, be called a totally nonviolent person. While not providing empirical verification for the interrelationships between the four primary levels and their different configurations, Mayton is of the view that there is enough theoretical and practical evidence for such relationships. In the chapter, he provides evidence from the writings of Brown (1989) regarding the words of Black Elk, noted leader and medicine man of the Oglala Sioux in the USA: First peace, which is most important, is that which comes from within the souls of men when they realize their relationship, their oneness with the Universe and all its Powers, and when they realize that at the center of the Universe dwells the Wakan-Tanka, and that this center is everywhere, it is within each of us. This is the real peace and the others are but reflections of this. The second peace is that which is made between two individuals and the third is that which is made between two nations. (Brown 1989, p. 115)

More recently, the same has been professed by the Dalai Lama: Through inner peace genuine world peace can be achieved. In this the importance of individual responsibility is quite clear, an atmosphere of peace must be created within ourselves, then gradually expanded to include our families, our communities and ultimately the whole planet. (Cited in Kraft 1992, p. 2)

In order to empirically establish the relationships between the levels, Mayton et  al. (2011, 2012) have designed a 90-item survey called the Diamond Scale of Nonviolence. It consists of four subscales consisting of statements for which respondents have to indicate whether they are definitely true, usually true, usually not true or definitely not true. The number of statements for each of the subscales is as follows: • Intrapersonal subscale: 20 • Interpersonal subscale: 20 • Societal subscale: 25 • World subscale: 25

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

247

The subscales show good internal consistency and concurrent and discriminant validity and have correlations, as expected, with aspects such as inner peace, self-actualization, intimate justice and attitudes toward war, to name just a few (Mayton et al. 2013). Three-Dimensional Model of Nonviolence (Kool 1993) This is a model of nonviolence designed by Kool using results of the research that he conducted in coordination with his students and colleagues (Kool 1990, 1993; Kool et al. 2002; Kool and Keyes 1990; Kool and Sen 1984, 2005) and various other empirical results. According to this model, nonviolence can be understood in terms of three dimensions, namely: Aggression (intention to harm): Nonviolent persons avoid the use of force and/or think of it as a last resort. Moral concerns (justice and humanitarian concerns): Nonviolent persons show a tendency to adhere to justice and humanitarian orientations, though while doing so, they may often struggle between the justice and care orientations (as pointed out in an earlier section of this chapter). Power (controlling and manipulating): Nonviolent persons use integrative power that belongs to the people and is shared with them and is not used for the gratification of vested interests. These three dimensions have been represented on a cuboid, in which aggression has been depicted on the vertical axis (i.e., the height of the cuboid), moral concerns on the horizontal axis (i.e., the width of the cuboid) and power on the third axis, namely, the depth of the cuboid (Fig. 7.3). The relationship between the three dimensions has been described by Kool (1993) as follows: The ‘genes’ of psychology of nonviolence are formed by moral components which determine the features of aggression and power, and the operation of these genes is controlled by intentions. (Kool 1993, p. 17)

In view of the above, the nonviolent person can be seen as occupying the following position: she/he would be low on aggression and high on

248 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Violent person High Aggression Nonviolent person

Low

Self Power Others

Low

High

Moral concerns Fig. 7.3  A three-dimensional model of nonviolence (Kool 1993)

moral concerns and would share power with others. His or her position on the cuboid would be at the extreme right-hand lower corner. In contrast, the violent person would be high on aggression and low on moral concerns and would be self-oriented, as far as power is concerned. His or her position would be on the extreme left-hand upper corner of the cuboid. This model can be seen as a dispositional view of nonviolence in contrast to the situational model advanced by researchers such as Zimbardo (2004). At the same time, it is in line with the findings of personality psychologists such as Mayer (2005) who hold that while the situation may cause individuals to sway from one form of behavior to another, in most cases, it is the disposition of the person that tends to decide his or her behavior. Further, validation of such dispositional differences between violent and nonviolent individuals has been provided by various studies. Attempting to establish the relationship between power and nonviolence, Kool and Keyes (1990) have obtained significant results. Using a measure of nonviolence, namely, the NVT (discussed in a previous chapter) and the Mach scale, they attempted to see the nature of the correlation between scores on the two tests. The Mach test has been specifically designed to study individual characteristics such as the use of manipulation, deceit and flattery as interpersonal strategies and can be said to be similar to May’s

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

249

manipulative power described above. The scores on the tests reveal a clear negative correlation between the two, clarifying that those who are high on nonviolence tend to have a low score on the Mach scale. Further validation of the dispositional differences between violent and nonviolent individuals has been provided by Mayton (2009), in that the traits of agreeableness, empathy, anger control, cooperation, need for cognition, forgiveness, moral reasoning and spirituality have been found to be correlated to intrapersonal and interpersonal nonviolence. At the same time, nonviolent individuals placed a high priority on value of benevolence along with a low priority on power and hedonism. The role of personality or dispositional variables has also been clarified in a study by Ashraf and Iram (2014) who have found correlations between scores on the TNT (Mayton et al., 1998), the Big Five test of personality (Costa and McCrae 1992) and a measure of spirituality. The findings show that spirituality predicted all dimensions of nonviolent behavior as measured by the TNT, while certain factors of the Big Five such as the conscientiousness and agreeableness correlated positively with scores on TNT. In other words, there is sufficient empirical data to warrant a dispositional view of nonviolence. It has often been hypothesized that aggression is the result of pent-up energy, much like a pressure cooker releases steam. From the times of Aristotle and later through the writings of Freud, it has been postulated that the release of such energy, even in the form of aggressive behavior, leads to catharsis, the end result of which is a subsequent decrease in aggression. If aggression or violence and nonviolence are basically due to the disposition of the individual, one can question whether people would show such characteristic decreases in aggression after they have had an opportunity to vent their anger. Would the process of catharsis be manifested? In an ingenious use of the Milgram type of paradigm (explained in Chap. 1), a study from Kool’s laboratory attempted to empirically establish the role of catharsis as a function of the measured level of nonviolence (Sen 1981, 1993). Subjects categorized in terms of their scores on the NVT were given an opportunity to aggress under two conditions. The first was the wait-annoyed condition in which the subjects were provoked but had to wait before they were allowed to shock another victim (a confederate of the experimenter). The other condition was the wait-shock condition, in which they were allowed to shock the victim during the wait period (catharsis condition). The results led to two conclusions. First, those who scored high on the Nonviolence Test, that is, the nonviolent

250 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Violent annoyed Violent nonannoyed

Lab aggression scores

Nonviolent annoyed Nonviolent nonannoyed

Shock

Wait Conditions

Fig. 7.4  Aggression levels of nonviolent and violent subjects

subjects, administered lower levels of shock than their counterparts; and second, when the violent subjects were annoyed and had to wait, their aggression increased significantly, in contrast to the condition when they were given an opportunity to give shocks without waiting. In this condition, these subjects were found to lower their level of shock, suggesting catharsis in their performance (see Fig. 7.4). The conclusion that can be drawn is that while the impact of situational factors cannot be neglected, dispositional factors are far more important. The three-dimensional model also helps us to understand Milgram’s subjects, both those who complied and those who refused to (see Fig. 7.5). In terms of Milgram’s experiment, the dimension of the shock level that the subject was ready to administer parallels Kool’s dimension of aggression, that is, the degree to which the person is ready to harm another. This dimension has been placed on the vertical axis in the model in the figure below. The horizontal dimension in Kool’s model was that of moral concerns. According to Kool, it is these moral concerns that decide whether the person will act on humanitarian and justice concerns or not. In terms of the experiment, it can be said that the extent to which the person is guided by humanitarian principles will decide the degree of obedience that the subject is willing to show, since obedience implies harming the other person, whereas disobedience means caring about the person. Such obedience can range from low to high and has been depicted on the horizontal axis. The third dimension in Kool’s model was the ways in which power is

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

251

High Shock levels

External

Low

Locus of control Low

High

Internal

Levels of obedience Fig. 7.5 The three-dimensional model in terms of obedience/ disobedience

being used by those who indulge in violent behavior as contrasted to those who are nonviolent. While power is generally being used for personal-­ vested interests by the violent, it is shared with others and works for the welfare of the others (or as integrative power) by the nonviolent. This was depicted along the third axis, namely, that of depth, in the model. One factor which may be said to decide the use of such integrative power would be the person’s locus of control, ranging from internal LOC at one end of the continuum to external LOC at the other end. It is known that those who are characterized by internal LOC are masters of their own and not slaves to the wishes of others. They would, therefore, base their behavioral choices on what they consider to be right, being in this case, their value systems. In contrast, those who are characterized by an external LOC are guided to a greater extent by situational factors (such as the prestige of the professor or that of Yale University in the experimental setup) and would tend to give greater primacy to compliance than to moral concerns and, would therefore, show greater compliance than the others. One can also think of internal LOC as the inner voice that Gandhi lays such great emphasis on. As mentioned above, according to Kool (1993), the genes of nonviolence is moral concern. The same would hold true for Milgram’s subjects. The first factor determining the degree of obedience would be the extent

252 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

to which they are guided by their moral concerns of justice and caring. A person, high on moral concerns, would not be ready to harm anyone, especially for trivial reasons. Secondly, a high degree of internal LOC would enable one to act in terms of her own principles, in this case, their moral concerns. In terms of our analysis of Gandhi and nonviolence, we can say that: High moral concerns + Internal LOC = Low obedience. In contrast, Low moral concerns + External LOC = High obedience Extrapolating from the above, it may also be said, High moral concerns + Internal LOC + Low obedience = conscious objector = nonviolent protester Low moral concerns + External LOC + High obedience = the good subject = violent person Why did some subjects agree to deliver shocks in the beginning, when the shock levels were comparatively low? As the level increased, they started to protest that they could not go any further and some even walked out. There were others who refused right from the very beginning. Can our analysis help us to understand the difference between these subjects? The answer is in the affirmative and has been summarized below: • Those who refused at the very beginning of the experiment were operating on the basis of their core personality attributes of internal LOC and high moral concern. • Those who obeyed to a certain point were probably in the grips of a dilemma, caught between their concern for the experimenter and his objectives and their own justice and care attribute (moral concern). • Those who complied with the experimenter right to the end were people with a strong external LOC and people who kept delivering even higher levels of the shock, simply going along with the situation. • In other words, such a multidimensional analysis based on the attributes of violent and nonviolent persons can probably better explain the differences between the various categories of Milgram’s subjects than the univariate descriptions normally given.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

253

From the above it is clear that Kool’s three-dimensional model can be used to explain the differences between the different categories of subjects seen in Milgram’s experiment. In other words, these subjects can be better understood in terms of the degree of nonviolent tendencies they manifested. While the abovementioned models help us to gain some insight regarding nonviolence, it is clear that there is considerably more that needs to be undertaken before we arrive at a comprehensive model of nonviolence. Despite the decades of research on the psychology of aggression, we have yet to arrive at a consensual model. We lack an all-encompassing theory that can be used to explain all types of violent behavior. For example, in 1999, Baumeister wrote that as far as violence is considered, most people opt for violence as a means to satisfy some impulse or urge, or as a choice based on pragmatism, rather than one emanating out of lack of moral concerns. Also, a theory that is appropriate for explaining a serial killer’s behavior can hardly explain why children manifest higher levels of violence after watching a violent TV serial. If this is the result of several decades of research on violence, is it any wonder that explanations of nonviolence, research in which it is still far from being voluminous, suffer from many limitations. Yet, there is sufficient scope for optimism as far as research in the psychology of nonviolence is concerned and as Murray et  al. (2014) wrote: Altogether our position is that the most effective role psychologists can play in protecting our collective security would be to carry out much more active research, study and advocacy of policies and attitudes that best care for and protect the needs of all human beings and of our planet. (Murray et  al. 2014, p. 162)

References Allport, G.  W. (1945). The psychology of participation. Psychological Review, 52, 117–132. Anderson, R. (2004). A definition of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10, 101–116. Ashraf, R., & Iram, F. (2014). Role of personality and spirituality in nonviolent behavior in young adults. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(1). Atran, S. (2016). The devoted actor: Unconditional commitment and intractable conflict across cultures. Current Anthropology, 57, S192–S203.

254 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan. Baumeister, R.  F. (1999). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. New York: Freeman. Baumeister, R.  F. (2012). Self-control  – The moral muscle. The Psychologist, 25, 112–115. Baumeister, R.  F., Bratskvsky, E., Mauraven, M., & Tice, D.  M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the achieved self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265. Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Selfregulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773–1801. Bélanger, J. J., Caouette, J., Sharvit, K., & Dugas, M. (2014). The psychology of martyrdom: Making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of a cause. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 494–515. Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B., Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Giacomantonio, M., Brizi, A., & Kruglanski, A.  W. (2016). Beyond goal-commitment: How expectancy shapes means evaluation. Motivation Science, 2, 67–84. Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M., Menon, B., Ng, J. C., & Nociti, N. (2018). Self-­ sacrifice for a cause: A review and an integrative model. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T.  K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences: Origins of personality and individual differences (pp.  465–485). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bem, D.  J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62. Berscheid, E. (2006). Searching for the meaning of “love”. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 171–183). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1–25. Bondurant, J. V. (1967). Satyagraha versus duragraha: The limits of symbolic violence. In G. Ramachandran & T. K. Mahadevan (Eds.), Gandhi – His relevance for our times (pp. 113–126). New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation. Boulding, K. (1990). Three faces of power. Newbury Park: Sage. Boulding, K. E. (1993). Nonviolence in the 21st century. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. Lanham, MD: The University Press of America. Boyden, J. (2003). The moral development of child soldiers: What do adults have to fear. Peace and conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 4, 343–362.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

255

Brass, M., & Haggard, P. (2007). To do or not to do: The neural signature of self-­ control. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(34), 9141–9145. Brown, J. E. (1989). The sacred pipe: Black Elk’s account of the seven rights of the Oglala Sioux. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Buhrmester, M.  D., & Swann, W.  B. (2015). Identity fusion. In R.  Scott & S.  Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. New York: John Wiley. Butigan, K. (2012). Gandhian retraining. themindfulword.org, April 20. Carter, E.  C., & McCullough, M.  E. (2013). Is ego depletion too incredible? Evidence for the overestimation of the depletion effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 683–684. Carter, E.  C., & McCullough, M.  E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: Has the evidence for ego depletion been overestimated? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 823. Carter, E. C., Kofler, L. M., Forster, D. E., & McCullough, M. E. (2015). A series of meta-analytic tests of the depletion effect: Self-control does not seem to rely on a limited resource. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 144(4), 796–815. Caspar, E. A., Christensen, J. F., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2016). Coercion changes the sense of agency in the human brain. Current Biology, 26(5), 585–592. Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 475–501. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439–452. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from www. pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1018033108. Davidson, D.  W., Anderson, N.  F., Cook, S.  C., Bernau, C.  R., Jones, T.  H., Kamariah, A. S., et al. (2009). An experimental study of microbial nest associates of Borneo’s exploding ants (Camponotus [Colobopsis] species). Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 18, 341–360. Davidson, D. W., Salim, K. A., & Billen, J. (2012). Histology of structures used in territorial combat by Borneo’s ‘exploding ants’. Acta Zoologica, 93, 487–491. Dehghani, M. (2009). A cognitive model of recognition-based moral decision making. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Evanston, IL. Deutsch, M. (1983). The prevention of World War III: A psychological perspective. Political Psychology, 4, 3–31.

256 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

de Ridder, D., Kroese, F., & Gillebaart, M. (2018). Whatever happened to self-­ control? A proposal for integrating notions from trait self-control studies into state self-control research. Motivation Science, 4(1), 39–49 DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 62–76. DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 47–65. Englert, C., Zavery, A., & Bertrams, A. (2017). Too exhausted to perform at the highest level? On the importance of self-control strength in educational settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1290. Erikson, E. (1969). Gandhi’s truth. New York: Norton. Fehr, B., Harasymchuk, C., & Sprecher, S. (2014). Compassionate love in romantic relationships: A review and some new findings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(5), 575–600. Feshbach, S., & Feshbach, N. D. (1986). Aggression and altruism: A personality perspective. In C.  Zahn-Waxier, E.  M. Cummings, & R.  Lannotti (Eds.), Altruism and aggression: Biological and social origins (pp.  189–217). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fields, R. M., & Owens, C. (2004). Martyrdom. Greenwood Publishing Group. Filevich, E., Kuhn, S., & Haggard, P. (2013). There is no free won’t: Antecedent brain activity predicts decisions to inhibit. PLoS One, 8(2), e53053. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053053. Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V. A. (2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 483–499. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fiske, S.  T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: Wiley. Flanagan, O. (1991). Varieties of moral personality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

257

meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045–1062. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics. New York: Harper & Row. Freud, S. (1920). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New  York: Boni & Liverght. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351–367. Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325–336. Galperin, A., & Haselton, M. G. (2010). Predictors of how often and when people fall in love. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 5–28. Gandhi, M. K. (1924). Young India, November 20, 382. Gandhi, M. K. (1927/2003). An autobiography or The story of my experiments with truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M. K. (1929). Young India, February 7, 46. Gandhi, M. K. (1940). Harijan, July 6, 185–186. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gollwitzer, P.  M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 495–525. Hagger, M.  S., Chatzisarantis, N.  L. D., Alberts, H., et  al. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 11(4), 546–573. Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2009). Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science, 324(5927), 646–648. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2006). Styles of romantic love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 149–170). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Huebner, B., & Hauser, M.  D. (2011). Moral judgments about altruistic self-­ sacrifice: When philosophical and folk intuitions clash. Philosophical Psychology, 24(1), 73. Inzlicht, M., & Friese, M. (2019). The past, present and future of ego depletion. Social Psychology, 50, 370–378. Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 127–133.

258 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Ironson, G., Kremer, H., & Lucette, A. (2018). Compassionate love predicts long-term survival among people living with HIV followed for up to 17 years. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 6. James, W. (1899/1983). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life’s ideals (Ed. F. H. Burkhardt). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. James, W. (1910/1995). The moral equivalent of war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 1, 17–26. Jost, J. T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 171–186. Kelman, H. C. (1965). Manipulation of human behavior: An ethical dilemma for the social scientist. Journal of Social Issues, 21(2), 31–46. King, M. L. Jr. (1963). Strength to love in Sermon: Three Dimensions of a Complete Life. New York: Harper & Row. Kirby, K.  N. (2013). Gandhi, vows and the psychology of self control. Gandhi Marg, 35, 519–540. Kirkpatrick, D.  D., Sanger, D.  E., Fahim, K., El-Naggar, M., & Mazzetti, M. (2011). A Tunisian-Egyptian link that shook Arab history. The New York Times, 13. Klot, J. (1998). The Graca Machel/UN study on the impact of armed conflict on children. Peace and conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 4, 319–320. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-development approach. In T.  Lockina (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. New  York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Kool, V. K. (Ed.). (1990). Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kool, V.  K. (Ed.). (1993). Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2010). The psychology of nonkilling. In J. E. Pim (Ed.), Toward a nonkilling paradigm (pp.  349–367). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2011). From empathy to altruism: Is there an evolutionary basis for nonkilling. In D. J. Christie & J. E. Pim (Eds.), Nonkilling psychology (pp. 65–93). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Kool, V.  K., & Agrawal, R. (2013). Whither Skinner’s science of behavior, his assessment of Gandhi, and its aftermath? Gandhi Marg (Special Issue), 35, 487–518. Kool, V. K., & Keyes, C. M. L. (1990). Explorations in the nonviolent personality. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Perspectives on nonviolence. New York: Springer-Verlag.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

259

Kool, V. K., & Sen, M. (1984). The nonviolence test. In D. M. Pestonjee (Ed.), Second handbook of psychological and sociological instruments (pp.  48–54). Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management. Kool, V. K., & Sen, M. (2005, June). Research based on the nonviolence test by Kool and Sen. Paper presented at the German Peace Psychology Conference, University of Erlangen, Germany. Kool, V.  K., Diaz, J., Brown, J., & Hama, H. (2002). Psychological research, nonviolence and cultural orientation: An empirical analysis. Regional Peace Studies Consortium Annual Journal, 55–74. Kraft, K. (Ed.). (1992). Inner peace, world peace: Essays on Buddhism and nonviolence. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-­ Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal-systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 311–378. Kruglanski, A. W., Gelfand, M. J., Bélanger, J. J., Sheveland, A., Hetiarachchi, M., & Gunaratna, R. (2014). The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization: How significance quest impacts violent extremism. Political Psychology, 35, 69–93. Lee, J.  A. (1973). The colours of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, ON: New Press. Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173–182. Lee, N., Chatzisarantis, N., & Hagger, M. S. (2016). Adequacy of the sequential-­ task paradigm in evoking ego-depletion and how to improve detection of ego-­ depleting phenomena. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. Retrieved from https://www. frontiersin.org/ar ticle/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00136.DOI=10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.00136. Loye, D. (2000). Darwin’s lost theory of love: A healing vision for the new century. New York: Universe. Lucas, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2019). Beyond-personal love – Experiencing love beyond the person. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 789–798. MacMullen, I. (2014). Doing without love: Civic motivation, affection, and identification. The Journal of Politics, 76(1), 73–85. Maher, J. P., Pincus, A. L., Ram, N., & Conroy, D. E. (2015). Daily physical activity and life satisfaction across adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 51(10), 1407–1419. Martin, B. (1989). Gene Sharp’s theory of power. Journal of Peace Research, 26, 213–222. Maschwitz, U., & Maschwitz, E. (1974). Platzende Arbeiterinnen: Eine neue Art der Feindabwehr bei sozialen Hautflüglern. Oecologia, 14, 289–294. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. May, R. (1972). Power and innocence. New York: Norton.

260 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Mayer, J.  D. (2005). A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help integrate psychology? American Psychologist, 69, 294–307. Mayton, D. M. (2009). Nonviolence and peace psychology: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal, and world peace. New York: Springer. Mayton, D.  M. (2014). Peacefulness as nonviolent dispositions. In G.  Sims, L.  Nelson, & M.  Puopolo (Eds.), Personal peacefulness. Peace psychology book series (Vol. 20). New York, NY: Springer. Mayton, D.  M., Nogle, K.  S., Mack, J.  L., et  al. (1998, August). Teenage Nonviolence Test: A new measure of nonviolence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Mayton, D.  M., McCoy, J.  C., Brink, M.  Z., Thompson, K.  A., & Burke, K. D. (2011, August). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal, and world nonviolence. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Mayton, D. M., Erickson, A. L., Cruthirds, D. F., Roberts, K. A., Cochrell, H. D., & Ruggerio-Smith, P.  A. (2012, April). Diamond theory of nonviolence: Psychometric support for a new measure. A poster presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Mayton, D.  M., Jackson, T.  W., Caraway, F., McCurdy, L.  N., & Simmons, J. C. (2013, August). Values and the diamond scale of nonviolence: Evidence for validity. A poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI. McCarthy, R. M., & Kruegler, C. (1993). Toward research and theory building in the study of nonviolent action (Monograph Series Number 7). Cambridge, MA: The Albert Einstein Institute. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: D. Nostrand Co. Inc. McGonigal, K. (2012). The willpower instinct: How self-control works, why it matters, and what you can do to get more of it. New York: Avery/Penguin Group. Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., et al. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 594–597. Milyavskaya, M., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). Attentional and motivational mechanisms of self control. In D. de Ridder, M. Adriaanse, & K. Fujita (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of self-control in health and well-being (pp.  11–24). New York: Routledge. Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 329–337. Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality Social Psychological Bulletin, 32, 1024–1036. Muraven, M. (2010). Practicing self control lowers the risk of smoking lapse. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 446–452.

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

261

Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanism of self-control failure: Motivation and limited resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 894–906. Muraven, M., Gagné, M., & Rosman, H. (2008). Helpful self-control: Autonomy support, vitality, and depletion. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 44, 573–585. Murray, H., Lyubansky, M., Miller, K., & Ortega, L. (2014). Toward a psychology of nonviolence. In E.  Mustakova-Possardt, M.  Lyubanski, et  al. (Eds.), Toward socially responsible psychology for a global era (pp.  151–182). New York: Springer. Nachev, P., Rees, G., Parton, A., Kennard, C., & Husain, M. (2005). Volition and conflict in human medial frontal cortex. Current Biology, 15, 122–128. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 480–497. Neff, L.  A., & Karney, B.  R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 435–450. Nelson, L.  L. (2005). Toward comprehensive definitions of “peaceful person” and “peace psychology.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Oeten, M., & Cheng, K. (2006). Improved self-control: The benefits of a regular program of academic study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1–16. Olivola, C. Y., & Shafir, E. (2013). The Martyrdom effect: When pain and effort increase prosocial contributions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(1), 91–105. Parvez, H. (2017). Self sacrifice psychology: Why people die for others. Psychmechanics, psychmechanics.com, October 1. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., Sheese, B. E., & Yang, Y. Y. (2007). The anterior cingulate gyrus and the mechanism of self regulation. Cognitive, Affective Neuroscience, 7, 391–395. Refardt, D., Bergmiller, T., & Kümmerli, R. (2013). Altruism can evolve when relatedness is low: Evidence from bacteria committing suicide upon phage infection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20123035. Richeson, J.  A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 934–947. Rip, B., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafrenière, M. A. (2012). Passion for a cause, passion for a creed: on ideological passion, identity threat, and extremism. Journal of Personality, 80(3), 573–602.

262 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Rynne, T.  J. (2015). Gandhi and Jesus: The saving power of nonviolence. New York: Orbis. Sachdeva, S. (2010). The norm of self-sacrifice. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Department of Psychology, Evanston, IL. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., Ekhtiari, H., & Dehghani, M. (2015). The role of self-­ sacrifice in moral dilemmas. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127409. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127409. Sanderson, C.  A., & Darley, J.  M. (2002). ‘I am moral but you are deterred’: Differential attributions about why people obey the law. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 375–405. Schumpe, B. M., Bélanger, J. J., Dugas, M., Erb, H.-P., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2017). Counterfinality: On the increased perceived instrumentality of a means to a goal. Unpublished manuscript. Sen, M. (1981). Reduction of aggression in violent and nonviolent individuals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bombay, Bombay, India. Sen, M. (1993). An empirical study of nonviolence in India. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. New York: Springer-Verlag. Sharp, G. (1994). From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation (1st English language ed.). Bangkok, Thailand: Committee for the Restoration of Democracy in Burma. Sheldon, K.  M., & Elliot, A.  J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546–557. Sims, G., Nelson, L., & Puopolo, M. (Eds.). (2014). Personal peacefulness (Peace psychology book series) (Vol. 20). New York, NY: Springer. Skinner, B. F. (1987). Whatever happened to psychology as the science of behavior? American Psychologist, 4, 780–786. Sorokin, P. (1950). Altruistic love. Boston: Beacon Press. Stagner, R. (1961). Personality dynamics and social conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01681x. Sternberg, R.  J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135. Summy, R.  V. (2009). Understanding nonviolence theory and practice. In R.  V. Summy (Ed.), Nonviolent alternatives for social change (pp.  1–39). Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publications. Swann, W. B., Jr., Gómez, Á., Buhrmester, M. D., López-Rodríguez, L., Jiménez, J., & Vázquez, A. (2014). Contemplating the ultimate sacrifice: Identity fusion

7  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE: MODELS AND THEIR VALIDATION 

263

channels pro-group affect, cognition, and moral decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(5), 713–727. Tolman, C. E. (1942). Drives toward war. New York: Appleton Century. Underwood, L.  G. (2002). The human experience of compassionate love: Conceptual mapping and data from selected studies. In S.  G. Post, L.  G. Underwood, J.  P. Schloss, & W.  B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in dialogue (pp.  72–88). ­ New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Underwood, L.  G. (2009). Compassionate love: A framework for research. In B. Fehr, S. Sprecher, & L. G. Underwood (Eds.), The science of compassionate love: Theory, research, and applications (pp.  3–25). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Vansteenkiste, M., Timmermans, T., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Van den Broeck, A. (2008). Does extrinsic goal framing enhance extrinsic goal-oriented individuals’ learning and performance? An experimental test of the match perspective versus self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 387–397. Vohs, K.  D., & Heatherton, T.  F. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: A resource depletion approach. Psychological Science, 11, 249–254. Vohs, K. D., Finkenauer, C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). The sum of friends’ and lovers’ self-control scores predicts relationship quality. Social and Personality Psychology Science, 2, 138–145. Webber, D., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2016). Psychological factors in radicalization: A “3 N” approach. In G.  LaFree & J.  D. Freilich (Eds.), The handbook of the criminology of terrorism (pp. 33–46). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Wessells, M. G. (1998). The changing nature of armed conflict and its implications for children: The Graca Machel/UN study. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 4, 321–334. Westcoat, J. L., Jr., & Johnston, D. M. (2007). Places of power: Political economies of landscape change. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Whitehouse, H. (2018). Dying for the group: Towards a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, E192. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0140525X18000249. Wills, M. (2017). “A refusal by subjects to obey”: Gene Sharp’s theory of nonviolence. JSTOR Daily, Daily.jstor.org, February 28. Yang, Y. Y., Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., & Volkow, N. D. (2015). Circuitry of self control and its role in reducing addiction. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19(8), 439–444. Zimbardo, P.  G. (2004). A situation perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators. In A. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil: Understanding our capacity for kindness and cruelty. New York: Guilford.

CHAPTER 8

Cognition of Nonviolence

Opening Vignette

At present, man is the only animal that risks organized war on its own species. To argue, as some pessimists and many other militarists do, that man can never act otherwise, is to assert that man is less intelligent and less capable of self control than any other animal, most insects or any microscopic form of life. This I cannot believe. Nor can I believe that, although, man has worked out a highly effective discipline for mass murder, he is incapable of evolving an effective discipline for powerful mass nonviolence and its resulting mutual aid and benefit. Man, who has conquered space with his airplane, rocket and radio, and time with his languages and printing, who has learned through the processes of life, chemistry and physics to breed vegetables and animals with new qualities can and will learn how to control himself and direct society to fine ends. If Western civilizations fail at the task, and if human life somewhere on the planet endures, the task will be accomplished by cultures.” (Gregg 1958, p. 204) In his writings, Gregg alludes to the might of human intelligence and how, using this intelligence, human beings have been able to invent machines and even conquer space. While we have the cogni(continued)

© The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_8

265

266 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

(continued)

tive capacity for inculcating nonviolence and self-control, it does not happen automatically; it has to be built, slowly but surely. This has been pointed out by Ken Butigan (2018) who writes that at the root of nonviolent action is learning and relentless patience. “Learning to do something well is a challenging and powerful journey of discovery. We have to unlearn old habits and slowly acquire new ones. We have to become familiar with the interior dynamics, the inner structure and rhythm of this process. We have to slow it down long enough to understand both its complexity and unifying simplicity. We have to nurture our deep-seated passion for it—the excitement and hunger it first unleashed in us—even when our enthusiasm for it ebbs and flows. We have to safeguard the delicate dance between the mechanics of technique and the unfathomable and irreducible spirit that lies at the heart of this or any authentic process. And we have to practice, practice, practice. What eventually comes to seem natural and easy is often the result of a long, slow, patient and relentlessly persistent process of transformation.” (Ken Butigan 2018)

In the Opening Vignette, Gregg (1958) writes that humans are considered to be at the apex of the phylogenetic scale and one major reason for this is the higher mental capabilities with which the human being has been endowed. He also wonders why with such exceedingly amazing capacities which have led to the invention of tools and machines of extremely high standards, humans should be unable to espouse nonviolence and get rid of warring tendencies. In the present chapter, we attempt to analyze how these mental capacities of the human being can be and have been used for inculcating and enhancing nonviolent tendencies.

The Psychology of Human Cognition In the early twentieth century, and in fact, till the 1950s, the predominant approach in psychology was behaviorism, brought to the fore by scholars such as Pavlov and Skinner, for whom only observable phenomena could be considered to be within the realm of scientific psychology. As such,

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

267

according to the behaviorists, the analysis of mental capacities, none of which are directly observable, should be a legitimate area of study in psychology. However, with major paradigmatic shifts in psychology, coupled with the rapid advances in science and technology during the middle of the twentieth century, other approaches to the study of behavior gained prominence. Computer sciences, also, made possible deeper insights into the workings of the human mind through man-machine models, which consider the working of the mental processes as being analogous to that of the computer, a machine. This was when the scientific study of human mental capabilities was undertaken in earnest and a new field, namely, that of cognitive psychology, came into being. Various computer models were proposed during those early years, but it was mainly through the book, Cognitive Psychology, published in 1967, that Ulric Neisser gave cognitive psychology a firm foothold. Generally speaking, the term, cognition, refers to all those processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered and used. Having given such a sweeping definition, it is apparent that cognition is involved in everything a human being might possibly do and that every psychological phenomenon is a cognitive phenomenon, including violence/nonviolence. In the present chapter, we will not attempt to go into the details of the cognitive revolution in psychology, nor into the various theories, models and concepts of cognitive psychology. Rather, we will focus on those theories and aspects that have a direct bearing on our understanding of nonviolence.

Prospect Theory Based on a large number of research studies in the 1970s, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky proposed prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979) in order to explain the intriguing phenomenon of human decision making with especial reference to economic decision making. Basically, they were challenging the, then prevalent, expected utility theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) with the express purpose of showing that humans are far from being completely rational and that their decisions are guided by a large number of cognitive biases. The importance of the theory can be gauged from the fact that it opened up a whole new area of discussion, namely, that of behavioral economics and behavioral finance

268 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

and was also the reason for which Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2002. Framing One of the prime findings of their theory was that individuals are more loss aversive than gain seeking and will often make erroneous choices based on what they called the framing effect, or “the passive acceptance of the formulation given.” On the basis of experimental findings using a variety of research paradigms, the authors argued that people are loss aversive because of the differential utilities or subjective values attached to losses and gains, in that the utility of a loss is considered to be more than that of a gain. In other words, the evaluation of a loss and that of a gain is not symmetric, and a loss of say $1000 can be compensated only if there is the possibility of gaining a much larger amount, say $2000! Also, the value placed on a change of probability of either losing or gaining is not considered in absolute terms but rather from arbitrary reference points. People appear to place greater value on a change of probability from 0% to 10% (going from impossibility to possibility) than from, say, 45% to 55%, and place the greatest value of all on a change from 90% to 100% (going from possibility to certainty). Is this not surprising when one considers the fact that the absolute change in all three scenarios is exactly the same? This was something that the traditional utility theory could not explain, since all three changes give the same increase in utility. At the same time, consistent with the tendency to avoid losses or loss aversion, the order of the first and third of those is reversed when the event is presented as losing something rather than winning it. In that case, the greatest value is placed on eliminating the probability of a loss to 0%. Though the theory was devised basically to explain decisions under risk with explicit examples from lottery situations, the theory can well be applied to many other situations and for predicting many types of decisions. For example, Clark and Lisowski (2017) have applied prospect theory to explain decisions regarding residential moving versus residential staying. Framing Nonviolence In terms of violence/nonviolence too, do we not evaluate the comparative utilities of the two types of action in order to make a choice? According to prospect theory, it would be easier to make the choice if success was a

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

269

certainty. For most novices in the field of nonviolence, that is, for people who have not put nonviolence to a test, this certainty of success could not be guaranteed. This can be considered to be one of the major contributions of Gandhi. Through his experiments with truth, he established for himself and for others that there was a certainty that nonviolence would succeed. We draw the reader’s attention to a quote from Gandhi presented in the foregoing chapter: I have been practicing with scientific precision, nonviolence and its possibilities, for an unbroken period of over 50 years. I have applied it in all walks of life—domestic, institutional, economic and political. I know of no single case in which it has failed. Where it has seemed sometimes to have failed, I have ascribed it to my imperfections. (Gandhi 1940, pp. 185–86)

Another way to make the choice between violence and nonviolence easier would be by changing the ways in which people perceive situations. This could be achieved through appropriate framing, helping them see that the subjective value attached to nonviolence is greater than that for violence. Kahneman and Tversky, too, observed that by simply changing the contexts or the frames in which the choices were presented, even when the initial choices remained invariant, went a long way in changing human decision making. Evidence is collecting that if we want people to respond in more empathetic ways, we must frame the choices in an appropriate manner, with frames which endorse loss aversion being far more effective than those that simply focus on the possibility of gain. We could use such frames for changing attitudes toward affirmative action (as shown by Gamliel 2007), or even in promoting prosocial behavior in terms of recycling and so on (e.g., Kool and Agrawal 2006; Loroz 2007). It is surprising to note that the addition of a simple sentence at the end, “note that he relies on you” made people respond in a more generous manner (Branaz-­ Garza 2007). Such frames have also been used for training soldiers to be more empathetic toward civilians and prisoners of war by telling them that “note, he relies on you.” This would probably make the soldier react in a more empathetic manner than by simply telling them to be more humanitarian in their approach. The same holds for the ways in which media frame events of communal disharmony, clarifying that media should also be careful of the ways in which they express such news (Edy and Meirick 2007).

270 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Framing and Psychological Numbing Thus, there appears to be a top-down modulation of empathy through cognitive processes, and it could well be the basis for the psychological numbing that one so often sees. After every genocide the public vows that this will be the last one, but, time and again, mass killings are repeated, making one wonder as to the reason for them. Apparently, empathy and compassion, too, seem to follow the psychophysical laws of Weber and Fechner. Kahneman and Tversky (1979) incorporated this psychophysical principle of decreasing sensitivity into prospect theory through what they termed the value function, which relates subjective value to actual gains or losses. When applied to human lives, the value function implies that the subjective value of saving a specific number of lives is greater for a smaller tragedy than for a larger one. Fetherstonhaugh et al. (1997) documented such “psychophysical numbing”—by evaluating people’s willingness to fund various life-­saving medical treatments. In a study involving a hypothetical grant funding agency, respondents were asked to indicate the number of lives a medical research institute would have to save to merit receipt of a $10 million grant. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents raised their minimum benefit requirements to warrant funding when there was a larger at-risk population, with a median value of 9000 lives needing to be saved when 15,000 were at risk, compared to a median of 100,000 lives needing to be saved out of 290,000 at risk. By implication, respondents saw the saving of 9000 lives in the “smaller” population as more valuable than saving ten times as many lives in the largest. Several other studies in the domain of life-saving interventions have documented similar psychophysical numbing or proportional reasoning effects (Bartels and Burnett 2006; Ubel et al. 2001). A seemingly unanswered question is whether there is any neural basis to our differential perception of losses and gains. Amazing though it may seem, Kahneman has found a neural basis of framing (Kahneman and Frederick 2007), and there have been various other studies that also show that there is a differential coding of losses and gains in the human striatum (De Martino et al. 2006; Seymour et al. 2007).

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

271

Two Systems of Thinking: System I and System II In 2011, Daniel Kahneman made another path-breaking contribution, in his now classic and award winning work, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Kahneman 2011), which went a long way in helping people to understand a large number of phenomena in the behavioral sciences, engineering and medicine. The central thesis of the book is that human beings are equipped with two cognitive systems, System I and System II, each with its own characteristic ways of operation. Kahneman has explained that there are two systems of thinking in human cognition: the first system is a fast, emotion and/or intuition-based System I, which uses heuristics to gain speed and helps us to deal with exigencies, often with lightning speed. The second is System II, which is slower but also more accurate and based on rationality and problem solving. Since System I is faster, emotion-based decision making is the first reaction, which, only if kept under voluntary control, can enable the person to move to System II, to analyze the situation more deeply and to, then, arrive at a decision. This is the choice that one has to make. Moreover, in order to add speed to our judgments, we tend to spend most of our time operating through System I, leading to many errors of judgment, based as this system is, on a large number of biases such as loss aversion, availability bias, optimism, overconfidence and substitution. To avoid these and many other biases, one needs to postpone judgment and decision making (Kool and Agrawal 2016, 2018). This postponement will trigger the slower but more logical System II into play and will produce more reasonable judgments (Fig. 8.1). System I/System II and Nonviolence These two systems of thought highlighted by Kahneman are of immense importance as far as violent and nonviolent actions are concerned. If someone hits you, the first spontaneous reaction is to hit back, to retaliate. But do we always do so? Thankfully it is not so, because as Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.” Think of the situations in which you have felt highly emotional and had been forced to take a crucial decision. In most cases, such decisions would have been impulsive ones, without much of thinking going into it. And, many a time, once you were able to restrain yourself at that particular juncture, it soon dawned upon you that retaliation would have served no purpose. Such restraint, however, comes in only when we pause to think,

272 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Fig. 8.1  Process and content in two cognitive systems (Adapted from Kahneman 2003)

when we allow our System II to operate. When one is caught at the crossroad and has to make a choice between a violent act and a nonviolent one, the final choice, more often than not, depends on which thinking system is operating: System I leading generally to the choice of violence while System II leads to nonviolence. The nonviolent person does just this. Rather than giving way to emotions of the moment, he or she has been trained to stop and think (see Opening Vignette), to think about the achievement of some other, more important, long-term goal. System I/System II and Disobedience Coming back to Milgram’s experiment described in Chapter 1, we are forced to ask the question that with both options in front of them, why did some participants choose not to administer shocks to the erring learner? The ability to stop thinking fast and allowing thinking to slow down provides the answer. Since, in the face of violence, survival is often at stake, it becomes not only more salient but also produces stronger reactions. As a result, violence is the immediate reaction, even though it is

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

273

disruptive and capable of causing destruction. Yet, Gandhi showed the capability of leading his satyagrahis onto the less travelled path, that of nonviolence. How was he able to do so? What was Gandhi’s formula for promoting nonviolence among his followers? We discuss the techniques used by Gandhi in the framework of modern cognitive psychology. A detailed analysis reveals that it is the ability to move from System I thinking to that of System II, coupled with the cognitive concepts of priming of schemas and the framing of appropriate scripts that explain Gandhian nonviolence to a much greater extent than the narrow boundaries of other popular theories of psychology such as that of Skinnerian reinforcement (Kool and Agrawal 2013). In his book, The Power of Nonviolence, Gregg (1958) has explained very succinctly the differences in the ways of thinking of the violent and the nonviolent actor, which are, apparently, very much in line with Kahneman’s System I and System II modes of operation. The peaceful resister has to expend much energy, but he applies it more intelligently than does the violent man. He selects the real important forces in the environment and seeks to alter them. The angry and violent man puts too much emphasis on immediate objects and too little on the ultimate impelling forces behind them. If he considers impelling forces, he does not analyze them sufficiently or go far enough back. ….the nonviolent resister, by using longer psychological leverages, may have to move more slowly sometimes, but the work is more efficiently done and tends to be more permanent. (Gregg 1958, p. 62)

Schemas and Scripts In our interaction with the environment, we are constantly bombarded by stimuli of various types. With each interaction, we gather information about the stimulus and much like a computer, store these pieces of information in our memory. Over a period of time, a mental framework for the stimulus is developed. Such a mental framework in which all the perceived attributes and information about the stimulus is stored is called a schema. These stimuli may be objects, people or even situations and events, and the schema for each would be a broad, macro-level conceptualization, in which all perceptions about the stimulus is stored. When various schemas become linked in our memory, we call it a script.

274 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Another way to think about schemas and scripts is to take the example of the stage artist. Each artist is provided with a script consisting of behavioral guidelines which must be rehearsed extremely well in order to play the role exactly as the director wants it. Each artist is also encouraged to build images of the role and is provided with examples that she has to understand to help her imagine the character. One does much the same in daily life, too. Normally, these scripts and images are provided by the culture and help us to adhere to social norms, some being explicit while others are learned through role models and exemplars. Thus, over a period of time, certain behaviors become ingrained in us, or, we can say that we develop certain habitual ways of reacting. The more we react in these ways, the more their mental images become pronounced and script well-­ rehearsed. It is akin to an actor who becomes ever more perfect in his or her role with each rehearsal. In other words, a schema is a cognitive structure that serves as a framework for one’s knowledge about people, places, objects and events. The concept of schemas was first outlined by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1838) and later picked up by Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, who led research into the origins and the development of cognition in children. Piaget proposed a series of stages of cognitive development in children and believed that schemas were acquired from an early age as an adaptation to one’s environment—a cognitive heuristic used to comprehend an otherwise complex new situation (Piaget 1923/2001). As the child grows, she/he does not do so in terms of merely inches and pounds but also in terms of the complexity of cognitive structures. The schemas acquired early in life are simple, but with every experience, they undergo change through the twin processes of assimilation and accommodation. Through assimilation, new ideas are added to the already present schema, but at the same time, these new dimensions have to be orchestrated into a composite whole. This latter is accomplished through accommodation. According to Kahneman, such schemas and scripts not only lead to socially approved behaviors but also to behavioral parsimony. One starts behaving according to them almost automatically (Kahneman 2011). Schemas, Scripts and Gandhi The types of schemas Gandhi created in his satyagrahis and the nature of scripts provided by him have been analyzed by Gregg (1958), wherein he writes about how the satyagrahi needs rigorous training, requiring both

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

275

patience and persistence. It once again becomes clear that qualities such as these cannot be cultivated without the right cognitive stance, possible only through System II thinking and especially the cultivation of appropriate schemas such as those mentioned below. The nonviolent resister will, like soldiers, need courage, self respect, patience, endurance and the ability to sacrifice himself for a cause. He will need persistence and tenacity in spite of apparent failure, willingness to undergo training, order, and a sense of unity with his fellows. In addition, to these qualities, he must, unlike the soldier, cultivate an interest in all people, combined with goodwill and, as far as possible, affection toward them. He must develop his respect for personality, love for truth, tolerance, poise, equanimity, loyalty, humility, hope and faith in the ultimate fine possibilities of human nature. All of these qualities and sentiments can be cultivated and strengthened in each one of us. (Gregg, ibid, p. 177)

For scripting nonviolence, Gandhi drew from the many sources that had helped him to understand nonviolence and its importance in the first place: the writings of different people, such as Tolstoy, Ruskin and Thoreau; different religions, for example, Christianity, Hinduism and Jainism; and, the words of important people in the life of Gandhi, including his mother, his governess, Rambha and his mentor Raychand. What he drew from each of these, he communicated to his followers in the forms of schemas and scripts of nonviolence. To give just a few examples, the New Testament, and especially the Sermon on the Mount, was a constant source of inspiration for him and was the source of his oft repeated sentence, “resist not him that is evil, but whatsoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,” as also, “love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you.” To his childhood governess, Rambha, we can attribute Gandhi’s fondness for repeating the mantra “he Ram” whenever he was caught in the midst of fear or surrounded by problems (these were, also, his last words at the time of his assassination). While in South Africa, when he was once badly injured and the family of Reverend Doke looked after him, he urged the Indian community not to think of all whites as being oppressive and wrote that they “should give up its anger against the Whites. We are often thoughtless enough to say that the whites can have nothing good in them. But this is patent folly. Mankind is one, and even if a few whites make the mistake of considering themselves different from us, we must not follow them in that error.” (Guha 2013, p. 275)

276 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

At various points of time, during India’s struggle for independence, Gandhi faced situations in which he felt that the stance being taken by the freedom fighters was not in line with his philosophy of nonviolence. At moments such as these, he specifically attempted to change the schemas of the people. In his book, The Philosophy of Sarvodaya, Acharya Dada Dharmadhikari (2000) relates many incidents from the Gandhian struggle for independence in India. We refer to one of them to demonstrate how Gandhi created new scripts and changed prevailing schemas in line with his principle of “sarvodaya” or love and compassion for all. In 1921, at the Congress session in Ahmedabad, a resolution was tabled which demanded complete independence for India and refused the idea of India being granted the status of a dominion state. The members were also adamant that India should have no relations, whatsoever, with England. What was Gandhi’s reply? His argument is a classic example of how he attempted to create new ways of thinking, in fact, new scripts and schemas. While he agreed that India should get complete independence, he was also of the view that: “This need not entail that we should have no relation whatsoever with England. To seek such a freedom is to deny God”……Gandhi pointed out that opposition to British rule in India was quite different from refusing to have any contact with England. “If you cannot imagine a relationship other than that of a ruler and the ruled or the king and the plebian, then it would amount to a lack of faith both in man as well as God. Satyagraha seeks faith in man. My satyagraha seeks a moral sublimation for both the Indians and the British.” (Dharmadhikari 2000, p 34)

Thus, Gandhi was always clear that while we may hate the acts of the oppressor, we cannot and should not hate the oppressor, or as Dharmadhikari (ibid) puts it, the nonviolent person believes in “resistance to evil, not the evil-doer.” He goes on to say, Much after Napoleon who said that the word ‘impossible’ had no place in his lexicon, the word ‘opponent’ is not to be found in the dictionary of a nonviolent man. (Dharmadhikari 2000, pp. 38–39)

Further, for Gandhi, it was mandatory that all satyagrahis undergo a “change in heart” which meant that they had to change the ways in which they had been thinking about the oppressors all along. This, according to Gandhi, was the true purpose of a revolution, a revolution through cooperation between the two parties rather than through coercion.

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

277

Revolution is changing the context and content of relationship. Change in content is change of heart. What happens when we achieve change in context without change in content?…..In a competition there is victory on one side and defeat on the other; both sides never win. Social good must be a two-sided victory. That which is good for both must be achieved through combined endeavor. (Dharmadhikari 2000, pp. 34–35)

Was such a change in heart possible without changing the prevalent schemas of the satyagrahis? Gandhi not only attempted to change prevailing schemas and scripts but also tried to help people cultivate new schemas. One such attempt was through the various symbols that he used, for example, the three symbols of revolution, namely, community prayer, the spinning wheel and the broom. The first, brought to the fore what Gandhi believed in, that prayer is always to “God” and not “gods.” Thus, community prayer was a manifestation of this belief, in which there was no indoctrination, no dogma. The second, namely, the spinning wheel or the “charkha,” stood for productive labor in a face-to-face community, in which there was no depersonalization, no dehumanization. The last, the broom, stood for social equality, since it was the instrument of the most despised class in India, namely, the sweepers classed as “untouchables.” Some of the typical scripts drawn up by Gandhi have been enumerated by Bondurant (1965) and others. One such is the way in which the satyagrahi was told to rehearse a set of action plans. It was mandatory that every satyagrahi maintain a stance of fearlessness even while being beaten by the police. He or she was also trained to restrain from showing any signs of anger or retaliation and would continue to chant slogans and to continue with his or her fast even after being arrested. Remember that in the previous chapter we have discussed how motivation for nonviolence can be changed by developing appropriate “if-then” plans. This was exactly what Gandhi did; he helped his followers to not only develop such plans but also to rehearse them to perfection.

Priming Let us start with some examples. Think of the word, “yellow.” Now I ask you to think of another word. Most likely, you will respond with the word “banana” or “daffodil” but not with an unrelated word “television.” I show you a short video on Europe following which I ask you to give me three words that come to your mind. Again, you are more likely to respond

278 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

with three places from Europe, such as the Eiffel Tower, London Bridge and the river Rhine, even though you may not have been shown these places in the video. We have a conversation about friendship, and you immediately recall the names of your school friends. In each case, we notice that the first stimulus is directing your response. Such an effect upon your responses is known as priming which occurs without any effort on your part and may even be unconscious or involuntary. As discussed earlier in this chapter, whenever we are exposed to a stimulus, a schema for the same is stored in our long-term memory, and over a period of time these schemas develop inter-relationships based on the complex ways in which we are exposed to them. Priming helps to activate such a related set of schemas, so that activation of one schema from the set leads to an increase in the probability of other related schemas to also become activated. Further, when one aspect of a script is activated, other schemas in that same script also tend to get activated, and the chances that they will be retrieved from memory become greater. Priming is not just a phenomenon studied in the psychology laboratory but is a real-life phenomenon, being manifested in a variety of ways and in a variety of situations, ranging from advertising to education to nonviolence. What is the utility of this phenomenon? It seems to serve highly adaptive purposes. In many instances, being able to access related information in memory leads to faster responses as and when the need arises. Moreover, there are various types of priming. Each works in a different way and may also have different effects. For example, there is positive and negative priming, with the former speeding up the processing of related schemas, the latter slowing it down. Then there is semantic and associative priming. Semantic priming involves words and their meanings, while associative priming involves using two stimuli that are normally associated with one another. Our example of Europe would fall in this category. Similarly, there is repetitive priming, perceptual priming, conceptual priming and masked priming. Priming Nonviolence From the above it is clear that the effects of priming reveal the malleability of human behavior. As far as nonviolence is concerned, priming can be used for suggesting strategies for supporting cooperative, empathetic behaviors. It is amazing to find that even infants as young as 18 months show the effect of priming and have been observed to be more

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

279

cooperative and helpful if they are shown wooden dolls facing each other rather than facing apart; students tend to give more optimistic responses after seeing the picture of an inspiring figure like Mother Teresa and so on. Conversely, priming can encourage negative behaviors, as when exposure to mass media violence makes people behave in more violent ways. While effects of priming have been observed in various domains of behavior, both in the psychology laboratory and in the world at large, the twenty-first century has also seen a keen interest in analyzing the effects of priming on violent and nonviolent behavior. In this regard, probably some of the early scientific studies of priming (though not called by that name) on violence can be said to have been conducted by Bandura when he clarified through scientific experiments that watching violence on TV promotes violent behavior, thereafter. These experiments spurred a number of investigators to study such effects (e.g., Anderson and Bushman 2002). Without going into those studies which find mention in almost all well-­ known textbooks of social psychology, let us focus on some recent studies which have been conducted with the express purpose of delineating the role of priming in promoting nonviolence. The recent years have witnessed a shift in the trend of studies on media-promoted violence, from the study of TV-related violence to video gaming-related violence. Keeping this in view, Sestir and Bartholow (2010) set out to discover the differential effects of violent and nonviolent video games. The results clarify that while exposure to violent video games increased aggression, exposure to nonviolent games led to a decrease in aggressive thoughts, feelings and even aggressive behavior. Moreover, the study also made clear that while violent video games increased aggressive behavior, nonviolent video games also increased prosocial behavior and that both of these effects persisted over a period of time, as shown by tests taken at a later time period. As pointed out by the authors, To paraphrase an old saying, you are what you consume; this research indicates that in the case of media, this can be a blessing as well as a curse. (Sestir and Bartholow 2010, p. 940)

While the above research was carried out on school children, another investigation on college students (Nelson and Yaeger 2007) revealed that by priming nonviolent alternatives, militaristic reactions to terrorism can be changed. College students were primed with three situationally relevant alternatives to violence and were then asked to rate the extent to

280 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

which they favored military action by the US government against a nation that was supposedly supporting terrorism. The three situations differed in the extent to which the priming effect was strong, weak or neutral. As expected, priming alternatives to military action decreased support for such action, and was stronger for the strong priming condition than for that of weak priming. This experiment is important mainly because it highlighted the fact that though people may not be interested in military action against a social wrong-doer, they may also not be aware of alternate types of actions. Once awareness is created for such actions, for example, about alternate dispute resolution (ADR) methods, their attitudes may change, and they may become ready to forego violent action in favor of nonviolent action. The experiment also clarifies that awareness can be created almost instantaneously, through brief videos, and does not require massive training programs. In recent years, ADR has been emphasized for the resolution of both political disputes and those in the corporate world, especially from the point of view of creating win-win solutions and at the same time saving enormous amounts of time, money and energy. An example along these lines would be the Reconciliation Boards that have proved to be extremely efficacious. It is clear that the efficacy of these methods can be enhanced by increasing the level of awareness regarding these alternative solutions. One simple technique is through informing people, say, through classifications of nonviolent actions such as those proposed by Gene Sharp (1973), who classified 198 methods or by Folger et al. (2005) who classified 63 conflict tactics, 62 of which were nonviolent ones. Another aspect that would be interesting for the psychology of nonviolence and conflict resolution is social priming, that is, the ways in which primes can affect our attitudes for others and our interactions with them. A common cause of interpersonal and intergroup conflict is the “us-them” distinction, based as it could be on stereotypical beliefs and attitudes, with violence following in its wake. A number of investigations have concluded that such “us-them” distinctions can be mitigated through relevant primes. So powerful is the effect of social priming on intergroup conflicts that even subliminal primes, in which the participant is not aware that she/he is being primed, are effective. In a study by Ledgerwood and Chaiken (2007), subliminal exposure to groups influenced subsequently measured attitudes on a variety of different issues, even though the participants were never asked to make explicit comparison or to self-reflect while

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

281

they were being primed. The investigators point out that such a polarization of attitudes can be effected by conversations, media coverage or by even simply thinking about the in-group or the out-group, thereby contributing to the escalation of the conflict. The above findings can be understood in the light of a cognitive model by Stapel and his colleagues (e.g., Stapel and Koomen 2001), which posits that social priming can work in two ways, depending on the nature of the primes being used. When broad, inclusive or relationally close primes are used, they promote the assimilation of attitudes. In contrast, when narrow, exemplar primes or relationally distant primes are used, contrast effects are seen. Thus, political in-groups elicit assimilation while political out-groups elicit contrast, but they can be changed by efficient priming. A technique which has proved to be effective for de-escalating conflict and peaceful conflict resolution is to reframe intergroup relations in cooperative terms or to identify super-ordinate group identities (Gaertner et al. 2000; Lin and Shen 2012; Stapel and Koomen 2005). In other words, priming effects highlight the possibility that salient aspects of the environment may act in an extremely subtle fashion, as a contextual frame or a comparison point, on the basis of which later judgments or evaluations may be made, even without the actor being aware of such effects. We will discuss this point in greater detail later in this chapter and in another chapter on the psychology of morality and the ways in which Gandhi was able to mitigate “us-them” boundaries between the oppressors and the oppressed, with moral inclusion as the end result.

Nudges and Nudging A recent entrant into behavioral analysis is the discipline of behavioral economics, which attempts to combine insights from psychology and neuropsychology with those of the material world of economics and financial markets. The basic postulate of this nascent discipline is that humans cannot be seen as being completely rational, or as being guided merely by rational cost-benefit analyses. Using Daniel Kahneman’s seminal work on the differences between intuition and reasoning (System I and System II pointed out earlier in this chapter), and that of heuristics and bias, researchers such as Thaler and Sunstein have introduced related concepts which explain economic decision making in a more effective manner than that afforded by traditional economic theories and concepts. One concept that has been introduced is that of nudging. Though, it was introduced way

282 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

back in the 1990s by Wilk (1999), its popularity rose with the publication of the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness by Thaler and Sunstein (2008) and even more when Thaler was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2017 for the nudge theory. The gist of the theory is clear from a remark made by Thaler on hearing that he had been awarded the Nobel Prize. According to him, his most important contribution to economics ‘was the recognition that economic agents are human and that economic models have to incorporate that.’ (Isaac 2017, The Telegraph)

So, what is a nudge? A nudge is an environmental manipulation, such that it alters the contingencies of choice behavior, without delivering rewards or punishments. Through these manipulations, it leads to behavior modification but is different from Skinnerian behavior modification in that it precludes the use of rewards or punishments or reinforcements of any type. In terms of the two systems of mental functioning, System I and System II (Kahneman 2011), a nudge can be seen as a manipulation which is meant to provide better options to those afforded by our System I, while still remaining within it. In other words, it helps the individual to adjust his intuitive System I analysis, while still remaining under the control of the same System 1. Or, it does so without calling the more rational System II into play (Hertwig and Grüne-Yanoff 2017). While heuristics force the person to make intuitive judgments, the nudge changes the contextual cues in such a way that it helps people to make better decisions. How Does a Nudge Work? A simple example of how a nudge works is the ingenious model of behavior modification used at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam (see Box 8.1). In a recent article in the journal, Frontiers of Psychology, Tagliabui and his coworkers (Tagliabue et al. 2019) present a cogent analysis of a nudge and review many studies which enable us to understand the ingenious ways in which nudges have been introduced and the ways through which they operate. One of the most interesting features of a nudge is that it often works with the person not even being aware of it (Sunstein 2015). In fact, it works specifically because the recipient of the nudge is not aware of the environmental manipulation.

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

283

Box 8.1  Aim for the fly

In a recent article in the Washington Post (2017), the innovative ways in which behavior modification was brought about through a very simple nudge has been explained. “If you want to understand why the University of Chicago’s Richard Thaler won the Nobel Prize in economics this year, look no further than the urinal fly. In the early 1990s, the story goes, the cleaning manager at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport was trying to reduce “spillage” around urinals. He settled on etching small, photorealistic images of flies on the urinals, right near the drain. The idea was to give people something to aim at. Why a fly? Flies are small and annoying and a little gross but they’re not scary like say, a spider, which might discourage people from using the urinal at all. As Aad Kieboom, the Schiphol Airport manager who oversaw the introduction of urinal flies, told Works that Work magazine in 2013, “a fly may have unsanitary connotations, but that is exactly why nobody feels guilty aiming at it!” And aim they did. Kieboom reported an astonishing 80% reduction in urinal spillage after introducing the flies. He estimated this resulted in an 8% reduction in total bathroom cleaning costs at the airport. Since then, urinal flies have begun showing up in restrooms all over.”

We present an example of a study by Kallbekken and Saelen (2013) conducted to test the effect of nudges on food wastage in restaurants. The first was a transparent nudge (the recipient was aware of it) which included a message of social approval for multiple servings at a buffet. The other was less transparent and constituted replacing normal plates with smaller ones. Is it not amazing that they could record a total of 20% decrease in food wastage by customers through two such easy techniques? In both the conditions, it is clearly System I which is operating. There have been other attempts in which System II has been called into play (Rachlin 2015), by making the individual become more deliberative and reflective. An early study in this direction is by Rachlin and Green (1972) in which they introduced a delay period prior to the moment of choice in an experimental set-up. Another example is by Shu and his associates (Shu et al. 2012). Normally we sign declaration forms at the end of

284 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

the document. By getting the person to sign a declaration right in the beginning causes one to start thinking as to whether there is any ulterior motive involved. Thus, the purpose is served, that is, to get the person to think before signing; to get System II into operation. However, one problem with a nudge is that its effect is temporary and may start fading once it becomes habitual for the individual concerned. So, if people make it a practice to have you sign declarations at the beginning of the form, you think before signing it the first few times, but thereafter, you simply sign, saying that this has become the accepted practice. This has caused researchers to question the sustainability of a nudge (Sunstein 2017; Tagliabue et al. 2017). Nudges and Gandhi Was Gandhi intuitively aware of the sustainability of nudges? Was it for this reason that though he used scripts and even priming to some extent, he was never in favor of artificially created manipulations and preferred that the follower choose for himself? Yet, his constant endeavor of leading from the front might be said to constitute a nudge for his followers. We must also remember that in the working of a nudge, there is a difference between the planner and the doer, with the former being the enactor of the nudge and the latter the recipient. The inherent difficulties in planning for others are aptly brought to the fore by Thaler and Sunstein (2004, p. 42): The planner is trying to promote your long term welfare but must cope with the feelings, mischief and strong will of the doer who is exposed to the temptations that come with arousal.

Gandhi understood, very well, the problems that arise due to the countless temptations that cross the paths of many people, including himself, and which detract people from the chosen path. We have discussed, earlier, how vows helped Gandhi deal with this problem of temptations. Seeing their efficacy on himself, he mandated rigorous vows for each of his followers. As he has written, The freedom and joy that came to me after taking a vow (of celibacy) had never been experienced before 1906….Now the vow was a sure shield against temptation. (Gandhi 1927/2003)

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

285

Fig. 8.2  Difference between a nudge and a boost

Nudging

Boosting

Boosts If Gandhi refrained from the use of nudges, there are many examples that he did rely on a related concept, that is, of a boost. In reality, a boost is much more than a nudge (Fig. 8.2). A boost is an attempt at enhancing the competencies of individuals by changing the skills or the knowledge of the individual or by altering environmental factors. Thus, going back to the example of enhancing healthy eating, a nudge would be to simply place the food in a smaller plate, creating an illusion that the plate is full, and, therefore, enough. To use a boost, one would go much beyond the above. One would make an appeal to the better senses of the person, that healthy eating has long-term implications for health and longevity. Some of the basic differences between a nudge and a boost have been presented in Table 8.1, based on the work of Hertwig and Grüne-Yanoff (2017). At least seven differences can be pointed out between the two (Table 8.1). From the table, it is also clear that the effects of a boost are fairly long lasting and aims at creating changes in the cognitive system of the individual. From Table  8.1, it becomes more than clear that what Gandhi, and even other leaders of nonviolence aimed at, was a boost and not a nudge. This is clarified from his firm belief that the target of Satyagraha was always not mere nonviolence but a growth of the nonviolent person alongside. As Gangrade writes (Gangrade 2004), The two primary values of Gandhians are dignity and the right of each individual to full development of his capacities and interdependence of individuals and their consequent responsibility towards each other in the framework of their capacities. This philosophy is a basis of general democracy and has been translated into political systems. For Gandhians, the acceptance of these primary values meant constant use of daily practice. (Gangrade 2004, pp. 131–132)

286 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Table 8.1  Differences between nudge and boost (based on Hertwig and Grüne-­ Yanoff 2017) Dimensions

Nudge

Boost

Intervention target Research roots

Behavior Considers the recipient as being imperfect and amenable to cognitive and motivational deficiencies Attempts to harness cognitive and motivational deficiencies together with manipulations in the external environment Assumes a dual system cognitive structure

Competencies While acknowledging limited nature of recipient’s competencies but also tries to nurture human competencies Tries to foster available competencies by changing skills, knowledge or the external environment Assumes that the cognitive structure is malleable

Behavior reverts back once nudge is removed Repair and correction of deficiencies Transparency and autonomy issues possible

Effects of boost persist even after boost is removed Equip people with general competencies Transparent and requirement of cooperation

Causal pathways

Assumptions about nature of human cognitive structure Reversibility of behavior Goals of intervention Normative aspects

The assumption behind a boost is that while people are not completely rational and that they operate on the principle of bounded rationality (Simon 1955), these limitations can be improved upon. Gandhi would, in all probability, agree with the above assumption. He was well aware of the many limitations of all human beings. The Mahatma dealt with problems that are timeless and universal, because they spring from enduring weaknesses of human nature and human society. (Gangrade 2004, pp. 131–132)

But, at the same time, Gandhi was also convinced that there is no person who cannot be made into a better person. In fact, it was the faith that Gandhi had in the abilities of people that gave him the courage to take up Satyagraha in which his followers were forced to undergo various types of hardships and yet remain nonviolent. Probably, the most important aspect of a boost is that its effect outlasts the boost itself. Also, it is not only transparent but also cannot be made effective without the cooperation of the recipient. This aspect, too, is in

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

287

line with the beliefs of Gandhi, brought to the fore by his mandating that every person who intended to become a follower must listen to his “inner voice,” and should join only after becoming convinced in totality. Never was there any attempt to manipulate the followers and each and every action that Gandhi demanded maintained the highest degrees of transparency. We may, therefore, conclude that while Gandhi made various types of attempts aimed at altering the decision making of his followers and shaping their perceptions so as to align them to nonviolent principles, his methodology was more akin to that of the modern boost than to that of a nudge.

Social Identity Theory (SIT) While the foregoing pages have delineated the ways in which concepts are built and the environment with its multitudinous stimuli is structured in our cognitive system, the next section focuses on the complex ways in which one’s social environment and the groups to which we belong change our perceptions and cognitions. One of the major challenges in the life of any individual is the establishment of personal identity, the importance of which can be gauged from theories of psychosocial development (e.g., Erikson 1968), the main task of which is the search for identity and the resolution of the identity crisis. Complementing our search for personal identity (search for the “I”) is the process of social identity (search for the “we”), which refers to the ways in which one’s self-concept is based on the characteristics of the groups of which one is a member. These groups may be sports teams, religion, nationalities, gender and sexual orientation, ethnic groups or occupations. So, to a great extent, one behaves in ways that are normative for one’s age, gender, cultural or an informal friendship group. One of the pioneers in the field of social identity, Tajfel (1972) defined social identity as, The individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership. (Tajfel 1972, p. 292)

Using social identity as the base, Tajfel and his colleagues proposed the Social Identity Theory (SIT). The ways in which our social identity shapes our personal behavior, our in-group relations and especially our

288 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

inter-­group relations forms the core of the Social Identity Theory. So, it can be said that Social Identity Theory (SIT) addresses the ways in which social identity affects people’s attitudes and behavior regarding their ingroups and out-groups. In other words, it is this social identity which creates the “us-them” dichotomy. Functions of Social Identity The importance of social identity is clear from the multifarious functions it serves for the members, including the satisfaction of the need for affiliation (McClelland 1965) and the need for self-esteem (Maslow 1954). In a recent article, Reese and his team (Reese et al. 2019) have identified the multiple functions of social identity, for example, acting as a social resource (Haslam et  al. 2009) and providing social support, a sense of belonging, hope and self efficacy (Johnson et al. 2006). The paper also describes a comprehensive model of social identity by Vignoles et  al. (2006) according to which six functions or needs of individual members are served, ranging from the need for self-­esteem and distinctiveness to the need for continuity and meaning. At the same time, since groups do not fulfill member needs to an equal degree, the extent to which these needs are fulfilled will decide the centrality of the group for the person’s sense of self. Group membership results in self-categorization to the extent that I see myself as a member of one group and as a non-member of another group. It also leads to the formation of social categories, such that we tend to divide groups into two categories, namely, the in-group and the out-­ group. Such categorization of groups has been termed social categorization and may be said to be the cognitive heart of the social identity processes (Turner et al. 1987). For every group, whether in-group or outgroup, cognitive prototypes are developed on the basis of intergroup similarities and differences, and it is these prototypes which serve as prescriptive and normative directions for member behavior. What is of more importance is that such prototypes are rarely based on typical in-group behavior. Rather, they are based on intergroup comparisons. It would be of utmost difficulty to describe the ideal behavior for one’s group without referring to how it is different from that expected in another group. In this way, intergroup differences become highlighted to such an extent that every individual is perceived, not in terms of her idiosyncratic characteristics but according to the characteristics of the group of

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

289

which she is a member. Such prototypical perceptions of out-group members are more commonly called stereotypes. You start viewing all members of a class or a group as being similar to one another and having out-group attributes, leading to the depersonalization of people. Even when you categorize yourself (self-categorization), it is, again, in terms of your in-group attributes (self-stereotyping) and not just in terms of your individual traits and characteristics. Since prototypes also define expected behavior and feelings, you follow these prototypes, producing conformity within the group and in-group liking, trust and similarity. Such social categorization and the resulting stereotypes can be seen in both large groups as well as in small face-to-face groups (Hogg et al. 2004). Social Identity and Framing Another way to look at these group prototypes is to consider them as frames. A frame is an interpretive device that all people use to make sense of the world around them. Taking the analogy of photo frames, one can see a perceptual frame as borders defining what is and what is not. Along the same lines, identity framing is used by groups to let their members know what they are and what they are not (Gardner 2003). So I, as a member of the teaching fraternity, may identify myself with all other teachers and at the same time, consider myself as being distinct from people belonging, say, to the fraternity of bankers. My profession sets norms regarding appropriate behavior and feelings, which sets me apart from bankers. Thus, part of my identity is determined by who I am, while another part is determined by the group to which I belong. In short, SIT helps us to understand not only our categorization of others but also our categorization of ourselves, and, ultimately, explains how individuals become groups. The results of such group identification generally lead to high levels of group assimilation (pressure to conform to group norms) and intergroup bias (such as prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination). Depending on the social context, either personal identity, based as it is on our interests and personalities, or social identity, based on values of the group, may become more salient (Hewstone et al. 2002). So, situations in which individuals consider group membership to be central to their self-concept and feel strong emotional ties with the group will tend to enhance social identity. When social identity is more salient, stereotypes are heightened, while the downplaying of intergroup differences generally leads to the mitigation of

290 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

such intergroup biases (Bigler and Liben 2006; Hewstone, et  al., ibid). Thus, studies have revealed that by assigning children from different social groups to work cooperatively on a task can help to reduce prejudice (Leaper, 2011). Further, it is these identity frames that allow us to analyze how an individual will respond to conflict, since every person will attempt to protect to the fullest extent, the beliefs and values of their group affiliations, that is, their identity frame. Framing leads not only to the framing of identity but also to the framing of conflicts, which determines what the conflict is about and what it is not about and will determine what a person is ready to do in a conflict situation (Burgess et al. 2004). Thus, if the conflict is framed in adversarial terms, both parties may feel that the only way to resolve the conflict, or to get what they want, is to stop the other party from getting what it wants. In other words, the conflict is being framed as a win-lose situation, often leading to its intractability. When rigid identity groups exist within the same physical territory, there could be extreme in-group/out-group feelings. The only way to resolve such a crisis is that the two parties either find a way to live together or one or both the groups decide that the available choice is to make the other group go away. Such a perceptual framing of the conflict has been termed “into the sea framing,” taking a cue from Yasser Arafat’s threat to push the Israelis into the sea (Burgess, et al., ibid). How does one avoid such extreme framing of the conflict, or even more important, how does one transform an already existing frame of this type? A number of strategies have been suggested, ranging from the use of principles of tolerance and coexistence to even humanizing people toward each other (Burgess, et  al., ibid). While the former attempts to put in practice the idea that though there are differences between the two groups, they can make a commitment to live together and resolve the conflict in nonviolent ways, the latter focuses on working on the depersonalization aspect so common in social categorization and stereotypes, and reminds people that the opponent is also human and shares the same emotions, motivations and values. Khaminwa (2003) is of the view that there could, thus, be two types of coexistence, passive coexistence, in which there is an unequal sharing of power, or active coexistence, in which there is a respect for diversity, equality and equity for all people concerned. Another strategy that has been suggested is de-categorization and re-­ categorization (Shapiro 2005), in that an attempt is made to first mitigate or even dissolve the in-group/out-group perceptions and feelings

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

291

followed by social categorization of a different order. It is these feelings that are focused upon in the current theorization and practice of peace education under the rubric of moral exclusion/inclusion (Opotow et al. 2005; Opotow 2013), through which there can be educating for coexistence, educating for human rights, educating for gender equality and educating for environmentalism. The relevance of such education in diminishing moral exclusion can be gathered from studies that have shown that there exists a negative relationship between universalism and societal prejudices and stereotypes across 21 countries (for example, Schwartz 2007). Social Identity and Social Categorization Social categorization and its resulting self-categorization are of considerable significance for understanding the cognition of nonviolence and violence. Let’s start with studies on children, which though few in number, certainly add to our understanding of how the concept of nonviolence develops in the minds of children. One of the first studies in this area was by Tajfel and his team of coworkers. Through various simple experiments, Tajfel and his colleagues (e.g., Tajfel et al. 1971) were able to show how even the creation of groups in an experimental setting caused individuals to show strong in-group and out-group feelings despite the fact that they had no previous history of rivalry or conflict. Even in such “minimal” groups formed on the basis of a coin toss, members allocated more resources to their group and less to the other group. You can well imagine what would be the situation when there is rivalry between actual groups! Another interesting piece of research was undertaken by Verbeck and de Waal (2001) who focused on the pre-conflict, conflict and post conflict behavior of preschoolers. The important finding was that even among preschoolers, harmonious relations were considered important and reconciliation took place within five minutes of a fight. This is an oft witnessed scenario, in which fighting children will soon make friends with each other, but their parents may retain their feelings of animosity till much later! Thus, despite the fact that these children may not have had enough opportunities to learn about peacemaking from the environment (Schwebel 2001), they seem to be intuitively tuned toward such behavior. The same has also been noted for chimpanzees and other primates (de Waal 1996), clarifying the evolutionary significance of such reconciliatory processes.

292 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

SIT and Nonviolent Cultures While a large part of the Western world is highly individualistic in its cultural orientation, one comes across cultures which do not believe in social categorization to the extent that it can lead to social divides. Ashley Montagu (1976, 1978) reported that nonviolent societies did indeed exist and with the help of other researchers went on to identify many such cultures. Later, Bonta, in a paper in the Psychological Bulletin (1997), mentions 23 cultures from around the world which operate on the principles of nonviolence. These include the Amish of the North American continent, the Balinese of Indonesia, the Birhor tribes of India, the Chewong of the Malay Peninsula, the Hutterites of the USA and the Tristan Islanders of South Africa. In each of these communities, Bonta found a strong focus on peaceful living made possible through utter self-control and cooperation. Almost a decade later, Kool visited a tiny community, Malana, in the remote Himalayan terrain. To his utter surprise, he found that not only was there the existence of minimal conflict, but also that the few conflicts which did arise were solved through techniques which were truly nonviolent in nature (Piazza and Dote 2013). What could be the processes that help to foster such nonviolent and peaceful cultures? Apparently, it is through normative processes which not only create and nurture nonviolent schemas and scripts but also primes them so that children are brought up in ways that are essentially nonviolent, with minimal “us-them” feelings. For more information, the reader is referred to the chapter, Cognition and self control, in Kool’s book, Psychology of Nonviolence and Aggression (Kool 2008) and to Chapter 5 on community psychology in Volume II of this book. SIT and Gandhi The foundation of SIT lies in the ways in which our social identities are created through the groups to which we belong. It is also clear that group survival is to a very great extent, dependent on the degree to which members identify with the group, which, in turn, is generally seen to increase with intergroup rivalry. Further, it is such rivalry which creates the “usthem” feelings so commonly seen between groups, with stereotype, prejudice and discrimination as its end result. One can think of the actions of Gandhi with reference to the ways through which he attempted to

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

293

mitigate such “us-them” stereotypes, intergroup boundaries and reverse feelings of adversarialism to that of mutualism and even moral inclusion. Let us try to think of the nature of the social identity created by Gandhi. Gandhi did not believe in groupism or division among human beings, whether in terms of caste, creed, religion, language or for that matter, any other criterion. His belief in the equality of all is probably best demonstrated in his various ashrams, whether it was Phoenix settlement and Tolstoy Farm in South Africa, or his other ashrams in India where every member was not only considered an equal but also shared equally in whatever work was to be done. According to Gandhi, equality among human beings is not impossible: we simply have to love people, not based on logic or intelligence but from our heart. As he once wrote, ‘I have known no distinction between relatives and strangers, countrymen and foreigners, white and coloured, Hindus and Indians of other faiths whether Mussalmans, Parsees, Christians or Jews. I may say that my heart has been incapable of making any such distinctions.’ ‘By a long process of prayerful discipline I have ceased for over forty years to hate anybody.’ (Gandhi 1927/2003, p. 204)

In other words, Gandhi firmly believed that freedom did not mean just political freedom, but that it also incorporated action which led to the development of all through love and compassion. Influenced as it was by Ruskin’s Unto This Last, Gandhian “sarvodaya” (compassion for all) and “antodaya” (compassion for the last person) can be said to be the zenith of human equality. One of his groundbreaking decisions regarding moral inclusion was the term “harijan” (God’s people), a name he insisted to be used for one of the most downtrodden classes in India—the class of people who cleaned the toilets and lifted night soil by hand. The irony lies in the fact that even though the human waste and general garbage of the entire society was being carried on the shoulders of these people, they were referred to as “untouchables” and were not allowed to draw water from the village well or partake in any of the other activities of the village. In fact, as the name untouchable suggests, they were literally not allowed to touch any person from the other castes or touch their belongings, and people would also refrain from touching them. Such prejudice and discrimination was in no way acceptable to Gandhi, because for Gandhi,

294 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

All men are brothers and no human being should be a stranger to another. The welfare of all, Sarvodaya, should be our aim. God is the common bond that unites all human beings. To break this bond even with our greatest enemy is to tear God Himself to pieces. (Gandhi 1927/2003, p 204)

While such were Gandhi’s views regarding the people around him, he was also convinced that man-made borders should not divide us. In his words, There is no limit to extending our services to our neighbor across State made frontiers. God never made those frontiers. (Gandhi 1931, p. 427)

And, as pointed out by Murray et al. (2014), even opponents were to be treated as equals and that Gandhi had this ability to love them. It was this concern for the oppressor and enemy that forced a person even as autocratic as General Smuts of South Africa to speak highly of him. And Gandhi did not stop at just cross-border friendships or love for the enemy. He went much further, I want to realize brotherhood or identity not merely with the beings called human, but I want to realize identity with all life, even with such things that crawl upon earth….because we claim descent from the same God and that being so, all life in whatever form it appears, must be essentially one. (Gandhi 1929, p. 107)

This was the ideal that Gandhi worked for and lived for all his life. This is the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam (Nature is my family). Gandhi, in his own way, warned us, as far back as in 1920, that we must learn to live harmoniously with nature or else risk extinction. Today, almost a century later, people, the world over, are engaged in talks and the building of strategies for fighting climate change, but despite the advances in technology, we are not able to make much headway. Gandhi was convinced that, Though there is repulsion enough in Nature, she lives by attraction. Mutual love enables Nature to persist. Man does not live by destruction. Self-love compels regard for others. Nations cohere because there is mutual regard among individuals composing them. Some day we must extend the national law to the universe, even as we have extended the family law to form nations―a larger family. (Gandhi 1922)

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

295

One may ask, where does SIT stand as far as Gandhi is concerned? The answer would be that Gandhi believed in only one type of social identity, namely, an identity which took each and every aspect of the universe in its fold, a degree of assimilation and accommodation that probably is far beyond what the average social psychologist is able to envision. This was his way of mitigating “us-them” boundaries. Gandhi was more than a tactician. He understood that such change must itself be rooted in a deep transformation of the Indian people. “People power” must be rooted in “person power.” Self-rule as a nation could only be possible if it was nurtured by self-rule of the person in which love transforms fear, truth transforms arrogance and heart-unity transforms “us-them” attitudes and behavior. This was his formula for moral inclusion of the highest order. In other words, for Gandhi, universalism is all encompassing, ranging from love and brotherhood for his immediate followers, for enemies and opponents, for members of other nation states and extending finally, for all that we consider as being part of Mother Nature. In other words, Gandhi’s focus went much beyond the concept of “global citizens” or “international citizens”—he wanted to develop universal citizens. For Gandhi, this was, in fact, a sacred value, a nonnegotiable preference (Atran 2012) which he was ready to defend even through actions that would defy any calculation of either costs or consequences. SIT theorists believe that the framing of conflicts decides the actions that each party is ready to take as far as resolution of the conflict is concerned. How did Gandhi frame any conflict, whether at the personal level or at the socio-political level? According to him, nonviolent resolution of the conflict does not aim at harming the opponent. Rather, it attempts to make changes in the opponent through moral shaming, that is, the intentional self suffering of the satyagrahi which rests on the twin pillars of inner purification and compassion in belief, speech and conduct. Coupled with the intentional self suffering of the satyagrahi was Gandhi’s insistence on dialogue and persuasion for changing the enemy’s stance. His aim was to convert both parties so that both see each other as being on the same side and not on opposite sides. In this way, there would be a shared attempt to solve the conflict. Through rigorous training of each and every satyagrahi, Gandhi sought to change the very social identities of the people, he sought to unleash a slow, ongoing spiritual formation process in which the colonized self is “retrained.” He encouraged the de-centering and ­re-­centering of this self punctuated by specific acts of civil disobedience and constructive development situated within a long-term process of inward and

296 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

outward transformation. Even now, this great trainer calls us to deepen this process. And to practice at every turn……This impulse towards letting go of the “imprisoned self” marked Gandhi’s constructive projects…..But this was also an important part of his campaigns of nonviolent resistance…..(it) was a way for millions of Indians to shake off their “colonized self” and begin the slow process of reclaiming their true humanity. (Butigan 2018)

Throughout this chapter attempts have been made to analyze the extent to which the principles applied by Gandhi are corroborated by our current knowledge about human cognitive processes. It is once again clear that Gandhi’s success in implementing nonviolence on such a large scale was possible because of his ability to understand his followers and their psychology, whether it be their motivations, their emotions or their perceptions and cognitions along with his firm belief in the goodness of every human. This depth of understanding coupled with a clear personal philosophy, based on eternal truths and not on transient events or vested interests, enabled Gandhi to spearhead nonviolent struggles to a level of success not easily foreseen by either the oppressors or the world at large. Gandhi was convinced that the nonviolent ways of the satyagrahi are bound to lead to success. All that was needed was a nudge and a boost to persuade human kind to undergo a change of heart. This was true in the Gandhian era of the early and mid-twentieth century and has not lost its power, even today, in the twenty-first century, with its technological advances and knowledge about the working of the human cognitive system. As very aptly put by Gregg (1958), Profoundly wise men of many civilizations have said in various ways that man has in him the spark and possibility of divinity. A great and successful exemplar of nonviolent resistance said that we should change our minds completely, and that we should first seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, that the Kingdom of God is at hand, and that the true followers of the spirit shall do greater things than he did. With what we know, these words spoken at a time when the outlook was dark should encourage us to go forward in firm hope. (Gregg 1958, p. 205)

More than half a century has passed since Gregg wrote with great optimism that the true followers of Gandhi would do things greater than those that he did. Unfortunately, even in the second decade of the current century, scholars such as Murray and associates (Murray et  al. 2014) are forced to write that:

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

297

Although there have been some efforts to develop a psychology of nonviolence (e.g., Kool 2008), and the APA has had a division of peace psychology since 1988, the potential for contributions of psychology to the study and practice of nonviolence has been largely untapped. The possibilities, however, are exciting. We have only enough space to make a few suggestions. Kool (2008) gives a far more extensive discussion. (Murray et  al. 2014, p. 179)

The above sentences are from a chapter in a book entitled, Toward a Socially Responsible Psychology of a Global Era. The question that can be raised is, are we becoming a socially responsible discipline and whether we, as psychologists, are attempting to handle the problems of the world?

References Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51. Atran, S. (2012). How can a better understanding of sacred values help us to resolve intergroup conflicts? Science + Religion Today, May 22. scienceandreligiontoday.com. Bartels, D. M., & Burnett, R. C. (2006). Proportion of dominance and mental representation: Construal of resources affects sensitivity to relative risk reduction. Unpublished manuscript. North Western University, Evanston, Ill: Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior: Vol. 34. Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 39–89). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press. Bondurant, J. V. (1965). Conquest of nonviolence: The Gandhian philosophy of conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bonta, B.  D. (1997). Cooperation and competition in peaceful societies. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 299–320. Branaz-Garza, P. (2007). Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 477–486. Burgess, H., Burgess, G.  M., & Maiese, M. (2004). Into-the-Sea Framing. In G.  M. Burgess & H.  Burgess, Beyond Intractability. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2004, http:// www.beyondintractability.org/essay/into-the-sea-framing. Butigan, K. (2018). Nonviolent lives: People and movements changing the world through the power of active nonviolence. Albany, NY: Pace e bene Press. Clark, W. A. V., & Lisowski, W. (2017). Prospect theory and the decision to move or stay. PNAS, 114(36), E7432–E7440.

298 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R.  J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science (New York, N.Y.), 313(5787), 684–687. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128356. de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in human and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dharmadhikari, A. D. (2000). Philosophy of sarvodaya. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan. Edy, J. A., & Meirick, P. C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 119–141. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton. (Also reprinted in A.  P. Hare and H.  H. Blumberg, Eds., 1968, Nonviolent direct action. Washington, DC: Corpus Book). Fetherstonhaugh, D., Slovic, P., Johnson, S.  M., & Friedrich, J. (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 283–300. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1007744326393. Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutmen, R. K. (2005). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships. Groups and organizations. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E.  A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4, 98–114. Gamliel, E. (2007). To accept or to reject: The effect of framing on attitudes toward affirmative action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 683–702. Gandhi, M. K. (1922). Young India, 2, 3‑22. Gandhi, M. K. (1927/2003). An autobiography or The story of my experiments with truth. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M. K. (1929). Young India, 4, 4‑29. Gandhi, M. K. (1931). Young India, 31, 12‑31. Gandhi, M. K. (1940). Harijan, July 6, 185‑86. Gangrade, K.  D. (2004). Moral lessons from Gandhi’s autobiography and other essays. New Delhi: Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti. Gardner, R. (2003). Identity frames. In G.  M. Burgess, & H.  Burgess (Eds.), Beyond Intractability. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003, http://www.beyondintractability.org/ essay/identity-frames. Gregg, R.  B. (1958). The power of nonviolence. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Guha, R. (2013). Gandhi before India. New Delhi: Penguin. Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58, 1–23.

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

299

Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 973–986. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604. Hogg, M.  A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 35(3), 246–276. Isaac, A. (2017). 'Nudge' guru Richard Thaler wins the Nobel Prize for economics. The Telegraph, October, 9. telegraph.co.uk. Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., Ilgen, D. R., et al. (2006). Professional identities: Examining differences in identification across work-related targets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 498–506. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2007). Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(2), 45–46. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.007. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291. Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Economics Letters, 119, 325–327. Kant, I. (1781/1838). Critick of pure reason. London: W. Pickering. Khaminwa, A. N. (2003). Coexistence. In G. M. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/coexistence. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2006). Applied social psychology. New Delhi: Atlantic. Kool, V.  K., & Agrawal, R. (2013). Whither Skinner’s science of behavior, his assessment of Gandhi, and its aftermath? Gandhi Marg (special Issue), 35, 487–518. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2016). Psychology of technology. Switzerland: Springer. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2018). Gandhian philosophy for living in the modern world: lessons from the psychology of satyagraha. In S. Fernando & R. Moodley (Eds.), Global psychologies: Mental health and the global South. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Leaper, C. (2011). More similarities than differences in contemporary theories of social development?: A plea for theory bridging. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 40, 337–378. Ledgerwood, A., & Chaiken, S. (2007). Priming us and them: Automatic assimilation and contrast in group attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 940–956.

300 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Lin, H. F., & Shen, F. (2012). Regulatory focus and attribute framing: Evidence of compatibility effects in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 169–188. Loroz, P. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology and Marketing, 24(11), 1001–1023. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. McClelland, D.  C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321–333. Montagu, A. (1976). The nature of human aggression. New York: Oxford Press. Montagu, A. (1978). Learning nonaggression: The experience of nonliterate societies. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Murray, H., Lyubansky, M., Miller, K., & Ortega, L. (2014). Toward a psychology of nonviolence. In E.  Mustakova-Possardt, M.  Lyubanski, et  al. (Eds.), Toward socially responsible psychology for a global era (pp.  151–182). New York: Springer. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Nelson, L. L., & Yaeger, K. G. (2007, August). Militaristic reactions to terrorism: effects of priming nonviolent alternatives. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American psychological association, San Fransisco, CA. Opotow, S. (2013). Gandhi’s inclusionary trajectory in South Africa. Gandhi Marg, 35, 541–560. Opotow, S., Gersen, J., & Woodside, S. (2005). From moral exclusion to moral inclusion: Theory for teaching peace. Theory Into Practice, 44(4), 303–318. Piaget, J. (1923/2001). The language and thought of the child (Routledge Classics). New York: Routledge. Piazza, E., & Dote, D. (2013). Modern psychology, gandhi and peace cultures with special reference to Malana. Gandhi Marg, 2013(35), 619–630. Rachlin, H. (2015). Choice architecture: A review of why nudge: The politics of libertarian paternalism. Journal of Experimental. Analysis of Behavior, 104, 198–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.163. Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1901/ jeab.1972.17-15. Reese, G., Rosenmann, A., & Cameron, J. E. (2019). The psychology of globalization, identity, ideology and action. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Schwartz, S. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Schwebel, M. (2001). Promoting the culture of peace in children. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 1–3. Sestir, M. A., & Bartholow, B. D. (2010). Violent and nonviolent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 934–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jesp.2010.06.005.

8  COGNITION OF NONVIOLENCE 

301

Seymour, B., Daw, N., Dayan, P., Singer, T., & Dolan, R. (2007). Differential encoding of losses and gains in the human striatum. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 4826–4831. Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263–284. Sharp, G. (1973). The politics of nonviolent action. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent. Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 109, 15197–15200. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118. Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2001). The impact of interpretation versus comparison mindsets on knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 134–149. Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2005). Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 1029–1038. Sunstein, C. R. (2015). The ethics of nudging. Yale Journal of Regul, 32, 413–450. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjreg/vol32/iss2/6. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Nudges that fail. Behavioral Public Policy, 1, 4–25. Tagliabue, M., Sandaker, I., & Ree, G. (2017). The value of contingencies and schedules of reinforcement: Fundamentals of behavior analysis contributing to the efficacy of behavioral business research. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 1(Special Issue), 33–39. Tagliabue, M., Squatrito, V., & Presti, G. (2019). Models of cognition and their applications in behavioral economics: A conceptual framework for nudging derived from behavior analysis and relational frame theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2418. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/ fpsyg.2019.02418; https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02418 Tajfel, H. (1972). Experiments in a vacuum. In J. Isreal & H. Tajfel (Eds.), The context of social psychology: A critical assessment. London, UK: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. F., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C.  R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2004). Market efficiency and rationality: The peculiar case of Baseball, 102 MICH.  L. REV. 1390. Available at: https:// repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol102/iss6/18 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

302 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Ubel, P. A., Baron, J., & Asch, D. A. (2001). Preference for equity as a framing effect. Medical Decision Making, 21, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0272989X0102100303. Verbeck, P., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2001). Peace making among preschool children. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 5–28. Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., & Scabini, E. (2006). Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(2), 308–333. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Wilk, J. (1999). Mind, nature and the emerging science of change: An introduction to metamorphology. In G. C. Cornelis, S. Smets, & J. P. Van Bendegem (Eds.), Metadebates on science. Einstein meets Magritte: An interdisciplinary reflection on science, nature, art, human action and society (Vol. 6, pp. 71–87). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

CHAPTER 9

Epilogue: Summing Up on the Science of Gandhi’s Psychology of Nonviolence

The paradox of human nature is that despite being at the apex of the phylogenetic ladder, we tend to manifest violence and aggression against members of our own species, unlike many of the animals lower down the scale. Probably, the greatest examples of this paradox is the Holocaust, and even today, people are intrigued by the fact that an individual could pay obedience to authority to such an extent that she/he forgot the very basis of her/his existence, namely, love and compassion for all. It was this intrigue that brought Stanley Milgram to conduct some of the most controversial experiments in the history of psychology (Milgram 1974). This volume began with a description of these experiments by Stanley Milgram, commonly referred to as “experiments on obedience to authority.” One may wonder why a volume dedicated to the life and work of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the scientific psychology of nonviolence should use these experiments to start with. The reason soon becomes obvious. Milgram’s experiment brought to light two types of subjects. Firstly, there were those who blindly, or at least, readily complied with the instructions, and secondly, there were those who refrained from complying. If the former manifested obedience, the latter clearly showed disobedience, or, were not ready to follow orders, simply because they felt that they were doing injustice to the “learner” by delivering shocks for errors in a trivial matter. Their consciences did not allow them to follow the instructions. At the same time, they were not taken up by either the trappings of the experimenter (a professor) or the laboratory (of the © The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8_9

303

304 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

prestigious Yale University). They followed their hearts, their consciences, determined not to bow down in the face of injustice. While the obedience to authority in those experiments continues to amaze people, so does the disobedience. This is where an analysis of the life and work of Gandhi can help us gain deeper insights.

Milgram and Gandhi: Obedience Versus Disobedience Are these non-complying subjects not showing very much the same behavioral tendencies that became the hallmark of Gandhi, the Mahatma or Bapu to his followers? Both were disobedient to the hilt, and it is this disobedience of Gandhi, much like that of Milgram’s non-complying subjects, the antecedents and consequences of which we have attempted to delineate and analyze through the lens of modern scientific psychology. However, there was an important difference. What draws people to Gandhi even to this day? It is awe; it is respect, for a person, who with a small group of people could overcome the powerful British army, and that too, without firing a single shot. In contrast, as far as Milgram is concerned, the experiments are being brought up time and again, even in 2019, because of the intrigue caused by the behavior of those who complied as well as those who refused to comply. So much so that Appel (2019) is of the opinion that rather than calling them Milgram’s experiments on obedience, we should call them experiments on disobedience. So, maybe it is a mistake to view Milgram’s experiment as an obedience experiment—although he clearly did. Maybe, what he actually conducted was a disobedience experiment, showing that some people will not follow orders no matter how strong the pressure. (Appel 2019, p. 35)

What were the antecedents of such disobedience, or, in other terms, nonviolence? For more than half a century, investigators have been grappling with the enigma of such intensive obedience as shown by those who complied with Milgram’s instructions. Although a wide variety of explanations have been forwarded, none have proved completely satisfactory. What we are still probably left with is Milgram’s own explanation, “Tyrannies perpetuated by diffident men who do not possess the courage to act out their beliefs” (Milgram 1974). In contrast, the Gandhian angle provides us with an analogous situation and some interesting answers. First and foremost, the disobedience

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

305

was caused by a deep sense of empathy with the learner (in Milgram’s case) and the suffering of the Indians (in Gandhi’s case). Throughout Chap. 5, we have analyzed the ways in which empathy is adaptive, due to which it has been retained through the evolutionary process of Darwinian natural selection, as against aggression and violence which has generally proved to be non-adaptive and does not lead to the survival of the species (“an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind,” so professed Gandhi). At the same time, the tendency to choose nonviolence over violence reveals strong individual differences. Rather than the existing clear watertight compartments of violent/nonviolent people, there can be varying degrees of both, each along an independent continuum, with a certain amount of overlap between the two continua (the gray area between what is to be considered as violence or as nonviolence). These individual differences manifest themselves through the ingenious ways by which violence and nonviolence have been measured in psychology, both in the laboratory (e.g., by Milgram) and through paper-pencil tests having sound psychometric properties of validity and reliability (e.g., the NVT or the TNT). There are two other antecedents that are of considerable importance as far as disobedience to unjust authority is concerned. We would like to draw the reader’s attention to the three-dimensional model proposed by Kool (1993, 2008) which uses three orthogonal dimensions, namely, that of aggression, moral concerns and the use of power to delineate the position of the violent actor vis-à-vis that of the nonviolent actor. The two are seen to occupy diametrically opposite positions on the cuboid (refer to Fig. 7.3 in Chap. 7). It has been proposed in the chapter that a model that can explain the attributes of nonviolence in general and Gandhian nonviolence, in particular, can be of immense help in understanding the behavior of Milgram’s subjects also, especially those who refused to comply with the instructions of the experimenter. At the same time, we would like to make it clear that the objective of this volume was not the analysis of Milgram’s experiment, per se. The aim of this volume has been twofold: firstly, to understand the elements or the building blocks of Gandhian philosophy and practice of nonviolence and the various forces through which they had been shaped. Secondly, an attempt has being made to analyze the success of Gandhian practice through the lens of modern scientific psychology and to ascertain the extent to which Gandhi’s line of thinking is corroborated by theories and empirical findings of psychology. Specifically, we have made an attempt to derive a psychology of nonviolence based on the principles enunciated by

306 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Gandhi and followed so successfully in his Satyagrahas. As discussed through the various chapters of this volume, there is enough evidence to show that Gandhi, even though he did not have access to a scientific laboratory or to advanced statistical techniques, was able to craft a science of nonviolence, based on his perception of the psychology of the people, which he verified through experiments in the laboratory of his life.

The Neural Basis of Nonviolence Gandhi professed that there is nothing new that he was offering to the world, that nonviolence was “as old as the hills.” It is amazing how correct he was: nonviolence in the form of cooperation and empathy gained primacy over conflict and cruelty, being retained by evolutionary forces all the way through phylogeny, right down to even single-celled organisms. Chapter 5 has clarified that social behaviors such as cooperation, empathy, altruism and compassion, all of which are integral aspects of nonviolence, have survived the ravages of evolutionary extinction, proving that nonviolence, in contrast to violence, is far more adaptive as far as survival of the species is concerned. Moral concerns, too, seen in the form of justice, is witnessed in many species much lower than the human being or even primates. In fact, the large variety or forms of cooperative behavior in animals stand testimony for the fact that group living is essential for most species and that this would not be possible without such behaviors, especially the ability to exert self-control. The story of neuropsychological research on self-control in the past 15 years attests to the need for exploring the scientific basis of nonviolence. Remarkable research by Michael Posner and coworkers (e.g., Yang et al. 2015), as cited in Chap. 7 of this book (see Box 7.3), clearly shows how self-control is difficult to practice during childhood but as our brain undergoes ontogenetic development, the attention mechanism becomes attenuated so as to enable the intentional levels of self-control. The growth of the psychology of nonviolence is rooted in such sophisticated researches currently underway in many institutions as cited in this book. Besides surviving through evolutionary forces, there are clear neurological substrates of empathy and related emotions and behavior. Not only are there regions of the brain dedicated to positive affect, but also, the neurotransmitters oxytocin and vasopressin have been found to play an important role in empathy. Probably, as the human brain evolved, it threw up areas that had been adapted for one purpose but could now be used for

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

307

another; these were areas that were co-opted for the skills as they developed over time through the history of humanity and were termed exaptations (Gould 1991). At the same time, the evolution of the brain also created new spaces, much like the spaces between the pillars of a bridge or a flyover, which could then be used for purposes which were far different from what they were originally intended. These latter spaces were termed spandrels (Buss et al. 1998), akin to the spandrels of a bridge. Together, exaptations and spandrels housed many of the new skills which developed over the course of time, empathy, morality and religion, being among them (Kool and Agrawal 2016). So important have behaviors such as empathy, love, altruism and compassion proved to be for human sociability that the evolving neocortex soon had an area exclusively dedicated to skills needed for the efficient functioning of social life. This new area has been called the social brain, structured in the form of distinct, hierarchically arranged layers. It is these layers that reflect the closeness and intimacy of social relationships, the first four layers having values of 5, 15, 50 and 150. The values of the outermost layers are 500 and 1500. Thus, one can have maximum interaction and be intimate with five people. It has been often said that if one is able to have as many true friends as one has fingers on one hand, one is lucky! Robin Dunbar (2016) has proved with his research on the social brain that there is a neurological basis for this saying, because that is the maximum number that the closest layer can accommodate. As one moves further away from the core, a larger number of social interactions and relationships can be accommodated, but at the cost of decreasing intimacy; the less important will be the role of these relationships in the social life of individuals. The very size of the neocortical social brain decides the quality and the quantity of relationships that the brain can deal with efficiently and effectively. Even social networkers are understanding the importance of the Dunbar number, as reported by Ro (2019) of the BBC, pointing out that online networks exceeding more than 100 members becomes unwieldy and lacks group cohesiveness, with most people not being able to manage the vast amount of interactions required. Gandhi proposed a similar structure while discussing the optimal nature of communities. According to him, the ideal community should be arranged in the form of oceanic circles, concentric in nature, “ever widening never ascending” network of villages with the individual at the center. The similarity between such a community and that of the social brain is uncanny, and, amazing though it may seem, this person who had no

308 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

inkling of brain structures could envisage a community that could be best accommodated by the human brain. That such village structures are successful even in the twenty-first century is revealed by the countless village republics and eco-villages enumerated by Pim (2018). Even modern urban areas could learn a lesson or two. In order to avoid the high levels of alienation currently being witnessed in urban areas, it has been suggested that city residents should be able to establish “quasi villages” within their cities (Ro 2019), revealing that Gandhi’s idea of the village community holds for not just rural areas in developing countries but is also equally tenable for urban metropolitan areas of even highly developed nations. At the same time, research also points out that nonviolence, though adaptive, is not innate. The infant at birth, however, does manifest a nonviolent temperament, in that it responds to the cries of other infants, showing that it has the capacity to empathize. As the infant grows, it does so, not simply in terms of inches or pounds but also in terms of the acquisition of multifarious social skills through the process of socialization. Due to its interactions with significant others such as its parents, teachers and peer group, those behaviors that are reinforced by the culture are more likely to be inculcated in the growing child. Thus, in nonviolent cultures such as those isolated by Bonta (1993) or by Kool in Malana (and reported by Piazza and Dote 2013), the likelihood that nonviolent tendencies will not only be reinforced but also directly observed among role models acts as precursors for the furtherance of such nonviolence. A study of Gandhi’s childhood and youth (Chap. 2) clarifies how it was through his parents, family background and other people that the young Gandhi inculcated values that were to having lasting influences on him. Whether in good states or bad, it was these core values that dictated the behavioral choices he made. It can be said that though nonviolence did not manifest itself till much later in the life of Gandhi, the foundation was laid much earlier, on which was built the final structure, when it was deemed necessary. That nonviolence can be developed, and shaped, even in adulthood, is seen by the ways in which various people and their writings had such a deep influence upon Gandhi, helping him to chart out the specific course of action, he was to name Satyagraha. Experimenter that Gandhi professed to be, he used the results obtained on himself for furthering the cause of nonviolence among his followers. Understanding fully well that nonviolence can be developed even among those who are not so by nature, Gandhi perfected the art and science of the training in nonviolence, the effects of which were witnessed in the

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

309

Satyagrahas so successfully undertaken in various parts of India. Till today, people across the world are using the techniques used by Gandhi, based as they are on sound principles evolved by him, as witnessed by the recent resistance shown by the people of Hong Kong against the Chinese regime (reported by Billy Huang in the South China Morning Post, November, 2019). The title of Huang’s report said it all, namely, “Gandhi’s real lesson for Hong Kong in the midst of protests: cowardice is worse than using violence.” And, can we forget the protesters from all over the globe, over one billion of them, who used principles evolved by Gandhi and to whom the Time “Person of the Year” award was dedicated (Time, Rick Stengel 2011)? In the year 2012, Kool was invited to present his work in Germany. While there, he witnessed many of the nonviolent protests taking place in different parts of Germany. Figure 9.1 is a photograph of a Tunisian who was engaged in a nonviolent protest at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. The expression on his face and the body language are ample evidence of the active “soul force” that Gandhi focused on. The demeanor of the protester also reveals that he is not a coward, corroborating Gandhi’s constant emphasis on the idea that nonviolence is not for cowards.

Fig. 9.1  A protester from Tunisia at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin in the year 2012

310 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

The Building Blocks of Nonviolence Gandhi was not engaging in armchair theorization. Nor was he a philosopher. He was a die-hard practitioner of the science of nonviolence, practicing it not only in his personal life but also using it in the social and political domains. A thorough analysis of the elements or the building blocks of Gandhian nonviolence reveals that each one of them is corroborated by sound psychological research. Whether it is the practice of self-control and the role of vows, of love and compassion, or even of self-sacrifice and morality, empirical research has revealed that the methods followed by Gandhi were scientific to the core. Thus, decades back, when psychology was not even born as an independent discipline, Gandhi crystallized aspects which he then wove together to form the fabric of nonviolence. He could accomplish this because each element was based on “Truth” which is everlasting, which is the ultimate reality. This is, also, the reason, why his life continues to inspire people almost a hundred years since the first conception of Gandhian ahimsa. Even as we celebrate the 150th birth anniversary of Gandhi, his life continues to inspire many across the globe. Jeff Bezos, CEO of the giant e-tailer, Amazon, on his visit to India, paid his respects to the great leader, quoting Gandhi as, Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. (Bezos 2020)

As has been said, “war lives in the minds of people.” Living a life as advocated by Gandhi, based on self-control, moral concerns, love, compassion and self-sacrifice, would lead to justice and equity for all, minimizing conflicts and lowering the multiple lines that divide people in terms of multifarious parameters. That this is possible has been validated by empirical research in psychology as also in the social and cognitive neurosciences. As stated earlier in this book, psychology has, for a long time, been focusing on the negative aspects of human behavior, for example, aggression, with continued neglect of positive behaviors such as nonviolence. While recent research has seen the shift to positive aspects of behavior and the consequent rise of positive psychology, such developments have been bumpy, if not insufficient, to say the least. In contrast, in the holy scriptures of all religions of the world, we find abundant inscriptions regarding

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

311

the greatest virtue of humanity, namely, the wisdom inherent in the human being. Yet, barring a few laboratories in the world, wisdom, as a precise mental feature, is being scantly explored. Well, the consolation is that research on wisdom has now begun (Sternberg et al. 2019), though it is still at a very nascent stage. Until such time that we are able to delineate the roots of and explore into development of wisdom, the contributions of Gandhi, who may well be said to be one of the wisest person of the previous century, would remain undervalued. The behavior of those who obeyed and those who disobeyed Milgram’s instructions have been analyzed through the use of various other theoretical frameworks, not the least important among which is Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (SIT) and the creation of the social identity of a person. It is this social identity which is, generally, the guiding spirit behind the ways in which one interacts with the in-group and the out-group. It has been proposed that the behavior of those who obeyed was a manifestation of the “good follower effect” or what can be termed the “engaged follower effect.” If the obedient subjects were engaged with the scientific community (they were participating in the experiment for the advancement of the science of psychology), who and what were the disobedient subjects showing an engagement with? It has been proposed that the obedient were revealing their propensity to engage with the system of authority. What about those who were disobedient? It is clear that the latter were engaged to their value systems (nurtured by their parents and significant others) and to their self-concepts. Through disobedience, it was possible for these subjects as well as Gandhi and his followers to enable the preservation of the self, and, to even the development of the self in contrast to the position taken by the obedient—they were tending toward a destruction of the self by going against their value system causing the very erosion of the values that had been inculcated in them. Here again, one sees the strong parallel between Gandhi and Milgram’s subjects. For Gandhi, it was his inner voice that was all that was important. Like the value system of the disobedient subjects, Gandhi’s value system, the seeds of which were planted by his parents in his childhood, nurtured by the religious influences in his youth and brought to flower through his interactions with people such as Tolstoy, Thoreau and Raychand (see Fig. 2.1 in Chap. 2), was the first and the last priority. His capacity to endure physical hardship, even physical torture, his spurning of all social entrapping was in a class of its own, and all that mattered was the never ending search for Truth. Gandhi’s Truth was spectacular. This was the “Truth”

312 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

for which he lived and experimented throughout his life. For him, this “Truth” was greater than God; “Truth was religion.” Probably, it was this level of self-development and constant evolution through which he inculcated moral inclusionary practice, and that made Maslow opine that Gandhi was one of those few people who could be said to have reached the zenith of the needs hierarchy. Gandhi was in the constant search of self-­ actualization, and professed that lower-order needs such as the physiological, security and social needs should not cause a regression in our survival, especially as far as our solidarity with fellow human beings and Nature is concerned. So great was the importance of social inclusion for Gandhi, that when it came to choosing between God and alleviation of poverty, he preferred to choose the latter, asking, “is it possible to talk of God to a person who is on the point of starvation?” It was the hardships being faced by the people, both in South Africa and in India that had a far greater meaning for him. At the same time, it took everyone in its fold, not only people of all castes and creed, but in fact, all of nature. For Gandhi, there were no enemies, no opponents. Yet, in his own characteristic manner and in keeping with his high standards of moral inclusiveness, he refrained from keeping company with violence but he could see no reason for hating the people who indulged in violence. Opotow (2013) has analyzed how Gandhi remained morally inclusive under the very trying conditions in South Africa. Gandhi went a step further, even when other people erred, he took these mistakes upon himself, feeling that the mistake was, in all probability his, not that of the erring person. Can this not be said to be moral inclusion of the highest order, which was not “divided by narrow domestic walls” as professed by the noted Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore, who conferred the title of “Mahatma” on Gandhi. In fact, Gandhi was far too advanced for his times in the way in which he envisioned the ideal person as one who, at the core, was a profound individualist, practicing self-control but using it for collectivist ventures in working for the social good (Sanghavi 2006: Gandhi: The Agony of Arrival). It was, probably, because of virtues such as these that in Gandhi, Erikson (1969) saw a unique blend of individual identity being formed through his social affiliations to the extent that Gandhi recognized that the “realization of Truth is impossible without a complete merging of oneself in and identification with this limitless ocean of life” (Gandhi 1936), leading to the establishment of a super identity with moral

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

313

inclusion of the highest order, including not only humans but all things sentient in nature. For Gandhi, it was Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (Nature is my family). The role of each and every person was that of a trustee on whom would rest the responsibility of taking care of Mother Earth. One can well understand how such a line of thinking would help alleviate many of the problems of climate change caused by environmental degradation at the hands of human beings. Among Milgram’s subjects were those who were showing obedience to authority which is said to derive from power. What is the basis of such power? Is it not, as professed by Gene Sharp, the Machiavelli of nonviolence, that power is derived from those over whom that power is to be exercised? Like Milgram’s disobedient subjects, Gandhi refused to accept the power of the so-called person in power, thereby causing an utter erosion of authority. No amount of prodding by the experimenter Milgram could convince these subjects to accept what they considered injustice. Along the same lines, from the very first incident at Pietermaritzburg station on that cold, wintery night, Gandhi adamantly refused to accept the authority of the officers who ordered him to leave the first class compartment. Established theories of leadership, for example, Fiedler’s contingency model (Fiedler 1978), will also vouch for the fact that the power of the leader is dependent to a considerable degree on the extent to which the members are ready to acknowledge that power and resulting authority. Developed in the 1970s, Fiedler’s theory remains a classic leadership theory even after so many decades. Gandhi had the firm belief that the genuineness of leadership is rooted in the purity of the goals and the means that the leader offers in leading them. Gandhi was a great admirer of Hindu holy book, Bhagvad Gita, in which it is clearly stated that whenever there would be evil, an incarnation of Lord Krishna would be born so as to ameliorate the difficulties of humanity. On one of his visits to Belgaum (in south India) in the year 2013, Kool found it difficult to believe what he heard: that thousands of local people, who had no knowledge of the language spoken by Gandhi (India has over 22 languages spoken) had gathered to listen to him in 1916 and later in 1924. All that mattered to them was that they knew that their leader had pious means which would help to serve their goal for independence. In a similar vein, thousands of Indians followed Gandhi as satyagrahis, contributing to the funds of his organization, even in the face of abject poverty, and helping to raise the size of the organization to more than two million.

314 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

According to Nish Acharya’s (2019) article in the Forbes magazine, Gandhi’s leadership is exemplary for understanding organizational management. Notwithstanding the corporate greed of the current millennium, Gandhi provided practical examples from the lives of ordinary people, on a concept that is still being debated about, namely, corporate responsibility (Balakishan et al. 2017). There so much to learn from Gandhi. While on the subject of leadership, comparing and contrasting the nature of leadership shown by Milgram and that of Gandhi would help draw further insight into value-based disobedience. Throughout the experiment, Milgram had an extensive and intensive role to play. For even those subjects who complied, it was often due to the prods by Milgram, the proddings becoming more intense as the subjects started moving toward noncompliance. What would have happened if Milgram had not been present, or if he had remained in the background, as a passive experimenter, simply recording the events? These are conditions similar to the variations of the experiment performed by Milgram himself (discussed in Chap. 1 of this volume). There were variations in which the experimenter was in another room, or, in which there were two authorities arguing with each other. In both these variations, compliance came down to 10%. As pointed out in Chap. 1, these were situations in which the subject could not blindly obey, she/he was forced to stop and think and then take the decision. So, when the proddings were not there, compliance fell dramatically. Gandhi, as a leader, was in a class of its own. He certainly was a leader who led from the front, who led by example. Never would he ask his followers to do anything that he would not or could not do himself. At the same time, once the Satyagrahas were underway, his role as a leader relegated to the background. This was possible because of the intense training of the satyagrahis, inculcating in them, a sense of discipline and commitment, comparable only to that of the armed forces of any nation. Yet, different from training imparted in the armed forces which focuses on physical aspects, training for Satyagraha was to a very great extent mental. Chapter 8 on the cognition of nonviolence has brought this to the fore. Gandhi’s charisma lay in his deep understanding of the minds of his followers, of how difficult it was to follow the path of nonviolence. Using this keen perception of both the people and the situation, he created schemas and scripts through which the various nuances of nonviolence gained clarity in the minds of his followers. This was coupled with stern vows,

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

315

which, Gandhi had found through his own experiments to be of utmost value in keeping temptation at bay. Gandhi did not need to prod his followers. They operated on their conviction, their “inner voice,” based on the evolutionarily retained aspects of love and compassion for all. Obedience to authority uses coercion or brute force; Gandhi used soul force. This also explains the behavior of Milgram’s noncomplying subjects. No amount of prodding could make some of deliver higher levels of shocks once they had made up their minds that they would go no further. For those who refused to participate from the very beginning, persuasion even in terms of serving the cause of science was of no use. As pointed out in Chap. 1, obeying seems to follow two types of reasoning: the indicative reason and the intrinsic reason. For them, the trappings of the university and the professor were only indicative reasons. The real reason, or the intrinsic reason, for their choice of compliance/noncompliance was their conscience, very similar to Gandhi’s inner voice. Thus, an analysis of Gandhian nonviolence also helps us understand the complex reasoning followed by people who choose to obey or disobey. The different variations under which Milgram conducted his experiment clearly bring to the fore, many instances of how disobedience to unjust and oppressive authority can be fostered. There was one variation in which there was a role model for disobedience, and noncompliance increased to more than 90%. This provides an excellent example of how nonviolent campaigns often work. Further, if two authorities arguing with each other drops compliance to near zero, then the situation is similar to what happens when the dictatorship and the church are arguing, as happened in the Philippines? Or, even during the Holocaust, when there were people who preferred to listen to the voice of the church rather than that of Hitler. As analyzed in the chapter on cognition, namely, Chap. 8, people who follow their inner voice can be primed, or, their level of nonviolence can be boosted, but mere nudges fail to produce the results that are generally seen otherwise. It may, therefore, be concluded that while Gandhi was constantly evolving, building new strategies and arriving at yet higher levels of self-­ development, he was also helping his followers in their personal development. He, certainly, had a charisma as evidenced by his hold over them, but he never used this charisma for vested personal interests. It was always positive use of charisma, for the benefit of his followers. In fact, so great was his charisma that he would charm even high-ranking British

316 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

officers. In this he was truly a transformational leader, rather than simply being a transactional one (Yukl 2002), helping his followers to attain such heights of thought, speech and action that they themselves may never have dreamt of before. One of the foremost developments of modern day psychology has been the advances in the understanding of human cognition. Today, using imaging techniques such as fMRI, scientists are able to arrive at the exact neural basis of different cognitive processes, the ways in which these techniques are being used and the extent to which they are used. Theories, such as prospect theory and systems of thinking (Kahneman 2011), have not only increased our understanding of human decision making in general but have also revealed much about decision making in the realm of economics and finance. Amazing though it may seem, these very theories, which have helped to unravel the mysteries of human decision making in what has been called behavioral economics, and concepts such as nudging and boosting (Tagliabue et al. 2019; Isaac 2017) are also helping us to draw insights into the decisions behind violence versus nonviolence. The analysis of the ingenious ways through which Gandhi influenced his followers to develop in them his creed of nonviolence reveals that they are amply validated by what we know about human cognition today. We have sufficient research to show that the techniques used by Gandhi were sound and have been corroborated by empirical research in the complex domain of human cognition. Today, psychology has named these techniques; we may refer to them as priming, nudging and boosting or we may label them as schemas and scripts—it is these that Gandhi was also implementing, and doing so extremely successfully, in his attempts to wean people away from violence and toward nonviolence. In the process, not only did he change the perceptions of his followers but also that of the oppressors. Even stern British officers, such as General Smuts, and judges in the South African courts were unable to go against the values being upheld by Gandhi, and were often forced to reconcile with him and give in to his demands. If you had seen Lord Attenborough’s movie, Gandhi, you might recall how the British judge stood up to pay respect to the criminal Gandhi when he entered the court room for his trial for violating British law! Protesters of today would do well to analyze some of these methods of changing perceptions and conceptions along with their adoption of many of the nonviolent techniques used by Gandhi. More than half a century back, Gordon Allport advocated the open systems approach to the understanding of human personality, of seeing

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

317

humans in constant interaction with the environment, dynamic and capable of becoming and not simply being (Allport 1954). One can well think of Satyagraha as a means to such an open system. In short, Gandhian nonviolence was not a simple strategy for the attainment of independence: it was a way of life that has to be embraced whole-­ heartedly in order to become a true satyagrahi; it is the sense of “becoming” by resolving the many psychosocial crises that come along its way. At the same time, the satyagrahi had to ensure that in-group, interpersonal conflicts did not thwart the growth of the individual and to stymie social relationships. Gandhi provided a means of revealing the human capacity of being able to rise above adversity, and for hardiness and resiliency. These are known to be the basis of the ordinary magic of nonviolent individuals, qualities recognized by modern psychology to be the very ingredients for coping with stress and wellbeing. Thus, Gandhi went a step ahead of self-­ actualization, providing satyagrahis the ways and means for personal growth and ripeness (Coleman 1997), the motivation for avoiding conflicts and instead seeking negotiation. Other analyses have revealed the complex ways in which this difference between “being” and “becoming” can help in the current paradoxes of the twenty-first century world (Jing and Van de Ven 2016), helping us to grow and show the dynamism so necessary today. Gandhi understood the capacity of humans to transform themselves through the chosen path, namely, that of nonviolence, and even self-suffering, and has offered countless ways to help lead people toward the successful resolution of the Ericksonian crisis of generativity versus despair (Kool and Agrawal 2018).

The Science of Gandhi’s Nonviolence: A Vision for the Future Many decades earlier, Gandhi had warned us of the consequences of not being aligned to Mother Nature: today we are reaping what we have sowed through the ages. Many of the problems of the modern world would not have manifested themselves if we had paid heed to and lived by at least some of the principles enunciated by Gandhi. As far as psychology is concerned, the previous chapters have very clearly shown that there is much that we can learn from him, and through the application of his practices, the discipline of psychology and that of the sister disciplines in the social sciences can become richer. The philosophy of Gandhi can be

318 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

applied to many areas of psychology, ranging from the psychology of morality and religion to that of education, community psychology and organizational behavior. While a variety of problems continue to harangue the world today, many of them, notably those emanating from climate change and rapid advances in science and technology, can be understood and remedies found through the application of Gandhian wisdom. Probably the best proof of the validity of Gandhian thinking is its corroboration by a large number of notable thinkers, including Nobel Laureates, from around the world such as Paul Crutzen and Martin Rees. It has been proposed by scientists that the Geocene has drawn to a close, and we are witnessing an Anthropocene. Today, it would not be right to profess that it is a case of humans versus nature. Rather, it is we who are responsible for nature and the world as it is today; it is a case of “we are nature.” Thus, if we are responsible for the massive changes that the earth is witnessing today, physical, social, psychological and even geo-political and geo-social, it is only apt that we attempt to take earth forward, help it to move fast forward rather than in back gear. By entering into what has been termed the noosphere (de Chardin 1959), we have gained an unprecedented technological potency, capable of being responsible for the very destiny of life. Simultaneously, torn as we always are by the moral crisis caused by increasing power on the one hand and self-restraint on the other, it is for us to decide our future. As put by Julia Nordblad (2014): The evolution of the noosphere must go in the direction that helps hold humanity together. The noosphere has a set evolutionary direction. Humans have no choice but to obey. (Nordblad 2014, p. 39)

On the basis of the research and theorization, it would not be wrong to say that Gandhi had been, truly, able to develop a science and a psychology of nonviolence. While there has been a Division of Peace Psychology (Division 48) in the American Psychological Association, it is unfortunate that we do not have a journal devoted to Time magazine’s over one billion protesters. Protesters from around the world are using the techniques advocated by Gandhi with considerable success. There are a few universities around the world that run courses on nonviolence, but many of them would be from the angle of political science or sociology, with just a couple from the standpoint of psychology. One of the reasons for this is the lack of comprehensive books on the subject,

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

319

making professors wary of introducing a course on the psychology of nonviolence. Through this book, we have attempted, in our own small way, to present the life and work of Gandhi. While ahimsa or nonviolence was the philosophy he attempted to use and to propagate, Satyagraha was the specific technique or the art of using nonviolence. Thus, Gandhi gave us a legacy, consisting of both a theory and the ways of using the theory in a sound scientific manner. What remains for us is to make use of this legacy to solve many of the problems of the twenty-first century. The choice is ours and this choice has been stated very succinctly by no other than the Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen: Will the Anthropocene simply turn out to be a very short era in which humanity blindly careers forward, continuing to transform the earth until the planet loses its capacity to support us? Or might humanity rise to the challenge posed by Vernadsky, becoming the reflective, thinking and proactive agent that transforms the biosphere into a noosphere, and consciously striving to shape a niche for ourselves in a sustainable Anthropocene? (Clark et al. 2004, p. 6)

Not to say the least, it was this “reflective, thinking, proactive agent” that a thorough analysis of the life and work of that one man, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, can help us to transform ourselves into. As late as in 1965, Karl Popper wrote: What we want is to understand how such nonphysical things such as purposes, deliberations, plans, decisions, theories, tensions and values can play a part in bringing about physical changes in a physical world. (Popper, cf Skinner 1971, p. 10)

In 2013, one of the present authors, namely, Kool, was invited to contribute a paper on the role of Gandhian philosophy and practice in clinical and mental health. In his paper, entitled, “Applications of Gandhian concepts in psychology and allied disciplines,” Kool pointed out the various ways through which psychology can be enriched by Gandhian concepts. Kool (2013) is of the view: that Gandhi, as an engineer of the non-violent mind, gave us insights into discovering our own psychological capital: Seeking a non-violent solution over a violent one, winning the adversary with continued love and trust,

320 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

being morally inclusive, mitigating the boundaries between us and them (attribution theory), developing a sense of self-efficacy, bridging the gap between one’s attitude and behavior, and managing self-control–are all such topics in modern psychology that are being studied by leading psychologists of our time. There is, however, a need for further enrichment of these areas from the perspective of non-violence so as to enrich the understanding of our own psychological capital. (Kool 2013, p. S238)

It is with regard to these very things that Gandhi showed the way, of how with a commitment to truth, even nonphysical things can be used to bring about physical changes. The least we can say is that it has been tried in the past and is being tried today, and, as proved by the historical analysis by Chenoweth and Stephan (2011), nonviolent revolutions are twice as likely to succeed vis-à-vis violent ones. As Stricker (2000) wrote in the American Psychologist, “Gandhi is right again.”

References Acharya, N. (2019). How would Mahatma Gandhi build his movement today? Forbes, forbes.com, October 31. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Appel, J. M. (2019). Rethinking the infamous Milgram experiment in authoritarian times. Scientific American, blogs.scientificamerican.com, September 9. Balakishan, J., Malhotra, A., & Falkenberg, L. (2017, March). Multi-level corporate responsibility: A comparison of Gandhi’s trusteeship with stakeholder and stewardship frameworks. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1). https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-015-2687-0. Bonta, B. D. (1993). Peaceful peoples: An annotated bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., et al. (1998). Adaptation, exaptation and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533–548. de Chardin, P. T. (1959). The phenomenon of man. Manhattan, NY: Harper and Row. Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. New York: Columbia University Press. Clark, W. C., Crutzen, P. J., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2004). Science for global sustainability. In H.  J. Schellnhuber, P.  J. Crutzen, W.  C. Clark, C.  Martin, & H.  Hermann (Eds.), Earth systems analysis for sustainability (pp.  1–28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Coleman, P.  T. (1997). Redifining ripeness: A social psychological perspective. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 3, 81–103.

9  EPILOGUE: SUMMING UP ON THE SCIENCE OF GANDHI’S PSYCHOLOGY… 

321

Dunbar, R. (2016). Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks? Royal Society Open Science, January 20. Erikson, E. (1969). Gandhi’s truth. New York: Norton. Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology, Volume II. New York: Academic Press. Gandhi, M. K. (1936). In S. Radhakrishnan & J. H. Muirhead (Eds.), Contemporary Indian philosophy. Taylor & Francis e-books. Gould, S.  J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool for evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 43–65. Huang, B. (2019). Gandhi’s real lesson for Hong Kong in the midst of protests: Cowardice is worse than using violence. South China Morning Post, scmp.com, November 28. India Today. (2020). Amazon’s Jeff Bezos visits India, invokes Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings at his memorial. January 15. Isaac, A. (2017). ‘Nudge’ guru Richard Thaler wins the Nobel Prize for economics. The Telegraph, October, 9. telegraph.co.uk. Jing, R., & Van de Ven, A. (2016). Being versus becoming ontology of paradox management. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(4), 558–562. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan. Kool, V.  K. (Ed.). (1993). Nonviolence: Social and psychological issues. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kool, V.  K. (2008). The psychology of nonviolence and aggression. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kool, V. K. (2013). Applications of Gandhian concepts in psychology and allied disciplines. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 235–238. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2016). Psychology of technology. Switzerland: Springer. Kool, V. K., & Agrawal, R. (2018). Gandhian philosophy for living in the modern world: Lessons from the psychology of Satyagraha. In S.  Fernando & R.  Moodley (Eds.), Global psychologies: Mental health and the global South. Switzerland: Springer. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper. Nordblad, J. (2014). The future of the noosphere. E-journal. Forum Inter disziplinare begriffsgeschichte, 2,3 jg. Opotow, S. (2013). Gandhi’s inclusionary trajectory in South Africa. Gandhi Marg, 35, 541–560. Piazza, E., & Dote, D. (2013). Modern psychology, Gandhi and peace cultures with special reference to Malana. Gandhi Marg, 35, 619–630. Pim, J. E. (2018). Exploring the village republic: Behavioral processes and systems of peace. In P. Verbeek & B. A. Peters (Eds.), Peace ethology: Behavioral processes and systems of peace. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

322 

V. K. KOOL AND R. AGRAWAL

Ro, C. (2019). Dunbar’s number: Why we can only maintain 150 relationships. BBC Future, October 9. Sanghavi, N.  D. (2006). Gandhi: The agony of arrival, the South African years. New Delhi: Rupa. Skinner, B.  F. (1971). Beyond dignity and freedom. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. Stengel, R. (2011). Introduction: Person of the Year. Time, Wednesday, December 14. Sternberg, R. J., Nusbaum, H. C., & Gluck, J. (2019). Applying wisdom to contemporary problems. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Stricker, G. (2000). The scientist practitioner model: Gandhi was right again. American Psychologist, 55, 254. Tagliabue, M., Squatrito, V., & Presti, G. (2019). Models of cognition and their applications in behavioral economics: A conceptual framework for nudging derived from behavior analysis and relational frame theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2418. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02418. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2019.02418. Yang, Y. Y., Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., & Volkow, N. D. (2015). Circuitry of self control and its role in reducing addiction. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19(8), 439–444. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Singapore: Pearson Education.

Author Index

A Abend, L., 57 Acharya, N., 314 Ackerman, P., 43, 44, 55 Adolphs, R., 139, 152 Agrawal, R., vi–ix, xi, 6, 19, 64, 65, 67, 80, 88, 98, 109, 115, 126, 133, 134, 143, 180, 200, 225, 269, 271, 273, 307, 317 Ainslie, G., 108, 109 Akins, C., 146 Algoe, S. B., 142, 144 Allport, G. W., 199, 316, 317 Amodio, D.M., 150 Anderson, C. A., 244, 279 Appel, J. M., 27, 304 Ashraf, R., 182, 249 Asthana, H. S., 179 Atran, S., 8, 230, 295 B Balakishan, J., 314 Bandura, A., ix, 184, 199, 279 Banerjee, M., 54

Bang-chun, L., 182 Bartels, A., 139 Bartels, D. M., 270 Bass, B. M., 233 Baumeister, R. F., 210, 213–215, 220, 222, 253, 288 Baumgardner, S. R., 179, 180 Beauvois, J. L., 8 Bélanger, J., 227 Bélanger, J. J., 227, 228, 230, 233, 234 Bem, D. J., 233 Benjamin, L. T., 3 Berscheid, E., 202 Bhatia, E., 52 Bhatt, E., x, 72, 90 Bhatt, R., x, 84–87, 89, 90 Bhattacharya, S., 52 Bhushan, B., vii Biernaskie, J. M., 128 Bigler, R. S., 290 Blakemore, S.J., 150, 153 Bocchiaro, P., 14 Boesch, C., 132, 133

© The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8

323

324 

AUTHOR INDEX

Bondurant, J. V., 116, 118, 170, 236, 277 Bonta, B. D., 292, 308 Bose, N. K., 137 Bosworth, K., 183 Boulding, K. E., vi, viii, 20, 22–25, 104, 236–238 Bowles, S., 136, 153 Boyden, J., 210 Branaz-Garza, P., 269 Brass, M., 219 Brothers, L., 139, 150 Brown, J., 45 Brown, J. E., 246 Buckner, R. L., 152, 156 Buhrmester, M. D., 230, 231 Burger, J. M., 8 Burgess, H., 290 Burstein, E., 131 Buss, D. M., 307 Butigan, K., 241, 266, 296 C Carrillo, M., 146 Carter, C. S., 141, 142 Carter, E. C., 215 Caspar, E. A., 14, 219 Cheney, D.L., 133 Chenoweth, E., 25, 91, 169, 320 Choi, Y., 234 Choleris, E., 139 Churchland, P. S., 142 Clark, W. A. V., 268 Clark, W. C., 319 Clutton-Brock, T., 130, 132 Cohen, R., 50, 51 Cohrs, J. C., 184 Conger, J. A., 233 Cornwallis, C. K., 130 Cortright, D., 47–49, 119, 206 Costa, P. T., 177, 249

Craven, R. G., 174, 183 Csibra, G., 150 Csikszentmihalyi, M., 20, 140 D Damasio, H., 150 Danziger, S., 214 Darwin, C., 17, 127, 131, 200 Davidson, D. W., 227 Davies, N.B., 130 Davis, M. H., 135 de Chardin, P. T., 318 De Dreu, C. K. W., 144 De Martino, B., 270 de Waal, F. B. M., 129, 131, 135, 146, 291 Dehghani, M., 225 Deutsch, M., 199 DeWall, C.N., 214, 215 Dharmadhikari, A. D., 77, 78, 276, 277 Dharmadhikari, C., x, 62, 77–79, 89, 90 Dillon, A., 120 Doke, J. J., 45 Dolinski, D., 8 Dote, D., 292, 308 Dreher, J. C., 139 Droba, D. D., 184 Du, E., 136 Dunbar, R. I., 151, 152, 154 DuVal, E. H., 132 E Eckstein, D., 174, 183 Edy, J. A., 269 Eisnberger, N. I., 149 Elliott, G. C., 174–175, 181 Englert, C., 217 Erikson, E., 16, 18, 19, 80, 153, 171, 173, 199, 287, 312

  AUTHOR INDEX 

F Fehr, B., 202 Fehr, E., 136, 153, 156 Ferrari, P.F., 146 Feshbach, S., 199 Fetherstonhaugh, D., 270 Fiedler, F. E., 313 Fields, R. M., 225 Filevich, E., 219 Finkel, E. J., 215, 217 Fisher, L., 35 Fisher, R., 236 Fiske, S. T., 8, 197 Flanagan, O., 206 Folger, J. P., 280 Fredrickson, B. L., 203 French, J. R. P., 168, 228, 239 Freud, S., 18, 20, 199, 203, 211, 249 Frith, C.D., 136, 150, 152 Fujita, K., 216, 218 Funk, C. M., 149 G Gächter, S., 136, 153, 156 Gaertner, S. L., 281 Gailliot, M.T., 214 Gallese, V., 146 Galperin, A., 200 Galtung, J., vi, 20, 22–23, 25 Gamliel, E., 269 Gandhi, M. K., 7, 35–59, 62–91, 95–121, 126, 167, 195, 269, 303–320 Gandhi, R., 53, 59 Gangrade, K. D., 137, 285, 286 Gardner, A., 128, 152, 156 Gardner, H., x Gardner, R., 289 Gazzaniga, M. S., 149 Gazzola, V., 146 Geetha,V., 95

325

Gerstein, L. H., 182 Gibson, S., 14, 15 Gilligan, C., 20, 154, 199, 203, 207–209 Gimpi, G., 139 Goedhals, M., 44 Gokani, U., x, 82, 83, 90 Gollwitzer, P. M., 218 Gore, J., 132 Gottfredson, M. R., 212, 220 Gould, S. J., 307 Gozalez-forero, M., 156 Green, L., 109, 283 Gregg, R. B., vii, 48, 113–115, 265, 266, 273–275, 296 Griffin, A, S., 128, 130 Grinker, R. R., 19 Grussendorf, J., 184 Guha, R., 35, 39, 110, 111, 116, 275 H Hagger, M.S., 214–216 Hammock, G., 178, 180 Hare, A. P., 171 Hare, T. A., 219 Haruno, M., 136 Hasan, Q., 174, 183 Haslam, S. A., 9, 288 Hattori, Y., 131 Hauser, M.D., 131, 231 Heaven, P. C., 174 Heider, F., 178 Heinsohn, R., 128 Helson, H., 107 Hendrick, C., 201 Herman, T., 16, 172 Herr, C., 184 Hertwig, R., 282, 285, 286 Hewstone, M., 289, 290 Heyes, C., 147 Hogg, M. A., 289

326 

AUTHOR INDEX

Hollander, M. M., 13, 26 Hsu, M., 136 Huang, B., 309 Huebner, B., 231 I Indraneelk, 94, 95 Inzlicht, M., 217, 222 Ironson, G., 200 Isaac, A., 282 J Jacobs, G. M., 130 Jahanbegloo, R., 28 James, W., 15–18, 25, 198, 199 Jarnecke, A. M., 142 Jarrett, C.B., 147 Jing, R., 317 Johanson, J., 98 Johnson, M. D., 288 Johnson, P., 174, 183 Jost, J. T., 229 Judge, P. G., 133 K Kahneman, D., 6, 26, 88, 109, 267–274, 281, 282, 316 Kalarthi, N., x, 62, 67, 89, 90, 96, 120 Kallbekken, S., 283 Kant, I., 274 Kapoor, P., 62, 97 Kelman, H. C., 199 Keum, S., 146 Keyfitz, N., 23 Keysers, C., 134, 146, 147 Khaminwa, A. N., 290 Kilner, J. M., 148

Kirby, K. N., 109, 216 Kirkpatrick, D. D., 225 Klot, J., 210 Knoch, D., 136 Kohlberg, L., 20, 89, 154, 199, 203–208 Konen, K., 181 Kool, V. K., vi, vii, ix, xi, 6, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 65, 72, 74, 75, 77, 83, 85, 88, 98, 109, 126, 133, 134, 143, 170, 173–180, 198, 200, 209, 220, 225, 236, 239, 247–253, 269, 271, 273, 292, 297, 305, 307–309, 313, 317, 319, 320 Kosfeld, M., 143 Kozyrev, Y., 11, 57 Kraft, K., 246 Kruglanski, A. W., 229, 232 Kulkarni, S., x, 64, 83, 90 Kummer, H., 129 Kurzweil, R., 157, 168 L Ledgerwood, A., 280 LeDoux, J.E., 150 Lee, H. J., 126, 140 Lee, J. A., 201 Lee, N., 202, 216 Lefevre, A., 139 Lehrer, J. (2008), 145 Levy, S. G., 184 Lin, H. F., 281 Lockwood, P.L., 135 Lopez, R., 149 Loroz, P., 269 Loye, D., 200 Lucas, H., 199, 200 Lutzoni, F., 130

  AUTHOR INDEX 

M MacGill, M., 140, 144 MacMullen, I., 200 Macnair, R. M., 98 Maher, J. P., 200 Martin, B., 240 Martin, G. B., 135, 168 Maschwitz, U., 227 Maslow, A. H., 20, 25, 199, 288, 312 Massen, J. J., 128, 129 Matsumoto, M., 177, 180 May, R., 16, 20, 25, 199, 209, 238–239 Mayer, J. D., 248 Mayton, D. M., 13, 103, 113, 174, 175, 177, 180–183, 197, 244–247, 249 McAlister, A. L., 184 McCarthy, R. M., 197 McClelland, D. C., 238, 288 McGonigal, K., 211 Mead, N.L., 215 Melis, A.P., 131 Milyavskaya, M., 217, 222 Mischel, W., 211, 212 Moller, A. C., 218 Montagu, A., 292 Motlagh, J., 56 Moulana, S. H., 61, 99, 100 Muraven, M., 217, 218 Murray, H., v, vii, 95, 121, 137, 173, 253, 294, 296, 297 N Nachev, P., 219 Nagler, M. N., ix, 119, 120 Nave, G., 140, 142 Neff, L. A., 202 Neisser, U., 267 Nelson, L. L., 184, 244, 279 Neubauer, S., 152 Nordblad, J., 318

327

O Ochsner, K. N., 149 Oeten, M., 216 Olivola, C. Y., 228 Onishi, K. H., 135 Opotow, S., 291, 312 P Packer, D. J., 13, 128 Parikh, N., x, 73, 74 Parvez, H., 227 Passinin, S., 13 Piaget, J., 154, 203, 204, 207, 274 Piazza, E., 292, 308 Pim, J. E., 156, 157, 308 Posner, M.I., 219–221, 306 Pratt, M., 21 Preston, S.D., 135, 146 R Rachlin, H., 283 Ramachandran, V. S., 147, 148 Rao, K. R., vii Reese, G., 288 Refardt, D., 227 Regan, D. H., 26 Reiss, H., 135, 147 Richeson, J. A., 215 Rip, B., 200 Rizzolatti, G., 145, 146 Ro, C., 307, 308 Robinson, E. J. H., 132 Rochat, F., 9 Rodrigues, S. M., 140 Rogers, C., 20, 199 Ruff, C. C., 136 Ruskin, J., 35, 41–43, 45, 94, 112, 275, 293 Russell, N. J. C., x, 2 Ryan, R. M., 218

328 

AUTHOR INDEX

S Sachdeva, S., 225, 231 Sahibzada, J., 105 Salt, H. S., 35–37 Sanderson, C. A., 206 Sanghavi, N. D., x, 62 Scheele, D., 140 Schumpe, B. M., 233 Schwartz, S., 291 Schwebel, M., 291 Seligman, M., 138 Sen, M., 12, 174–180, 220, 247, 249 Sestir, M. A., 279 Seymour, B., 270 Shalvi, S., 144 Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., 144 Shapiro, S. P., 290 Sharp, G., vi, 20–23, 25, 171, 239–243, 280, 313 Sheldon, K. M., 218 Sherif, M., 132 Shermer, M., 9, 26 Shu, L. L., 283 Simon, H. A., 286 Sims, G., 244 Singer, T., 140 Skinner, B. F., viii, 16, 19, 25, 197, 199, 225, 266, 319 Slaby, R. G., 174, 183 Slater, M., 8 Sorokin, P., 200 Southgate, V., 135 Spitzer, M., 136 Stagner, R., 184, 199 Stanley, D. A., vi, 149 Stapel, D. A., 281 Staub, E., 7 Stein, J. S., 109 Stengel, R., 11, 12, 309 Stephan, M. J., 25, 91, 169, 320

Sternberg, R. J., x, 198, 201, 311 Stevens, J. R., 153 Stricker, G., viii, 320 Sudrajat, D., 182 Summy, R. V., 241–244 Sunstein, C. R., 281, 282, 284 Surian, L., 135 Suu Kyi, A. S., 46, 51–53, 243 Swan, M., 93–95 Swann, W. B. Jr., 230–232 T Tagliabue, M., 282, 284, 316 Tajfel, H., 287, 291, 311 Thakkar, N., 84, 85 Thaler, R., 281–284, 316 Thoreau, H. D., 21, 42–45, 110, 275, 311 Tolman, C. E., 16, 20, 199 Tolstoy, L., 18, 35, 37–39, 41, 43–45, 94, 224, 243, 275, 293, 311 Tomasello, M., 131, 135 Turkle, S., 157 Turner, J. C., 288 Tversky, A., 6, 267, 269, 270 U Ubel, P. A., 270 Underwood, L. G., 202 V van Goelst Meijer, S. L. E., 103, 104 Vansteenkiste, M., 218 van't Wout, M., 149 Verbeck, P., 291 Vignoles, V. L., 288 Vohs, K.D., 215, 222

  AUTHOR INDEX 

W Wangchuk, R. N., 53 Warneken, F., 135 Webber, D., 229 Weber, T., vii, 63 Wessells, M. G., 210 Westcoat, J. L. Jr., 237 Whitehouse, H., 232 Whiteman, H., 144 Wicker, B., 146 Wilde, O., 28 Wilk, J., 282 Willems, E.P., 132 Wills, M., 239

Winerman, L., 147 Wittig, R. M., 132, 133 Y Yamagishi, T., 136 Yang, Y.Y., 219, 306 Yukl,G., 316 Z Zak, P. J., 125, 139, 143, 144 Zaki J., 146 Zeki, S., 139 Zhang, F., 130 Zimbardo, P. G., 14, 248

329

Subject Index

A Adversarialism, 153, 154, 293 Ahimsa, 69, 77, 81, 97–112, 115, 120, 126, 127, 137, 170, 172, 199, 226, 310, 319 Albert Einstein Institution, 21 Altruism, 15, 125, 126, 128, 138, 143, 144, 148, 200, 232, 306, 307 Altruistic cooperation, 130, 136, 153 Altruistic punishment, 136, 153 Anasakti, 111–112 Antodaya, 66, 112, 224, 293 Anuvrat, 89, 106, 107 Aparigriha, 106, 111–112, 199 Attitudes Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence Scale, 174 Attitudes towards nonviolence scale, 174, 183 Authority, 2–14, 17, 26, 27, 57, 121, 135, 154, 157, 204, 208, 222, 240, 303–305, 311, 313–315

B Bardoli, x, 62, 68–70, 74, 82, 88, 89, 96, 120 Bhagwad Gita, 38, 44, 45 Bhawani Charan Patnaik, 75–76 Bible, 38, 44, 98 Biochemistry of love, 141–142 Boom Task, 228 Boosting, 144, 316 Boosts, 285–287, 296 Bread labor, 18, 42, 107, 199 Burma Gandhi, 51–53 C Cognition, vii, ix, 26, 88, 113, 150, 152, 197, 204, 249, 265–297, 314–316 Cognitive psychology, 20, 203, 267, 273 Compassion, 9, 15, 70, 78, 95, 101, 137, 138, 149, 154, 172, 183, 199–203, 230, 270, 276, 293, 295, 303, 306, 307, 310, 315

© The Author(s) 2020 V. K. Kool, R. Agrawal, Gandhi and the Psychology of Nonviolence, Volume 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56865-8

331

332 

SUBJECT INDEX

Compassionate love, 200–203 Constructive programme, 85, 119 Cooperation, 24, 44, 63, 120, 126–134, 136, 138, 144, 152–154, 157, 240, 249, 276, 286, 292, 306 Cooperation in animals, 127 Corporate responsibility, 314 Cortright, David, 119 Cultivating ahimsa, 102–109 D De-categorization, 290 Definition of nonviolence, 171 Diamond model of nonviolence, 244–247 Difference between nudge and boost, 285, 286 Disobedience, 10–14, 25–28, 34, 43, 45, 85, 94, 110, 115, 116, 118, 119, 171, 206, 222, 236, 240, 250, 251, 272, 295, 303–306, 311, 314, 315 Disobedience and Gandhi, 25–28 Dunbar number, 154, 155, 307 Duragraha, 115–118, 236 E Eco-village, 308 Ego depletion, 214–216, 222, 223 and shifting priorities, 217–218 and training, 216–217 Empathy and evolutionary basis, 135 and Gandhi, 137, 305, 306 and neuro-anatomical basis, 145–148 and neurological basis, 135, 149 and neuro-physiological basis, 138–145 Evolutionary theory, 200

F Four P theory of nonviolence, 241–244 Framing, 218, 268–270, 273, 289, 290, 295 and nonviolence, 268 and psychological numbing, 270 Frontier Gandhi, 53–55 G Gandhi, M.K. and Buddhism, 52 childhood, 36, 43, 96, 308, 311 and childhood influences, 36 and Christianity, 275 and disobedience, 25–28, 304 and empathy, 95, 137 and Hinduism, 44, 275 influences, 35–44, 46–59 and leadership, 313, 314 and London, 40, 43, 61, 62, 105 and means and ends, 96–97 neurons, 138, 148 and nudging, 316 parents, 36–37, 62, 68, 308, 311 religion, vii, 35, 44–46, 52, 58, 318 and schemas, 274 and scripts, 224, 274, 277 and South African years, 44 turning point, viii, 35–46 and values, 36, 42, 43, 50, 55, 62, 69, 70, 78, 81, 90, 95, 99, 101, 103, 104, 285, 295, 308, 311, 314–316 Gandhi’s Truth, vii, 19, 80, 173 Gandhian Personality Scale (GPS), 174, 183 Gandhiheritage portal.org, 57 Gokani, Usha, x, 82–83, 90

  SUBJECT INDEX 

I Identity fusion, 230–232, 234 Indicative reasons, 26, 27, 315 Indraneelk, 94, 95 Interviews, x, xi, 19, 56, 59, 62–91, 96, 120, 145, 154, 155, 205, 239 Intrinsic reasons, 26, 27, 315 J Justice, vi, 10, 48, 58, 77–79, 103, 113, 119, 177, 186, 199, 203–210, 230, 247, 250, 306, 310 and care, 199, 209, 214, 247, 252 K King, M. L. Jr, 10, 16, 25, 46, 48–50, 206, 232, 243 L Leadership, 43, 49, 58, 84, 93, 234, 235, 313, 314 A letter to a Hindoo, 37, 38, 43 Locus of control, 174, 251 The London Vegetarian Society, 36 Love, 19, 23, 24, 37–39, 41, 45, 48–50, 53, 61, 62, 69, 70, 76, 88, 93, 95, 104, 106, 117, 121, 126, 127, 137, 138, 140–142, 154, 170, 198–203, 205, 220, 237, 238, 275, 276, 293–295, 303, 307, 310, 315, 319 Lucifer effect, 14 M Malana, 308 Mandela, N., 25, 27, 46, 50–51 Marshmallow experiments, 211–212 Meaning, 170–172

333

Means and ends, 96–97, 116, 243 Milgram, Stanley, vi, 2–14, 25–28, 89, 154, 171, 175, 206, 249–253, 272, 303–320 Mirror neurons, 134, 138, 145–148 Moral development, 20, 204, 207–210 Moral development stages, vi, 204, 205, 207 Moral dilemma, 7, 20, 26, 89, 207–209 Moral equivalent of war, 16–18, 198 Moral inclusion, 281, 293, 295, 312–313 Morality, 41, 94, 100, 101, 154, 199, 203–210, 281, 307, 310, 318 Moral jiu-jitsu, 104, 113–115 Multidimensional Scales of Nonviolence, 13, 174, 183 Mutualism, 130, 153, 154, 293 My experiments with Truth, 34, 39 N Neuro-psychology, 143, 156, 218, 220, 281 Nonviolence attributes, 102, 169, 199–241, 252, 305 beginnings, 2–28, 198–199 and building blocks, 95–121, 226, 310–317 construct, 119, 170–172, 179, 183, 184 and Locus of control, 251 measurement, 168–190 models, 90, 195–253 and neural basis, 306–310 and schemas, 275 scientific basis, 154–157 and scientific research, 199–241 and self control, 199, 210–225 vs. violence, 291

334 

SUBJECT INDEX

Nonviolence Test (NVT), 12–15, 174–180, 183–190, 248, 249, 305 Nonviolent cultures, 292, 308 Nonviolent Relationship Questionnaire, 174, 183 Noosphere, 318, 319 Nudges, 281–287, 296, 315 Nudging and Gandhi, 283 and practical examples, 282 NVT Scoring key, 176, 180, 184–190 O Obedience and Gandhi, 304–306, 315 Obedience to authority experiments, 2–12, 26, 303, 304 replications, 8 variations, 4 Oceanic circles, 156, 157, 307 On the duty of civil disobedience, 42, 43 Open system, 316, 317 Oxytocin effects, 140–145 effects measurement, 142 P Pacifism scale, 13, 174–175 Pacifist nonviolence, 99 Personality characteristics of nonviolence, 12–15, 184 Person of the year award, 10, 28, 309 Pietermaritzburg Station, 33, 313 Positive psychology, 310 Power and Gene Sharp, 240, 241 and Kenneth Boulding, 237, 238 and Rollo May, 209 Practitioner model, viii

Pragmatic nonviolence, 22, 99, 242, 243 Priming, 231, 273, 277–281, 284, 316 and nonviolence, 278, 279 Principled nonviolence, 22 Prospect theory System I, 267–273 System II, 270–273 Protester, 10, 11, 21, 27, 43, 55–59, 309, 316, 318 Psychological numbing, 270 Psychology of cognition, 266–267, 274, 316 of nonviolence, vii, ix, 7, 12, 15–20, 25, 173, 195–253, 280, 297, 303–320 R Raychand, 40–41, 44, 45, 101, 106, 275, 311 Re-categorization, 290 Roots of nonviolence, 15–20, 96, 97 S Sarvodaya, 42, 104, 112, 224, 276, 293, 294 Satyagraha, vi, 17, 19, 22, 34, 39, 43–46, 50, 55, 63, 65, 66, 69, 84, 85, 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 103, 115–118, 120, 172, 181, 182, 206, 223, 224, 226, 235, 236, 276, 285, 286, 306, 308, 309, 314, 317, 319 Satyagrahi, 17, 45, 69, 85, 86, 96, 104, 116, 117, 154, 206, 225–236, 273, 274, 276, 277, 295, 296, 313, 314, 317 Schemas, 273–281, 292, 314, 316 and Gandhi, 274, 276, 277

  SUBJECT INDEX 

Science of nonviolence, ix, 20–26, 306, 310 Scripts, 49, 72, 76, 224, 273–281, 292, 314, 316 and Gandhi, 224, 274, 276, 277, 284 Self control areas, 213 dynamics, 211, 213–216, 223 and neurological basis, 218–223 Self-regulation, 210, 220–222 Self restraint, 206, 214, 215, 318 and Gandhi, 223–225, 234–235 Self sacrifice, 102, 110, 111, 148, 199, 225–235, 310 and counter-finality of goals, 232 dynamics, 228–230 and evolutionary basis, 227 measurement, 228 and role of leader, 233 scale, 228 Social brain, 127, 138, 139, 148–154, 156, 157, 168, 307 hypothesis, 148–155 Social categorization, 288–292 Social Identity Theory (SIT), 287–297, 311 and framing, 288 functions, 287 and nonviolent cultures, 292 Social Identity Theory and Gandhi, 292 Survivors from Gandhi era, 62–91, 96, 120 System I, 281–283 System II, 26, 110, 271–273, 275, 281–284 and disobedience, 272 and nonviolence, 271

335

Systems of thinking, 110, 271–273, 316 T Tapasya/self sacrifice, 102–105, 181, 199, 225–235 and nonviolence, 104 Teenage Nonviolence Test (TNT), 13, 174, 175, 180–183, 249, 305 Theory of delay discounting, 108 Three-dimensional model of nonviolence, 13, 247–253 The 3N theory, 229, 232, 234 Time, v, 4, 37, 62, 93, 125, 167, 195, 265, 303 TRANSCEND, 22, 23 Trust game, 143 Trust hormone, 125, 138 U University Of Minnesota, 131 Unto this last, 35, 41, 43, 112, 293 V Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, 37, 70, 101, 172, 224, 313 Village republic, 156, 308 Vows, 36, 89, 103, 105–109, 112, 117, 216, 223, 244, 270, 284, 310, 314 W Walden, 42 Wisdom, x, 11, 79, 99, 100, 181, 311, 318