Believing as we do that life is an interconnected whole, and that there is an inescapable harmony between means and ends, and convinced by the proven effectiveness of nonviolent struggles in a just cause, we take the following pledge.
- While engaged in actions associated with the Occupy movement we will refrain from violence in deed, word, and as far as possible even in thought. That is:
- We will remain aware that our opponents are systems, not people; that our goal is to win over, wherever possible, rather than coerce. Therefore we will of course not indulge in abusive language or threatening gestures toward anyone.
- We will not confine ourselves to disestablishing what we regard as unjust without at the same time offering a positive alternative.
- Where we succeed, we will not triumphalize over our ‘victory’ or quickly add a fresh issue to the struggle.
- To maintain our own decorum and control, we will not bring or, as far as possible allow others to bring, intoxicants to an action.
- We will take responsibility to control without resorting to their own tactics those who might attempt to depart from the nonviolent character of our action.
As preparation for a long-term struggle in this spirit, we will prepare ourselves by learning everything we can about the history, theory, and future promise of nonviolence. At the same time, we will eliminate or at least minimize our exposure to the commercial mass media, with their dehumanizing message of violence and consumerism.
Return to Metta’s homepage
How do you account for the absence of the most crucial requirement for any satyagrahi in this list: a living faith in a transcendent god?
Through a high regard of human dignity.
But without violence there is no dignity, for conflict reveals dignity. Does having a high regard of human dignity not demand violence?
I really appreciate your interest in our work at Metta, intoxicated, but I’m afraid we will have to disagree strongly with your statement. Our position is that human dignity is reinforced through nonviolence. In the People Power movement in the Philippines, the term they coined for nonviolence was actually “to offer dignity (alay dagnal).” Conflict and violence are not identical. There can be conflict without resorting to violence. Best wishes to you.
Don’t be afraid to have to disagree strongly. Human dignity may be reinforced through non-violent resistance, but that resistance needs something to resist: violence. And alay dagnal, to offer dignity to whom is violent means nothing to the one who isn’t violent, so how can a non-violent man offer it? I agree that violence and conflict are not identical, but there is no conflict without some sort of violence. Violence can exist within a man, invisible or latent, but violent nonetheless. This potential for violence is also a potential for love, it always changes. Life is violent, you will die from it. In your strategy faith in god has been replaced by a high regard of human dignity. Human dignity is not enough. Without god, you must try and live up to the image: human divinity.
Best wishes to you, also.
Dear Intoxicated:
I can see many differences in our thinking processes per your comments. I don’t think that Life must kill us, for example. Nonetheless, I brought your question to Narayan Desai (son of Mahadev, Gandhi’s lifelong secretary and who just published a 4 volume biography on Gandhi’s spiritual development). He said to focus on Truth, as Gandhi conceived Truth as God. Are you familiar with Gandhi’s writings on Truth?
Best, Stephanie
So I should focus on god because belief in god was replaced by a high regard of human dignity? Let’s not bite our own tail for once.
Life must not kill individually, it is fatal for all. Instead of using the concept of a transcendent god to “cast their cares and their fears on that immeasurable Power”, we should perhaps not cast anything at all and become truly individual immeasurable Powers.
Violence is often just fear materialized, true faith does not need a god, and the truth is: my love for you is my own.