Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit with (non)Violence

In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi claims that goals and the means of achieving them are inextricably linked. One reason he advocates for non-violence is because he believes a violent response will not eliminate British society but will instead help perpetuate it. Instead he calls for Indians to abandon British civilization in favor of the better but oppressed Indian civilization. Applying the same theory of the interconnection of outcome and process to Battle of Algiers maintains the possibility for violence. The goal for the Algerians is very similar to that of the Indians: self-rule. However, the methods supported by Gandhi are quite different from those used by the FLN. For the FLN freedom for Algerians must come at any cost. For Gandhi, freedom from the British only comes if the people achieve it together. Though he does not directly address the value of life in regards to means and ends, Gandhi’s view puts significant value on life.  If someone dies for the cause of self-rule, they have no opportunity for self-rule. Because Gandhi believes that self-rule begins with the individual, as discussed in class, death of the individual does nothing to achieve self-rule.

            In contrast, the FLN places a different value on human life. For the FLN, freedom comes first, people second. This is clearly shown through the escalation of violence in Battle of Algiers. Rather than use a strike or other non-violent method in the quest for self-rule, the FLN murders police officers and bombs civilians. They know that the French will react with violence against the Casbah. The FLN sacrifices innocent Algerians, as well as its own members, for the sake of self-rule. This is a top down strategy, where self-rule begins with a select few, rather than each individual. Though the goal is to spread the idea of self-rule to the Algerian people, the loss of a few Algerians is considered insignificant, and even a necessary inspiration. Perhaps it comes from the pre French culture in Algeria, or more sense of desperation, but the FLN does not value human life, even the life of its own people in the same way Gandhi values the lives of the British and Indians.

In addition the FLN has ambitions to stay in power once Algeria is free, as shown when the FLN leaders discuss life after the French. This goes against Gandhi’s view of self-rule. Only if the people of Algeria want to be under the rule of the FLN, and only if the FLN acts in the interests of Algerians should they continue to hold power in Algeria once the French are gone. This reminds me of a common theme in revolutions, where one unwanted system is merely replaced by another.

Questions: How can we justify the FLN’s sacrifice of innocent Algerians to rile up the rest of the population?

What makes the situation in Algeria different such that Gandhi’s philosophy doesn’t apply? Or, should the Algerians have used non-violence? 

50 Shades of the Battle of Algiers

            In a time of colored film, Pontecorvo uses black and white to reflect the harmful nature of opposition based on outward appearance between the French and the Algerians. Though colonization chiefly fuels the clash, appearance is what enables it to occur. However, the film renders distinction between French and Algerian people difficult, as the only notable differences in black and white are the Algerians’ slightly darker hair and skin color, and naturally, both sides have exceptions. Only outward appearance such as clothes and hairstyles are what is left to identify race. As the three women westernize themselves to pass the French checkpoints, they rid themselves of identifying marks, hair, the veil instead, and clothes, instead of donning color-changing makeup. The lipstick one woman applies makes no distinguishable difference. Looking like French women, the three blend in with other French people but are easily discernible by their attire amongst the Algerians in a lack of color. By each woman passing the French checkpoints without question or papers, Pontecorvo implies that the difference between the two peoples is only what they wear, something quite trivial, in a black and white film. The harmful nature of judgment by appearance is that once the three women passed the checkpoints, they were able to murder dozens of innocent people. By simply cutting their hair and putting on certain clothes, the three women looked exactly like those they killed. Pontecorvo demonstrates that this mass murder can be boiled down to clothes and the racism that comes with them.

            Another instance of animosity strengthened only by outward appearance is the French woman who yells at the homeless Algerian in blame and everyone follows. Her accusation comes directly after, “Murder all the bastards! Then we’ll have some peace!” as if she responds to the man’s exclamation in agreement. She fails to consider anything about the man that could point to his innocence, such as has he been there for a while or did he just finish running, etc., and exploits his Algerian and homeless appearance in blame. Further racism comes from “Filthy Arab!” shouted as the man starts to run. Similar abuse comes from the Algerian children beating up the intoxicated French man. In black and white, the homeless Algerian man and drunken French man look rather similar, only identifiable by their difference in clothes. Pontecorvo builds upon the notion that difference between peoples is their outward appearance to demonstrate that such superficial discrimination is harmful, to say the least.

In what other ways does black and white affect the film and why are they important? How else does racism appear in the film and what is its significance?

Music in The Battle of Algiers

In the movie Battle of Algiers sound is manipulated in many different ways. While watching the movie, I noted that it almost immediately starts (during the opening credits) with a song which I will call the European Fight song. This song carries on throughout the beginning of the movie until the French first bomb the Algerians. After seeing the sad scene of the bomb’s aftermath, we see many Algerians take to the streets. It is at this point, following this cry for revenge, that we get a shift in music from the European fight song to a new song that sounds more native which I will call the Algerian fight song. I argue that this music shift occurs because it is at this point in the movie that the music is signaling that the Algerians have united and unity of the people is key to a successful revolution.

When the movie begins, Jaffar indicates that the Algerians are not yet united. Jaffar says, “We need to clean house first, organize the country. Only then can we take on the real enemy.” Jaffar wants to create a revolution and yet he understands that the FLN needs the support of the Algerians before it can even consider taking on the French. Once this clean up happens, we see the FLN taking control of the resistance through the peaceful means of a wedding: “The FLN has to make decisions concerning the civil life of the Algerian people. With this marriage we fulfill our duty, a duty of resistance.” The wedding symbolizes that the FLN is the new authority and is taking responsibility for Algerians. It is right after this wedding that the European fight song starts up as we watch members of the FLN launch their first large scale attack on the French. It is important that during all of these FLN attacks that the European fight song is playing. The European fight song was first heard in the opening credits during a European raid in the Casbah. Initially the song played while Europeans dominated the Algerians. During this second playing of the European fight song though, these attacks are all against the Europeans. Using the same song that initially showed French domination to depict acts of Algerian violence leads me to believe that using the European fight song with the Algerians shows that the French are still the dominant even though it is the Algerians on the offensive. The Algerians may be trying to show that they are serious about a revolution and trying to establish power but the power is still in the hands of the French. This is because we have seen nothing yet that shows that the Algerians have truly united.

We continue to get the European fight song as the border is set up between the European and Muslim quarters and then again as more FLN attacks take place. On the final attack we see, we get our first hint of the Algerian fight song: it softly plays as the boy pulls out the gun and shoots. But from there once again, the European fight song takes over. I think that this is placed here as a sort of foreshadowing. It gives us this hint that maybe all of these shootings are adding up to something significant that the Algerian people will unite under.

Then comes the bombing of the Casbah. This is the first truly violent retaliation we see from the French. It creates a horror scene in the Casbah and as a result the Algerians are extremely upset and want revenge. We see a huge mob of Algerians take to the street but the FLN holds them back as Jaffar says, “The FLN will avenge you!” Right after this scene we hear the first noticeable use of the Algerian fight song. It plays loud and strong as the three FLN women prepare themselves to take bombs into the European quarter. It is here that we understand that the Algerians are united. They have  demonstrated their anger and called for revenge. Now, the new authority, the FLN can provide what the people want: revenge and freedom from the authority that caused so much grief. The newly introduced Algerian fight song plays as Algerians, united against the French, fight back for their independence. It is unity that will lead to the successful revolution. The end of the movie emphasizes that it was uprisings by the united Algerians against their oppressor (the French) that eventually won them independence. Without unified action, independence would never have come for the Algerians. This is why the change of music from the European fight song, a symbol of repression for the Algerians, to the Algerian fight song, a symbol of unity, is relevant in The Battle of Algiers.

Questions: What other roles does music play in the battle of algiers? What about sound—what is the significance of the different sounds for Algerians versus French?

Women: The perfect agents

There are many instances in The Battle of Algiers in which females play important roles. However, these roles are almost never active, with only one notable exception. Although they are recognized by the NFL as valuable allies, they are relegated almost exclusively to passive roles. This dismissiveness continues even in instances where they would be more useful without the presence of men. While an argument can be made that the NFL is trying to protect the inherent advantage they hold of being able to send out faceless assistants to their killers and agents, this argument weakens considerably under careful scrutiny. The movie depicts too many scenes in which the NFL (as well as the French) are simply too blinded by their societal preconceptions to realize the full impact of women as possible warriors. Women in The Battle of Algiers are consistently viewed as anything but equal to men, a role which simultaneously protects and sidelines them as the central conflict unfolds.

Women are consistently viewed as untouchable, a view that is only exacerbated by their white veils and protective clothing. When crossing the blockade, many of the Arab men are searched thoroughly with full body checks, while the women cross through unmolested. This is in part due to the culture from which both the men and the women come, in which any attempt to search a woman would cause a scandal. This protects their weapon ferrying from the eyes of the French. The French are equally party to the idea of keeping the dirty work from the women. When the men (including the police inspector) drive to the Casbah at night to plant the firebomb, they conspicuously leave their wives at home, without mentioning their ultimate destination to any of them (at least, not in any noticeable fashion). This prejudice against treating women as combatants protects the NFL time and time again from both the French policemen and the paratroopers. When the paratroopers line up strikers in an attempt to send them back to work, it is worth noticing that they only round up men. The women are left to wait for their return, as is evinced by the waiting women at the blockade, and otherwise put out of mind. This deference – or insulting devaluation, as it could as be taken – puts the women in a position to act as the perfect agents of the NFL.

The NFL seems to realize this advantage, but fails to take full advantage of it. When the NFL seeks to commit murders, they have men take the shots, only to return the weapon to the women shortly afterwards. Having the women shoot the NFL’s targets would not only be less conspicuous, as they could fire from beneath their veils, but would also eliminate the chance that the male NFL member would be caught. This inconsistency lies in the culture from which the NFL’s member’s proceed, in  which it would be, ironically, womanish to allow women to do all the fighting. To further this point, when the leaders of the resistance decide to move to new hideouts disguised as women, the method of their travel seems to be largely a novel surprise, judging by their failure to change out of boots and the lack of immediate comprehension on the part of Ali and the others when Jaffar mentions his plan. This form of travel allows a quick and anonymous way to cross the city, and it seems that it would be one of the first steps the NFL would take, but they instead seem to be surprised by it. Instead, the NFL seems to confine their women to passive roles, such as hiding resistance fighters (such as Jaffar and Ali) from their pursuers and distributing weapons. Only one major break from this trend occurs in the film, when the three Arab women place the bombs that destroy the café, dance salon, and the airport, but by and large the film avoids women taking such active roles in the war.

Discussion Questions:

What makes the incident with the bombs special enough to merit women taking an active role? Does the fact that they dress as Europeans add or diminish the breaking of custom?

The Battle of Algiers: Violence & Unity

In Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers, the film displays the different sides of the war between the Algerians and the French. Particularly, the participants of this war represent different groups of people on both sides. The French rely upon their military and government to take action and retaliate against the revolting Algerians. However, the Algerians do not have the same advance military support, but rely upon the community, which first begins with the FLN’s acts of violence, to an overall collective community that fought for their nation. The FLN depended upon the willingness of unlikely supporters such as the women and children to participate in the successful, violence acts implemented against French. This became the starting point to gain the entire community of Algerians to fight for their independence. Yet, the French do not involve the entire community of their people to implement their violent acts for their cause. The violence acted on both sides interestingly established unity for the Algerians and division for the French. 

The narrator at the beginning of the film states, “Algerians, it is your duty to save your country and restore its liberty.” During that scene, the camera focuses on several different kinds of Algerian people such as: children, women, and men. The nation rests the responsibility in its people to take back their nation from the French. If the Algerians want their freedom from the French, they must do it in unity and at all costs. With this mindset in the Algerian people, they use every possible source in order to rebel against the French colonialism. The bombing of the Casbah initiates the violent bombing attacks of the French public places because the participants in the retaliation display the same kind of people, which the bombing of the Casbah affected. The revolution directly links with the communities of Algeria; the French colonialism does not rely upon the community of the French. During the bombing of the bar, the French dance place over heard it and did not even consider it as an attack. Their community does not focus upon the war going on, but they become caught up in it. At the same time, the war directly and always involves Algerian community. Their unity within these violent acts allows for the growth of their unity to fight for their independence. In discussion with Ali la Pointe, Ben M’hidi states, “Acts of violence don’t win wars. Neither wars nor revolutions. Terrorism is useful as a start. But then, the people themselves must act.” In other words, the FLN initiated the revolution with their violent acts, but in order, it to succeed it needs the entirety of the nation. In order to spark unity within the Algerian people, the little boy, an unlikely leader, over the speaker declares, “Algerians! Brothers! Take heart! The FLN tells you not to be afraid. Don’t worry, we’re winning. The FLN is on your side,” which caused the reaction from the entire community proclaiming, “Long live Algeria.”

Violence became the initiator, the spark, to obtain the unity of the nation, even though it seems it would cause greater separation among the community. The direct involvement of the community of Algerians became the greatest source of their success. They understood the consequences that came with participating in the war. Colonel Mathieu describes this relation for the French and states, “Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept the consequences.” He completely understood that in order to win there would be many innocent people lost. He asks the press and thus the French people whether they were willing to deal with the consequences of this war, just as the Algerians were. The Algerian’s diligence in the horrific and violent acts allowed for their unity to fight the French colonialism. Since the regular French people did not have same participation in the war, the consequences became unworthy and irrelevant, which lead to the final success of the Algerian nation.

Discussion Questions: Violence becomes the starting point for the unity of the people to defend their nation and strive for independence. What do you think Gandhi would say about FLN’s ideas?

What filmic aspects did you find to especially portray the direct relationship of the Algerians to the war and less of the French people with the war? Or rather what scene do you think portrays this differentiation best?

Individualism Vs. Collectivism in the Battle of Algiers

                Throughout Battle of Algiers, images of crowds dominate the screen. Whether in the form of troops of soldiers or street mobs,  groups of people tend to define the layout of the film. At first glance, this pattern suggests a collective atmosphere, one that projects the masses as the quintessential unit of revolutionary existence. However, as the film progresses, various elements of cinematography suggest an alternate view. Namely, the manipulation of value and composition lends an air of isolation to the sequence of events. This repetitious evocation of separation, simmering beneath the obvious crowd imagery, creates tension between the two alternatives. In the end, this opposition begs the question: in the face of a revolution, which alternative should people define themselves by?

                Because this film narrates the progression of a revolution, it consists in part of an external study of the movement of groups. Masses of civilians drift through the streets, French tourists drift through bars, and myriad faces emerge from doorways and windows. The superficial effect of this is a population-level perspective of the events at hand. However, from the very first moments of the film, isolation also comes into play, chiefly through the influence of value and composition. In the center of the screen, surrounded by darkness, is a civilian illuminated by light. Though a group of soldiers surrounds him, he appears quite solitary due to the effects of light/dark and his alignment in relation to others. In this way, Pontecorvo suggests his existence as an individual while also asserting his position among other people.

                Many more instances of individualism amid collectivism appear in the myriad staircase scenes that appear throughout the film. Every few moments, viewers are presented with snapshots of soldiers, civilians, and sometimes both as they run up and down stairs, either towards us or away from us. In many cases, one or two people stand out from the crowd despite its speed and its size. For instance, the women in their long white clothing frequently contrast against the darkly dressed policemen, another instance of value’s role in distinguishing individuals. In another scene, a mob of children attacks a Frenchman on the stairs, and he is isolated in the center, surrounded yet individualized. In both instances, the presence of a staircase forms a compositional frame for the people within—a place of crowding in and of itself, but also a visually constricting lens to magnify those within.

                One final example of the tension between the group and the individual appears in the myriad moments when a single face stands out from the crowd. Often, the composition of the screen is shifted so that their face fills up most of the space, emerging from the dark blur of the surrounding throng of people. Once again, the notion of the individual seems to be struggling against the group mindset already in place.

                This opposition, growing in strength over time, forces viewers to examine the positions that people must take within this revolution. By juxtaposing crowds with solitariness and suggesting the struggle between them, Pontecorvo indicates that the task of orienting oneself is not black-and-white. Rather, civilians must strike a balance. Though crowds already exist as a social structure, the inevitable emergence of singular faces conveys the impossibility of neglecting oneself on the individual level. Only then can one’s role in a group be determined and evaluated.

DISCUSSION QUESTION:  According to Pontecorvo, does a successful revolution stem from recognition of the individual or adherence to the collective masses? Is it possible to do both, or do the two alternatives clash with each other?

Violence is Not the Answer!

Violence in The Battle of Algiers

            The film The Battle of Algiers depicts a gruesome struggle of the Algerian people against French colonialism. Lead by the National Liberation Front, the Algerians resisted French rule, which was then met by harsh French authority.  This cyclical pattern of violence perpetuated throughout the entirety of the Algerian revolution because of the way in which the Algerians were acclimatized to violence and the nature of violence itself. The Algerian’s response to French rule directly refutes Gandhi’s proposition of passive resistance, giving evidence to his warnings about what comes out of violence.

            This film conveys Algerian’s openness and acceptance to violence as an answer to their problems. Members of the NLF especially abuse violence in their fight against the French. The assassination of countless French policemen communicates the NLF’s strategy as one of violence and murder. One NLF member even cries, “murder all the bastards, then well have some peace!” These actions directly reveals their belief that violence is the answer. Conversely, the French also implement violence to deter the revolution. Once the NLF began their unarmed strike, the French government began the process of inhumane interrogation of all passive members. The French responded with violence in the search of a solution. In this way, the French exacerbated the problem of violence in the revolution and perpetuated the cycle. This never ending cycle encourages violence as an answer.

            In fact, the Algerian people have become so used to violence as a solution that this action no longer appears same negative effect on them. The film depicts children harassing an old man as if it were play. The Algerian people have thus acclimatized to the act of violence. This proves the social implications behind a violent revolution. The violence used in politics manifests itself as a social custom, making violence appropriate for any civilian. In return, this creates an even more hostile environment for a community battling colonialism.  

            Violence lies at the heart of the failure of the Algerian revolution and the French resistance- both groups fail because they use violence in the search of peace, a conflict that Gandhi heeds much warning of in the Hind Swaraj. Gandhi argues that by seeking peace through violence, “your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed,” (Gandhi 79). The NLF therefore plants a noxious weed in their attempt to find peace through violence. The French are also guilty of the same charge, as they attempt to suppress the unrest through more terror. Gandhi criticizes the tactics used by the NLF and the French government because they impose means that do not match their ends. This is why the Algerian revolution was unsuccessful and why the French were not able to maintain their hold on Algeria- both groups used violence in the search of peace.  

            The film closes with the Algerian civilians crying for their “freedom, pride, and independence.” According to Gandhi’s logic, conflict arises because in their pursuit of these freedoms, they are suppressing those of the French through violence and terror. How can the Algerians properly mediate this conflict in order for both groups to get what they want? Does the film make any suggestions about an alternative tactic than the one of violence implemented by the Algerians?

Viewing Battle of Algiers as a Documentary

            While the film Battle of Algiers is a recreation of the Algerian fight for independence from the French imperial power, several elements of the film suggest that it is a documentary filmed at the time of the conflict. The seemingly omniscient narrator and the changing perspective of the filming make the film an experience similar to watching a documentary.  This post will argue that the influence of Prontecorvo’s stylistic choices validate the film’s perspective that the use of violence by either side is regrettable because of the physical and emotional damage it causes.

            In several instances, the film jumps from one point in time to another. When this occurs, the date is made visible on the screen, and a narrator provides context for the scene that is about to occur by explaining what happened during the time that was skipped over.  By choosing to have a narrator explain what has happened instead of the characters, the footage seems more realistic. Since it is unlikely that revolutionaries in the midst of a conflict would take the time to summarize their past actions, the influence of the narrator renders us at the time of the conflict, making it seem as though the footage shown is directly from the conflict and has only been shortened but not altered. The narrator also introduces major characters upon their first appearance. For example, when Colonel Mathieu first appears the narrator provides biographical information that explains his characterization. Similar to the narration, inserting the biographical information in this way creates the impression that this information cannot be gained in another way because of rapidly escalating conflict. In addition, the inclusion of this information causes the assumption that the surrounding events are also factual.

            Changing filming perspectives also amplify the effect of the narrators influence. Although there are some major characters that the film focuses on, such as Jafar, Ali, and Mathieu, the perspectives of several others are also emphasized. A striking example of this occurs prior to the bombings carried out by the three women. The film switches between the three perspectives of the women who are depositing the bombs and the activities of the people who are about to fall victim to the bombings. The aftermath of the bombing of the European quarter is similar to what is shown after the bombing of the Arab quarter, causing the film to appear sympathetic to civilians on both sides who have been caught up in the battle. Even Mathieu, who is arguably the villain in this story, is characterized as a soldier who is simply carrying out his orders. Though his methods are extremely violent, he makes an effort to spare the lives of some women and children.

            Stylistic choices, such as those demonstrated above, are attempts to make the film seem less dramatized and as a result, make the film more believable. These techniques validate the film’s perspective by making it appear to be fact. This causes the film’s claim about the violent tactics used during the war to seem credible.

Discussion Questions:

Despite the techniques used above, the Algerian revolutionaries remain the heroes of this retelling. What subtleties contribute to this understanding? How do they extend our understanding of the thematic content of the film?

The Hard way or No way

In chapter sixteen Gandhi begins to flesh out his argument and his process for self-rule.  In this reading Gandhi establishes proofs for three basic precepts of home-rule by disproving the assertions of the Reader through the voice of the Editor.  These precepts are the following: the means is relevant to the end, that brute force or submission are not answers to the Indian plight, and the end desired is self-rule not the end of british rule.  It is by these proofs that Gandhi asserts the necessity of passive resistance fueled by each individual's soul force to ultimately topple the machinated and foreign blight in India.

 In this reading Gandhi firsts uses the dialogue between the Editor and the Reader to establish a correlation between the means achieving the desired result and the actual outcome of these actions.  The editor responds the readers assertion that "brute force" and "a continuance of force" as an implausible means to achieving self-rule as a result of simple cause and effect (78).  The Editor claims that the use of brute force to achieve self-rule will result in the exact situation in which they currently exist beneath the brute force of British rule.  The Editor compares analyzes the reader's reasoning "as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed" (79).  The Editor's analyses of both the thief and the robbers further expose brute force not as a wrong response but rather a plainly irrational one.  Gandhi expresses through these storied situations that the use of inappropriate means to achieve a certain result is impossible.

The Editor invokes the same assertion in the case of petitions as for brute force, that the inappropriate means won't achieve the desired results.  The editor critiques petitions "without the backing of force" as useless, a given fact (82).  In such a sense only useful for the education of others, specifically to express to the people "an idea of their condition, and warn their rulers"(82-83).  The editor then specifies that if a petition is backed by force and contests the position of a equal it "testifies to his nobility"(83). The conditions of the force used to back petitions are either of brute force or the "force of love or the soul"(83).  The Editor having already disproven the response of brute force maintains that the only appropriate response is the soul force.  The Editor sums up the response of soul force as that of "passive resistance".

The dialogue ultimately brings the voice of the reader to its child analogy to complete Gandhi's argument for passive resistance.  The Editor clarifies that the analogy in itself is inappropriate in the assumption that the British, as the child, "proceed to their actions through ignorance".  The use of brute force against the ignorant neither educates nor resolves the problem, the affected party only has been forced into a new action without knowing why the preceding one was wrong.  The editor instead asserts that the only appropriate response is to accept the inevitable action and through the means of the soul or love force to express to the acting party the action is unacceptable and wrong

Discussion Questions:
The importance of the analyses of brute force and petitions becomes apparent in the following chapters when the stances of the moderate and extremist parties are addressed.  Do you see a correlation between how Gandhi addresses the respective stances on British rule in the later chapters in chapter 16?

It is quite apparent that Gandhi is unsupportive of all aspects of foreign invasion from the governmental to the infrastructural level.  Is Gandhi's complete rejection of the British warranted, is the return to the old ways instead not just a rejection of the british rule but also a regression? What would Gandhi say to his rejection as a regression?

Why the Individual cannot use force

In Gandhi's 'Hind Swaraj,' the Editor calls for a new approach to breaking free of the grip of English oppression. His method is different than others because he proposes passive resistance instead of violent force against the British.  In discussing education in India, and character traits of a passive resistor, the Editor makes it clear what characteristics or values that Gandhi sees fit for the individual. These things that Gandhi values in people are significant because they explain why passive resistance is the best option for India to gain independence from Britain.

When the reader asks the Editor about Education, the Editor responds that primary education is enough because it builds character. The Editor devalues elementary or higher education because “it does not enable us to do our duty” (100). Whatever one’s duty may be, a primary education of character building will be sufficient for one to accomplish the duty. Gandhi makes it clear that having a strong character is important for an individual. Gandhi defines elements of a strong character in his response to the reader’s question of what constitutes a passive resistor.

            When the reader asks what one must do to be a passive resistor, the Editor responds that one must embrace chastity, poverty, truth, and fearlessness. “The mind cannot attain requisite firmness” without chastity (105). Poverty is important in order to avoid the temptations of riches. “Money renders a man helpless. The other thing as harmful is sexual vice. Both are poison...” that destroy “body mind and soul” (106). Both chastity and poverty require self-control, and are important to maintain in order to maintain a strong character. Therefor, self-control is an element of strong character. Truth “has necessarily to be followed, and at any cost” (96). Fearlessness is necessary to see that the truth is followed out.  

            Gandhi values the characteristics of self-control, truth seeking, and fearlessness for the individual. The Editor cannot endorse use of violent force as a means because it is contradictory to these characteristics that Gandhi values. While a warrior may seek the truth, it is easy to indulge in the temptation forceful responses, which is a violation of self-control. Furthermore, “one who is free from hatred requires no sword” (97). Because of these violations of Gandhi’s ideal human characteristics, the use of force would not be an option as a response to the British occupation of India. Gandhi concludes that, “real home rule is possible only where passive resistance is the guiding force of the people” (94).

Discussion Question: Passive resistance would require much self-sacrifice. For example, Gandhi gives the example of walking up to a canon with a smile on your face. This seems like an incredibly difficult thing to convince people to do, and would require people to adhere to the characteristics I listed above completely. What is appealing about Gandhi's proposition, and what sorts of things does he do to make a convincing argument?