 Now, we are talking about Satyagra, the most important topic on Gandhian Ethics, that well, important in the sense, because this was the means of engagement with the real world that Gandhi developed, sticking on to his ethical ideals. It is easy, it is one thing and it is easy to enumerate ethical ideals and it is another to implement it. In fact, criticism various ethicists or religions or moral codes always face, is that they have prescribed code of conduct, but how to implement it or how to put it into action or how to make it engage with the world out there, requires kind of, is the test of the theory and the theoretician. So, when we talk about Satyagra, we talk about Gandhi's ethical ideals meeting the real world out there. Now, what do we do when a person conflicts or a human predicament, if I may support it? People differ in their opinions and because they differ in their opinions, they have conflict about it. Now, some of us or one party in the conflict would perhaps accuse the other of being unjust. So, we have conflicts about justice, whether justice prevails or not, how do we arrive at it? How do we arrive at the solution of a conflict? Now, if you take a look at the slide, we talk about conflict, how does can a moral person engage with injustice. Now, here yes, we talk about conflicts, but we talk about conflicts and with for the ease of understanding from a particular perspective, where we seem to be, where we take the perspective of a moral person trying to engage with injustice. So, what are the prevalent methods of engaging with injustice? A is rational discussion and B is violence. Are these successful? Now, this is a question that we need to ponder on that well, it is very simplistically put, very simply put up here that well, it is either rational discussion or violence, which seem to be the only two ways of engaging with injustice and that is how perhaps it is. How can a moral person engage with justice? The prevalent methods that we see here are rational discussion or violence. Are these successful? Well, let us look at it this way. How does one engage with injustice? Say there are various notions of injustice to say between a factory owner and a factory employee between a landlord and a tenant. Forget about the power structures. It could be conflict between friends, it could be a conflict between or a disagreement between family members and one seems to be accusing the other of being unjust. So, how does, how do you or when we talk of Chatyagra from a person's perspective or one perspective is how does the moral man wish to convince the apparently unjust person? Well, one is the entire edifice of human justice as practiced currently today is through discussion through means of rational discussion that well or appeal to reason. The entire era of modernity focuses its basis on reason or rationality that rationality or reason is objective and by appealing to reason we can resolve any discussion. And of course, when this fails we always have violence to count upon in fact that is why entire nations have armed forces and policemen have batons and firearms in their hands. So, violence has a final means of tackling justice. Now, let us see what does Gandhi talk about this. Now, let us consider the first aspect, rational discussion. Well, this is supposedly the most civilized method and what exactly happens in a rational discussion for conflict resolution or for dealing with an unjust opponent well. What it requires is that first it requires that both of them coming to the discussion table. The parties coming to the discussion table should A, accept the possibility that they are fallible and biased and thus an honest attempt to take the others perspective. So, accepting the possibility that we are fallible and biased thus an honest attempt to take the others perspective. B, rational discussion takes place between psychological beings with desires and the latter can contaminate the former. So, this is an important assumption that should be understood by the proponent or by when we talk about rational discussion that rational discussion takes place between psychological beings and that the latter can contaminate the former. Let us briefly talk about this. Let us say we have look at it this way. We have the entire judiciary in any country is set up for enforcing justice. And it is such a simple evident truth that it no more strikes us as anything profound that when we engage lawyers a better lawyer can perhaps win a case undeservingly and an inferior lawyer would lose a case even though truth be on that side or justice be on that side. Now, what does this mean? This means that well rational discussion can be guided according to the motivation that we are all psychological beings that we have seen that rational discussion is in favour of the more articulate. So, let us note this down that well rational discussion favours the articulate and is against the non articulate. This I would like to term as a structural flaw. Now, this is something that Gandhi very much takes into account that rational discussion takes place between psychological beings and with desires. And the desires can contaminate the rational discussion. So, let us think of a classic example where in the Indian scenario a lesser educated tribal is coming to seek justice from a urban or an establishing industry. Now, the entire and both of them seek redressal in the judiciary, but definitely it is the industrialist who has better access to articulate lawyers to advocate his position and case much better than what the tribal can do. So, if we talk about rational discussion then rational discussion comes out to be favouring the ones who are articulate and is definitely against the one that is non articulate. So, Gandhi being a lawyer himself understands the importance of how rationality itself can be guided or goaded into the direction what where one really wants it to land. So, thus Gandhi is critical of rational discussion as conflict resolution methodology because rational discussion is desirable yes in principle, but it is of limited value in practice. After rational discussion let us go ahead to the next option that comes forth. The next option that comes forth is conflict resolution, violence as conflict resolution sorry. Now, this leaves us with violence as a means of resolution, so frequently used in human history that its abnormality does not seem unusual, this disturbed Gandhi. Now, if we see that well throughout the human history we have had violence as a very dominant means of guiding history or very dominant means of resolving conflicts that it almost seems so usual about it that its abnormality does not seem unusual. That its abnormality does not seem unusual this is what disturbs Gandhi. So, violence has become so common in human history that it does not seem disturbing at all nations raising armed forces, arming the police all seems so usual. In fact, the absence of it would seem striking violence or potency of violence, potency for violence seems so obvious that the normative issues around violence are almost forgotten. The utility of violence drowns the normative questions of it of its justification or rather more accurately the lack of it. Now, what is violence as conflict resolution? Well, let us consider this that well we engage in a rational discussion and it falls off and then we have violence as the backup method to sort it out. And that is why countries and nations the whole world, nations of the whole world raise their own armed forces. That is why policemen are armed or that they have been given the legitimacy which is again a question that can the state really give the legitimacy to the internal police to use violence against its citizens. But that apart for the time being that well it is such a common place to find armed forces and armed policemen all evidence or symbols of violence as means of conflict resolution or of tackling disobedient behavior that it seems unusual or abnormal to conceive of a possibility with the lack of violence. Now, look at the sensitivity of this man called later to be called Mahatma Gandhi that he finds this notion of violence disturbing something that we are so used to it today or perhaps in all times that these evidences of violence do not hurt us that or do not disturb us more accurately. So, we find that well non violence as or violence as sorry violence as conflict resolution as a very standard back up measure. But violence or potency if you look at the third point mentioned here violence or potency for violence seems so obvious that normative issues around violence are almost forgotten. Now, what are these normative issues is violence wrong? Now, perhaps the answer to this most people would answer would to this question would be that violence is inevitable. Now, is this the answer of the question posed well what is the normative answer of this question. So, this normative answer of the question has almost escaped us because it is been taken as a standard measure to tackle injustice well then let us raise the question. What is wrong with violence? Well first surprisingly or disturbingly this question almost escapes us perhaps we do not reflect through life about wondering that well what is wrong with violence? What is wrong with violence? Well Gandhi has an answer to this and Gandhi has thought through this and the answer flows from his ethical claims. Well why is violence wrong and perhaps immediately most of us would be short of words to answer this. Well Gandhi put structured answer to this claim well according to Gandhi a or one violence denies the ontological claim that all human beings have souls and that they are capable of understanding each other with empathy. Now, if I am allowed to play the role of the empathetic advocate to Gandhi's views for today's audience. I shall rather use the word self over here that well what is Gandhi meaning Gandhi does not have a religious underpinning as we would be skeptical of it perhaps today. Well what exactly is meant that well all human beings are equal all human beings are equal in moral potency and therefore dignity. So, the point that Gandhi is trying to make is that well ontologically if all of us have souls or selves and these selves are capable of understanding each other with empathy. So, there is a we are all morally potent to appreciate the other perspective and there of offer dignity to the other. Now, this is Gandhi has been influenced by the Syadwad doctrine of Jainism which claims that there are many perspectives to reality or that a conflict is a difference in perspective only. So, whenever we have noticed that Gandhi is not advocating relativism rather Gandhi is claiming that well relativism is because of the difference in perspectives not because truth is relative. So, truth is relative only while till we keep the perspective into account take the perspective into account. So, to Gandhi makes a claim that it is an influence from that this is an influence from Syadwad and it is that a conflict is essentially a difference in perspective only. This greatly alters the way the understanding of conflict that well violence and three finally violence is to confuse one's perspective as the only perspective failing to see the other's perspective and being open to revision. So, these are very common sensically simple yet profound observations that can be made from Gandhi's ethical ideals that well to be violent is to seek a resolution and this resolution is required only because one fails to see the perspective of the other fails to see the perspective of other. So, being open to revision is very much required and is an easier way of or is a more moral right easier and accurate way of doing away with violence. Now, what more about violence well Gandhi goes ahead and says that well violence coerces behavioural change not a change of attitude. So, when we talk about violence it only forces an army that conquers another nation has conquered it, but has not changed its attitude and what Gandhi seeks is a change of heart not a possession of physical entity. If we could discuss further about Gandhi's metaphysics we could understand that well Gandhi makes postulates the necessity of assuming a self or a soul force is because the body is the domain of violence, but the soul or the soul force or the self or the attitude is not the domain of violence and we can contain the body we can give pain to the body, but to bring a change of heart or as he calls heart and the famous dichotomy between head and heart change the self requires a more nonviolent peaceful intervention what he talks about in which is Satyagra. So, further why is violence wrong because it violates the moral integrity of the vanquished it forces them to act against their conviction well with the moment the victor conquers the vanquished the vanquished are forced to act in the manner that the victors want them to act. However, this acting is not out of their conviction, but it is out of force or fear or coercion. So, for the vanquished we find that their confirmation is only physical not mental as Gandhi would say spiritual and what perhaps many of us could understand as attitudinal. So, when we bring about a difference that difference we can force them physically or when the victor forces the vanquished physically, but the aim of a resolution is to bring about a change from the inside. Next, we talk about a transformation of views may be slower, but is definitely more desirable of the more impatient of the audience they would already be poking with this question that well it is fine that we can use Satyagra or we can use patience or we can use avoid the use of violence. This is going to take a lot of time it is simply easier to punish the errant citizen by the stick of the policeman rather than to argue convince with him or tolerate his indiscipline for him to learn well accepted that transformation of views is slower. But what Gandhi argues is that it is definitely more desirable because it is long lasting which comes out in the next issue that we talk about. This point or bullet we talk is that results of the violence of violence hardly lost whereas, non-violent resolutions last longer and finally, violence breeds violence it is a quick fix that works and inside repetitions as a conflict solution. So, violence breeds violence so once we see that well system of say public lashing is working so we the administration of the leadership is keen on using it again and again and but to have the same effect perhaps it has to increase its dosage. So, the next bullet talks about it well the dosage of violence increases to attain the same effect. So, we have to increase the dosage of violence to attain the same effect so any punishments may have to be escalated to have the same effect it is almost like the case of antibiotics that well we use it as an last measure, but indiscriminate use of it reduces susceptibility reduces its effectiveness and increases susceptibility to it. So, therefore, we keep have to increase the dose that was a simplistic analogy, but for the moment it can be seen to make some sense well and means and ends this is what many times we see that Gandhi has talked about that means and ends. When we talk about means and ends that Gandhi's philosophy is always about the importance of means and ends when we talk about that we require any act is towards a goal, but is the goal separate from the entire process followed to achieve the goal. Now, for those who have a very clear distinction between means and ends especially considering its importance this of course is not a chronological classification, but this is a moral classification. So, when I am saying that well Robin Hood is stealing to distribute amongst the poor the consequence may be well the hungry are fed, but the means can that is that to be included into the action to be judged to arrive at its moral potential according to Gandhi yes that means. If you look at the slide means is not separate from the end, but a constituent of it peace after violence is still violence. So, when Robin Hood feeds the hungry is still not morally appreciable act because the food has been stolen. The next issue that Gandhi talks is that comes out in the Gandhi and ethics ethical model is that the method for fighting for an objective was not external to, but an integral part of it. So, the method of fighting for an objective is not external to, but an integral part of it. So, no matter what weapons you use be the weapons that are used or the methodology that is used is not external to the objective it is a part of it. As put forth in Anthony Parallel's book a non violent revolution is not a programmed seizure of power it is a program of transformation of relationships ending in a peaceful transfer of power. Take a moment to reflect over it well enter Satyagraha now what this is where seeing the futility limitations and downright moral wrongness of the two means of conflict resolutions Gandhi arrives at the Satyagraha. Satyagraha is about the appeal to the goodness in the opponent with a strong underlying assumption that goodness is prevalent in all and that all are fallible that one is fallible that each one of us is fallible. According to the fourth issue of a fourth point about Satyagraha Satyagraha is about being open to revision open to compromise it is of an ability to take the perspective of the opponent compromise is not negotiation rather openness. So, many of us would understood would understand compromise as negotiating without a moral denominator, but for Gandhi compromise is not such kind of a negotiation rather it is openness to see that one's perspective is perhaps inaccurate and therefore, it needs to be revised. As they say evil can be killed with good even the wickedest person is capable of feeling for the other only this faculty lies under used Satyagraha only aims to awaken this. So, when we talk about selfish person or a wicked person is a wicked person because his love for others is much lesser nevertheless even let us take the example of Hitler as Gandhi has talked also about Hitler and his cruelty well Hitler loved his dog so the Hitler loved his mistress. So, there is a possibility of love even in Hitler only it was confined to very few the whole point of Satyagraha is to incite this potency into spreading into decision making. So, for Satyagraha patience and love are the weapons of Satyagraha. So, when we talk about Satyagraha what is the methodology of Satyagraha it is patience and love the Satyagraha waits patiently showering trust on the opponent and silently suffering offenses only in the hope of making the opponent realize their folly. Now, so briefly put what mean by Satyagra is that well it is tools of conflict resolution of fighting injustice a non violent tool and no it does not is not confined to rationality or rational discussion only it is incorporates the human motivation for action. So, when human beings or when one person patiently waits suffering injustice in the aim of sparking out the goodness or good sense of judgment in the opponent that is when Satyagraha is successful that is the objective of Satyagraha. We can find various examples of Satyagraha and from a simple fact that when you see say you land up in a heavily crowded hot damp counter selling tickets and you find that the person who is selling tickets is not has mistakenly or has intentionally sold the ticket to somebody behind you in the queue. Now, either you can fight over there and ask cited as a case of injustice, but the Gandhian or the Satyagraha way would be to patiently smile and to make the clerk feel that he has done a mistake by jumping the queue or disregarding the queue and that is the objective of Satyagraha. So, when one makes a mistake and the other attacks or accuses it puts the doer in a defensive he tries to bring about justifications and that is what Gandhian always caution was about the misuse of rational justifications. So, he always brings about justifications to justify that lapse, but if one is patient and one is loving and one can wait for reform in the other, well it brings about change and so Satyagraha is all about patience and love for the other and with the eternal undying hope that moral potency that all of us all human beings are equipped with moral potency it is only a matter of time and patience with which one can spark it off in the other. Well, but finally, there are limits to the patience of the Satyagraha and let us keep in mind that Gandhi dealt with a lot of this Satyagraha was not some mere theoretical speculation in a textbook academic institution. It was a means of struggle of the Indian independence movement. So, Gandhi has suggested that well ordinary people or people will lose out on patience and Satyagraha cannot be infinitely patient. So, Gandhi had devised other means for such situations other means like economic boycott civil disobedience non-cooperation and various other which constituted the armory for the non-violent warfare that Gandhi talked about and practiced against the British with success. So, when one does not cooperate or when one does not boycotts the other that is also sense of moral pressure what can be termed as moral pressure well the limits of Satyagraha. Now, before we you read the bullets on the limits of Satyagraha well first I would say that many of us listening to this would be skeptical, cynical about the possibility of about the possibility of Satyagraha as a means of struggle. It perhaps assumes too much or it expects too much from human beings not to seek revenge not to seek justice by any means rather wait for the other to realize his or her mistake. But let us slow down and look at it that well here is was one man who has actually used this methodology in India's freedom struggle with phenomenal success. And they could make sure that crowds of people given to armed policemen are largely charging them. So, I think this instrument of non-violent warfare has of course been demonstrated in action in history but it is also prevalently used today in the way we discuss in the way we talk or deal with people around us. Many of us are Satyagrahas many of us do wait for the other to realize his or her mistake and in this period of wait we do suffer. Some are patients some are less patients some are very patient just as say a father would or a parent would be patient towards the airing or child with the hope that well the child would realize it is his or her own mistake and better. So, but however let us now come back and look at the limitations of Satyagra. Now today this notion may seem like a fairy tale but it was a vital practice in the freedom movement of India as we talked about. Satyagra assumes the goodness and civility of the opponent for Satyagra did not seem a potent possibility in the Hitler rule Germany. Thousands of Jews which were almost in human skeletons and taken to concentration camps did not provoke the goodness or did not invoke any goodness or civility in the oppressing German army. So, Satyagra assumes that there is goodness and civility of the opponent non-cooperation assumes an interdependence between the two parties if the opponent can continue to function in isolation of the other party non-cooperation may be far less effective well Gandhi talked about economic boycott and non-cooperation now here we need to take the local because to understand any concept we need to take its context into a factor in its context well the goodness and civility well many have argued that Gandhi was possible because the British were the colonizing power because of the inherent sense of practicing justice in the British non-cooperation was successful. Because the Britishers used Indians in the colonized India to run the country so a non-cooperation by the native Indians did bring their administrative apparatus to a standstill so non-cooperation was successful economic boycott was successful because the Indians were a essential part to the functioning of the British in India. So, the context also lends meaning and this is not a formula or a claim that Gandhi would say that it is unequivocally applied cutting across the local or circumstantial conditions circumstances well Satyagra was possible only so was possible at time in world history was it the moral high ground of civilization or the power of Gandhi. The answer to this question will infer the possibility of the resurrection of Satyagra so I leave this question with you that well to all of us or all to most of us perhaps or to many of us who have been skeptical and cynical of this extreme Gandhi notion well for one Gandhi did exist in flesh and blood and it did use Satyagra as a means of freedom struggle. So, we have a concrete example of how Satyagra was used as an non-violent means and I leave this question to you with now that where the Satyagra was possible because of the moral high ground of those times or was it possible because of the insistence and the aura or the magic or the power of Gandhi if it was possible because of a moral high ground of a particular time perhaps my answer would be that no it was possible then if it was possible then it would be possible now it would be is still in practice and it would still be possible in future only it needs to be summoned or by force like Gandhi. So, I leave this question to you to an open ended question to explore the possibility of Satyagra in your life or in the current scenario with this we end the notion we end our exploration of the Gandhian Ethics.