I've read Gandhi's primary source writings over the years but I have never really studied or fully understood the sociopolitical context of India under the British empire. I understood it to a certain extent as it was outlined in his narratives and essays but I never fully understood India's history as it lead up to Gandhi's time. Lately as I've been studying the history of the British empire in India, I am even more awestruck that one man was finally able to topple an entire empire and lead hundreds of millions of people towards independence under the philosophy of nonviolence. Of course Gandhi didn't do it on his own but he was able to tip the balance of powers leading towards independence. How can this be of use to us in an increasingly toxic and hateful world in which we live?
Years ago when I was in the doctoral program, I took a series of political science classes on power, politics and domination. In two classes we studied the theoretical context of domination and the theories of disequilibrium. Some theorists espoused that all forms of power, domination and control are weakly at the edge of imbalance and can easily be toppled at any time, if given the right circumstances. The classes outlined example after example of powerful people, empires or governments being thrown into complete disequilibrium at the hands of one or a very small group of people.
In one of my "former lives" (yes, I've had many), I worked on political campaigns for progressive candidates who were underdogs. In one particular campaign, an inexperienced progressive latina was running in a local city council race against a powerful incumbent in an extremely racist and highly segregated city. There was a huge smear campaign against her being latina during a time of extreme anti-immigrant sentiment. The incumbent was highly anti-immigrant and racist. Polls showed that the latina only had 7% of voter support. It just seemed as if winning the election would never be possible in a such a city and even her sponsors thought she had a long shot.
One day someone gave our campaign information on the incumbent that he owned a local patriot online forum and we decided to sign up and take screen shots of things written by the incumbent and local residents. Myself and another volunteer researched how to write advertising scripts that immediately caught someone's attention and were immediately provocative with an underlying message of anti-hate. We wrote one short and simple letter to a local editor of the newspaper with the advertising formula. It is an understatement to say that it caused a major snowball effect that resulted in the incumbent losing the election.
I won't reveal all of our tactics but me and the other volunteer were highly surprised that one letter turned into major editorial attention, national news coverage, national television attention and an IRS investigation. All it took was for two 18 year old women sitting at a computer for 20 hours a day, hundreds of miles away, to write a short and simple letter that caused such disequilibrium that eventually resulted in the incumbent's nonprofit being suspended by the IRS and his organization being classified as a hate group with the "hate and extremism watch" arm of the Southern Poverty Law Center. A progressive and inexperienced latina won the election in a city that had been dominated by conservatives for 50 years.
I watched in awe as the incumbent named who he thought was responsible for his downfall on television. He named prominent democratic leaders and powerful business opponents. He raged against all the large groups of people who caused his downfall. All the powerful men who contributed to his demise. Little did he know that it was two recent female high school graduates sitting at their computers halfway across the country, working for free, who accidentally pushed power and control into disequilibrium all with an anti-hate message.
The Margaret Mead quote appropriately outlines this dynamic: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has". The key is in the small group concept.
We've seen this before in the United States in cases such as Dr. King and Cesar Chavez who were able to galvanize an entire nation towards embracing a movement and large scale social change over love and justice. Even recently Donald Trump was able to bring both political parties to their knees as he toppled their power structures and seized power. People tend to think that strength lies in numbers when it comes to politics but it's actually the opposite. The key to throwing power and control into an imbalance lies in the hands of one person or a small group of people, which will later spiral into a wave of disequilibrium which reaches the masses in society and easily spreads like wildfire. Those who hold the key to starting the ripple effect lies in the hands of a select few. All it takes it emotional stamina, extreme emotional resilience and a public soapbox.
As social movements grow or as power expands, the amount of people involved increases which leads to more egos fighting against one another. We are historically ripe for another large scale civil rights movement but we remain stagnant in inequality and oppression due to multiple and competing identity politics. Different factions fight against one another for their own political platforms. Civil rights organizations grow larger and larger, become more and more disconnected from the people and have too many competing egos which cause fractures in the ability to topple the dominant power structures. And political parties have been too hijacked by money to topple any power other than for their own self interest.
We are in great need of a political or social leader who has the charisma and provocation of Donald Trump but who espouses a message of love, equality and unity. My frustration with organized religion lies in the fact that this is exactly what religious leaders should be doing--spreading love, positivity and social justice but instead we have been hijacked by evangelical power mongers who have injected themselves into religion for their own power, money and control.
When will progressive leaders of organized religion step up? Gandhi was guided by his religion. Dr. King was guided by his religion. I've always been opposed to organized religion but perhaps it is the only thing that can save us from all going to hell in a hand basket. The right kind of religious leader or leader guided by religious philosophy is the key to seizing back this country from the moral decline caused by hatred. Perhaps everything can be consolidated and united under religion, therefore healing the fractured priorities that are plaguing society. Love your neighbor, a religious leader might say. Take care of the environment because it's our own garden of eden. Love all races, genders, religions, classes, sexual orientations...because we are all god's children. Give to the poor because God tells us to do so in the bible. All we need is one person or a very small group of people who come from a point of love and who can rise to national attention in order to cause a ripple effect outwards.
This world is a major crisis of moral degeneracy caused by hatred. Our political leaders on both sides of the aisle further exacerbate this dilemma. We must seize our society back from the perils of hatred and division. We must topple the power structures that bind us into factions and turmoil. And we must do it through love. As Dr. King so eloquently pointed out: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that".
Fight the power. Fight the hate. Love with all your heart and let is spread like California wildfire. If Gandhi can topple a global empire, it's much easier than we think.
