or us here to consider in detail the great
movements of non-cooperation on which Gandhi's followers have embarked
in order to throw off British rule. In 1919 and again in the struggle of
1920-1922, Gandhi felt forced to call off the non-cooperation campaigns
because the people, who were not sufficiently prepared, fell back upon
violence.[80] In the struggle in 1930, Gandhi laid down more definite
rules for Satyagrahis, forbidding them to harbor anger, or to offer any
physical resistance or to insult their opponents, although they must
refuse to do any act forbidden to them by the movement even at the cost
of great suffering.[81] The movement ended in a compromise agreement
with the British, but the terms of the agreement were never completely
carried out. Repressive measures and the imprisonment of Gandhi checked
the non-cooperation movement during the present war, at least
temporarily.

FOOTNOTES:

[80] Gandhi, _Experiments_, II, 486-507; Shridharani, 126-129.

[81] The rules, first published in _Young India_, Feb. 27, 1930, are
given by Shridharani, 154-157.

Fasting

Gandhi also made use of the fast in 1919, 1924, 1932, 1933, 1939, and
1943 to obtain concessions, either from the British government or from
groups of Hindese who did not accept his philosophy.[82] Of fasting
Gandhi has said:

"It does not mean coercion of anybody. It does, of course, exercise
pressure on individuals, even as on the government; but it is
nothing more than the natural and moral result of an act of
sacrifice. It stirs up sluggish consciences and it fires loving
hearts to action."[83]

Yet Gandhi believed that the fast of the Irish leader, MacSweeney, when
he was imprisoned in Dublin, was an act of violence.[84]

In practice, Satyagraha is a mixture of expediency and principle. It is
firmly based on the Hindu idea of _ahimsa_, and hence avoids physical
violence. Despite Gandhi's insistence upon respect for and love for the
opponent, however, his equal insistence upon winning the opponent
completely to his point of view leads one to suspect that he is using
the technique as a means to an end which he considers equally
fundamental. He accepts suffering as an end in itself, yet he knows that
it also is a means to other ends since it arouses the sympathy of public
opinion. He regards non-cooperation as compatible with love for the
opponent, yet we have already seen that under modern conditions it is
coe