Chabot, in his article, The Gandhian Repertoire as Transformative Invention says that Gandhian forms of action, organization, and communication, were distinctively similar to those of various social movements of the past. Although the meaning and consequences differed, most of the actions during the Indian independence movement after the First World War, during the Salt March, during the rise of the Indian campaign for civil rights in South Africa and during the 'Quit India Movement' were similar to those enacted before (3).
Similar to the movements that happened before, performances during all Gandhian protests aimed at gaining an immediate and broader audience, as well as a linkage with authorities. Most performances were an improvisation of common and well-known repertoires (Chabot, 3). With time, the adopted techniques that shaped relations between challengers and power-holders became distinct to the population. Little adaptations integrated by the participants gradually became larger consequentially changing the overall engagement method that later became outstandingly tied to the community. Involving the larger community is the ultimate goal of any social movement and the Gandhian movement through its community reach programs did just that. The movement learned from the past mistakes that an elitist way of protesting was not the way to go and that a grass roots change was necessary for the success of any movement.
Activist's performances primarily featured a strong organization that helped them establish a collective identity that was dedicated to serving a rational purpose. By borrowing from past social movements, the Gandhian protesters innovated some of their performances to contend with decision makers. It demonstrates that repertoires are essentially claim-making performances where participants learn from past struggles and integrate what they have learnt in shaping their techniques and methods of engaging with those entrusted with decision-making responsibilities.
The Gandhian repertoire can only be effective if the other party (the authorities) involved in the contention is reasonable, ready to discuss objectively and listen to the opinion of the complainant masses. An aggressive and violent regime that employs the use of force to solve issues and influence the masses is a great hindrance to the success of Gandhian repertoire. The idea of self-sacrifice and love as a means of protest works well in an ideal environment where the opponent is moral and ethical. The good intentions and trans-formative invention that the Gandhian repertoire offers as cited by Chabot are not sufficient in providing lasting solutions without having a government (or authority) that considers ethics as an intrinsic part of their rule.
Chabot claims that the Gandhian Repertoire is different from other social and non-violent movements, but does not sustain his thesis or argument by giving examples of other movements that were either similar or different. I believe that each social movement learns from the past and tries to adapt to the situation and the Gandhian movement is therefore not really unique. Also a number of questions arise. To begin with, was the Gandhian movement really accommodating and transformative? By denouncing violence and other extremist measures of other independent fighters, the Gandhian movement in spite of its claims was quite narrow and inflexible. The Gandhian repertoire also raises the question if non-violent methods are indeed non-violent. Forcing an opponent to acquiesce to demands is also another form of violence.
Work cited
Sean Chabot. The Gandhian Repertoire as Transformative Invention. (2013)
