Organize the South

“It Is Not Only Generals Who Know How to Plan Campaigns”
Gandhi, Salt & Chess

This essay's title is taken from a line Gandhi may or may not have said, though it is definitely in the 1982 movie. I hope he did say it, but if he didn’t the quote isn’t any less true.

Originally a military term, the word campaign describes a set of collective actions designed to reach a goal. There are electoral campaigns and fundraising campaigns in addition to issue campaigns, but the issue campaign is basic to organizing in the US. We set up organizations, pick issues, and run campaigns. That’s what organizers do in the US. The 1930 salt satyagraha was a campaign run by Gandhi in the cause for Indian independence. I figure if Gandhi can embrace a military term so can we.

What’s Salt Got to Do With It
In the 1982 movie Gandhi, played by Ben Kingsley, comes up with the idea to march to the sea and make salt while sitting in his hometown and staring out to see. When the idea strikes him, he turns to the reporter, Martin Sheen, and says the line now the title of this essay. I have no idea if that is how it really happened, but it gives us a good place to start.

The Indian National Congress declared independence for India on January 26, 1930. They announced a massive civil disobedience throughout the country, but left the specifics to committee. Gandhi provides a specific campaign within weeks, The Salt Satyagraha, also known as the Salt March to Dandi.

The salt campaign was a brilliant idea. Ultimately the goal was independence by showing Indian people wouldn’t accept colonial rule no matter what. The British Empire taxed salt, it also made producing or distributing salt a criminal offense. For thousands of years those living on the coast of India made their own salt by evaporating seawater, but the British were sticking guns in people’s faces and, through the tax, forcing the Indian people to pay for the pleasure. The people hated the salt tax, it financed colonial rule, and there was a cheaper alternative based on the culture of the oppressed people. It had all the makings of a great campaign.

Breaking It Down, Chess Style (or, It’s Called Class War for a Reason)
Until recently if generals lost a war they were killed. Death can be a great incentive for making sure one excels at a chosen profession. Of course, war games can be expensive and difficult to conduct, especially thousands of years ago. The ancients weren’t stupid; they created their own versions of war games. Chess is a war game. In fact, it may be one of the oldest war games still being played. Chess taught generals how to think about the broader campaign, to think multiple moves ahead. It can do the same for organizers.

Chess strategies are based on three steps: control the center, develop the pieces, and the attack. On the chessboard, the four squares in the center are the key to victory. Whoever controls those squares has greater freedom of movement and is in a better position to box the opponent in. In the organizing world, controlling the center means controlling the framework of debate. It is not just articulating what we are fighting against, but what we are fighting for and why winning the victory is important for everyone in the community. Controlling the center means controlling the parameters of debate and forcing those in power to see the world through the eyes of those most affected.

Once the center is controlled, good chess players spend time developing their pieces. This means putting each piece in the position of maximum effectiveness. Every move is made so when the attack comes, the opponent will be unable to withstand the onslaught. For organizers developing our pieces means developing the leadership and organizing skills of the membership. It doesn’t make sense to wage a campaign unless all elements understand the strategy and have the skills and analysis to see that the campaign wins.

Finally, there is the attack. The attack is strategic and aims toward one goal, capturing the king. While other pieces may fall in the course of the battle, the game is only won with checkmate. We achieve checkmate through a set of coordinated actions designed to win, also known as a campaign. The campaign plan is a way of guiding work toward the ultimate aim of victory. Every action taken, every resource expended moves the group closer to winning the goals. The genius of the salt campaign really comes out when analyzing it through the chess lens.

Controlling the Center
I think most organizers think about framing the debate in terms of media, as in determining how an issue should be cut, but this is just part of the equation. Having a good media strategy is important, even critical, for a campaign. However, good media strategies come from good communication strategies. Controlling the framework of debate is more than having relationships with reporters, it’s about having structures for quick, effective communication within the campaign structure and with the public at large. This includes media, but is by no means limited to it. The cut begins with the people.

Since determining the campaign issue is ideally a collective process of the base framework begins with the base as well. Having the base decide the framework of a campaign, from its principles to its larger aims to how to speak to the press, is an educational process and a critical one. During Gandhi’s time in South Africa his ideas about social change were radically transformed. He had supported Indian involvement in the South African War but became a pacifist. By the time he returned to India he no longer was talking about full citizenship in the British empire. Instead he was, in effect, talking about the end of empire.

The registration campaign is probably Gandhi’s best known work from his time in South Africa. The Transvaal government passed a law requiring Indians to register and carry their papers at all times. In organizing against this law, for the first time, Gandhi announced the concept of satyagraha (total nonviolent resistance to oppression and dedication to truth) and put it to the test. For 7 years thousands of Indians are jailed, beaten, and worse but they strike, refuse to register, and demonstrate. Eventually the campaign is won because while the actions taken by the Indian community are successfully repressed, the lengths the British have to go to result in a worldwide backlash. Gandhi and the other leaders learn a lesson, one that every successful guerilla fighter in history has learned. A lesson best articulated by, believe it or not, Henry Kissinger when he said, “In a guerrilla war, the guerrillas win by not losing and the army loses by not winning.” The frame of the debate now shifted. Gandhi and other leaders call for independence, by any means necessary.

Developing the Pieces
In chess, developing the pieces is about preparing for the attack by giving yourself room to operate and insuring best position for each piece. Small moves now can payoff later. The same is true in organizing. It’s best to have our ducks in a row before we launch an all-out assault on the powers that be.

Another good chess principle to take from this process is about touching each piece only once. In the chess opening it’s best to put a piece in its best place in one move. Translating this into organizing, I find a lesson in unity. It’s best to move everyone out together, even if just a little bit, then it is to have some way out in front by themselves. Leadership development should be consistent and broad. It takes a long time to move a little bit, but it pays off.

Gandhi and the other leaders of the independence struggle knew it would take a long time to win independence and that it would dangerous. People do not lightly participate in activities that lead to prison, beatings, or worse. At least, they don’t on a consistent basis. It’s also true that people will go to great lengths for their own freedom. A good organizer can combine these two elements.

Gandhi took over the leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1918. It took 12 years to launch the salt campaign. These years were filled with training new leadership, working out his theory of satyagraha, study, and more study. There were campaigns during this time as well, but not on the scale of the salt satyagraha. Small actions like cleaning up the villages and building schools not only built the confidence of the people but also generated unity. It’s difficult to call someone untouchable when you’ve picked up trash and raised a building together. This unity is critical for any campaign, big or small. Eventually this unity was tested in tax protests and rent strikes. Small actions, but important ones. Every victory and defeat was a lesson for the struggle. People learned, through action and reflection, how to win their own freedom.

Attack
In chess, one attacks to win the king. Throughout the chess game there are skirmishes, but in the end the winner is the one who mates. Throughout an organizing campaign there are small actions, but the attack I’m referring to is the confrontation with the target (the person who has the power to give you what you want). Forcing the target to cave in to demands is checkmate. The small actions are about fighting for position, building leadership, gaining traction, but the game isn’t won until checkmate.

From 1918 until 1930 there were countless actions organized by Gandhi and others. They were important for building unity, leadership skills, and legitimacy for the effort. Those actions helped develop the idea of satyagraha, but the salt campaign was a direct attack on the British empire. Salt provided revenue the British needed; it was also a method of controlling the Indian population. It was a great choice for a national campaign, and the launch was brilliant.

Gandhi had already established a community of other leaders dedicated to satyagraha when he announced the salt campaign. He wasn’t alone, he had core group but he needed more. He needed the nation, and getting that would take time and tension. Gandhi and his followers could have taken the train to the coast rather than walk. Walking gave them time to spread the word and build the tension with the British.

The difference between a good chess player and a great one is the ability to live with tension. Most of chess is spent threatening to take space or pieces. The opponent sees your knight is in a good position to take her bishop. She can escape, counter-attack, or ignore the threat. A good counterattack is one that threatens a different piece somewhere else on the board. This creates a tension, particularly if your newly threatened piece is more valuable than hers. Generally speaking, the first one to break the tension loses.

The salt campaign was about building tension in the struggle for independence, the walk to the sea was about building tension in the salt campaign. The first thing Gandhi and the others did was send a letter to the British viceroy informing him of their intention to break the law and asking that the salt laws be disregarded. This appeal to the viceroy’s moral nature accomplished multiple goals; it demonstrated to the Indian people that the struggle for independence did not need to hide, it clearly articulated the demands of the campaign and laid out the parameters of the engagement, and it began the tension. Would the British send in troops to block the march? Would they arrest everyone? What would happen? Gandhi acted, the British reacted.

In the end, the British did nothing to interfere with the march. Gandhi and his followers walked the 240 miles to the sea and the British were paralyzed. Thousands upon thousands of Indians came to watch the march. The entire country watched as a small group of people stopped the British empire in its tracks. When he got to the sea Gandhi made salt and called on everyone on the coast to do the same.

Then the British broke the tension.

In Peshawar the British army opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, hitting hundreds. Those fired upon were trained in non-violence and dedicated to satyagraha. They followed their training and their beliefs as the soldiers fired for six hours. When those in front fell, others moved in. Even under gunfire those fighting for their freedom refused to break the tension.

It took 17 more years for India to win independence from the British. The salt campaign was the first in a long series of campaigns to achieve that victory. Tens of thousands of people were arrested during the campaign. It showed that the British could not control India unless the Indians let them. It also showed the world the true face of empire.

Final Thoughts on Winning
Winning is serious business. Given the state of the world, we don’t have the luxury of protest for the sake of protest. We have to win. The odds are against us, but they always are. We don’t have enough resources, but we never do. Yet, we have to win. If we really want our human rights, if we really want to be free, we have to win.

In the 1982 movie, there is a scene where Gandhi is in the middle of a fast. He is talking to the US reporter about the chances of winning. He confides that he is not always optimistic, but when he despairs he remembers that throughout history evil does not last. It has always collapsed under its own weight. I don’t know if Gandhi actually said that, but if he didn’t the quote isn’t any less true.

- For more on Gandhi and the salt campaign check out wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi.