The Patna Surrender was an event that took place during the time from 1922 to 1924 that Gandhi was in prison. A disagreement among Congress Party members over how to proceed in his absence led to a split that threatened to divide the party, and Gandhi surrendered to the opposing side in order to keep the party together, even though it meant letting go of a position which he believed was the correct one.

Some background: there were a series of council’s set up by the British that the Indians were invited to join, but which had no real governing authority. Some in the Congress party, (including Nehru) believed that cooperating with the British by joining the councils might lead to political gains, but as the invitation of the Indians to the councils was mostly for show and did not give them any meaningful participation in government, Gandhi was steadfast against joining. In the absence of Gandhi’s active leadership, the Party was threatened with destabilization and division, with some in the Congress Pary supporting Nehru’s position to join, and others (the so-called “No-Changers”) supporting a continuation of Gandhi’s policy to refuse the councils. Learning of the split from prison, Gandhi surrendered his position, thereby releasing his supporters to join with Nehru’s plan and keeping the Congress Party from collapse, though he still warned that he felt joining the councils was a poor strategic choice. Gandhi was subject to intense criticism for the compromise, as many saw it as a defeat and “selling out” of his principled position. However, Gandhi saw a higher priority in keeping the Party’s unity, and correctly understood that while his opponents were unlikely to be “pushed” into agreement with him at that particular moment (continuing the dispute was only making the disagreement more entrenched), that by stepping back he could open a space for them to be “pulled” toward his position gradually, as the situation evolved over time and their own understanding of it became clearer, which eventually did happen (ie. that they eventually saw, as he did, that the British were not offering them any concrete gains.) Of his detractors who did not understand the strategy, Gandhi said, “People see the fighter in me, but they miss my capacity to surrender, from which my power springs.”

A student-led Serbian uprising, Otpor (“resistance”) led to the overthrow of dictator Slobodan Milošević in 2000. The campaign–almost entirely obstructive program–was carefully planned with assistance from Gene Sharp and his colleagues. Otpor involved a long-term consciousness raising effort with graffiti, flyers, billboards, a rock concert, and nonviolent direct action including various forms of civil disobedience, trade union organizing, preparations to combat electoral fraud, a massive strike, and finally a national convergence of hundreds of thousands on the capital building. The movement was one of strategic, rather than principled, nonviolence – little concern seemed to be displayed (as documented in video footage) for changing the heart of the oppressor, but instead for gaining political power and deposing the regime by any nonviolent means necessary. It has led to other similar campaigns in Eastern Europe, such as Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. Uniquely, the leaders of Otpor have formed an organization called CANVAS to “export” lessons learned to other would-be nonviolent revolutionaries.

Film: “Bringing Down a Dictator”

Coined by Yehudhah Mirsky, a nonviolent moment is a climactic event in a campaign when all of the resistors’ forces are pitted against all of the oppressor’s forces in an open confrontation. The oppressor has two choices: escalate the oppression in a way that is repugnant to the rest of humanity, or back down and concede. Historical examples include the Dharasana Salt Raid during India’s anti-colonial struggle, the EDSA confrontation during the Philippines People Power movement, and Dr. King’s Selma march. Whether or not a nonviolent moment succeeds depends on numerous factors, some of which can be learned and practiced, such as the strategic efficacy of the resistors. However, not all factors are controllable and sometimes you can miscalculate, as in the Tiananmen Square massacre.

At the height of the Philippines People Power movement in 1986, approximately two million people converged on the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in Manila to protest a stolen election. This was the culmination of years of training, strategy, preparation, and consciousness-raising by and among the Philippine people, including the consultation of outside experts such as Hildegard and Jean Goss-Mayr. When the dictator Ferdinand Marcos ordered air strikes on the soldiers who had defected to the side of the people, the pilots found themselves unable to pull the trigger. In this nonviolent moment, all of the forces of the people were lined up against the military might of the regime – and the military of the regime conceded.