This September 11, it will be 120 years since the concept of satyagraha was first articulated on a public platform. It will also be 25 years since the terrorist strike on the US, which brought down the World Trade Centre in New York.It is commonly assumed that the contrast here is between satyagraha-as-aspirational and violence-as-reality. Though there is ample material evidence about violence, this assumption is not valid. The freaky coincidence of these two contrasting 9/11 anniversaries compels us to interrogate what actually works.AdvertisementFirst, we must refuse to be dazzled by the high drama and impact of violence – which does a great job of looking effective in the here and now. Second, we need to dispassionately examine battles of ideas, political struggles and research over the last 120 years to understand what might shape the 21st century.On September 11, 1906, when M K Gandhi stood before a gathering of some 3,000 people at the Empire Theatre in Johannesburg and articulated the principle of nonviolent resistance, he had no name for the concept. Shortly thereafter, together with Maganlal, Gandhi coined the term “satyagraha”, meaning “the force which is born of truth and love or nonviolence”.At the same time, Vladimir Lenin powerfully framed the opposite view: That revolutionary violence is both morally defensible and politically realistic. When the Russian Revolution, led by Lenin, went on to create a powerful counter-force to capitalism and democracy, violence-as-method acquired glamour and legitimacy on a global scale – inspiring diverse revolutions and political struggles.AdvertisementHowever, over the 20th century, nonviolent struggles were more successful than violent ones in overthrowing oppressive power — India’s Gandhi-led nonviolent struggle for freedom was the most famous, but not the only example. The exhaustive study by two American scholars, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, which established this is titled ‘Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict’.Why, then, did Mao Zedong’s famous claim that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun continue to hold sway?One reason is that this view was shared and elaborated by a wide range of thinkers in the West in the mid-20th century. The legendary Frantz Fanon’s claim that “only violence pays” was echoed by Jean Paul Sartre and many others. Sartre argued that “irrepressible violence is man recreating himself”. And that it is through mad fury that the wretched of the earth can become men.Also Read | 25 years on, America’s response to 9/11 is its biggest self-inflicted hurtThe lower-level problem with this view is that, in practice, most such “revolutionary violence” has hurt the very people it claimed to empower. Plus, this view has often been used to validate revenge and terrorism. Such thinking at least partly explains the behaviour of Mohamed Atta and his team, who masterminded and carried out the 9/11 attacks on the US.The higher-order problem is best articulated by Hannah Arendt – namely that violence and power are not the same. In her 1969 essay ‘On Violence’, Arendt wrote: “Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What never can grow out of it is power.”Writing soon after the tragic Prague Spring of 1968, Arendt went on to illustrate this point by saying: “The head-on clash between Russian tanks and the entirely non-violent resistance of the people in Czechoslovakia is a textbook case of a confrontation of violence and power in their pure states.”Ironically, the same is true for both the 9/11 terrorists and the American response that followed. Both sides had substantial command over violence, but what about power?If the 9/11 bombers’ goal was to show the American people that they are vulnerable at home – they succeeded. But did that make a dent in American power? Following 9/11, the US rushed into Afghanistan, defeated the Taliban, and held control by the gun for almost 19 years, but did this lead to power? The US eventually left Afghanistan, and the Taliban again took control.It could be argued that both sides experienced an atavistic satisfaction in hurting an “enemy” even if doing so did not lead to victory. It is commonly assumed this desire for vengeance is a dominant human tendency. But a large volume of multi-disciplinary research shows that this is not true. The evolutionary journey has not hard-wired humans to be predominantly vengeful and/or violent.Similarly, research shows that armies across the world find it difficult to train people to kill. By contrast, training in non-violent action tends to be less strenuous and reliably leads to success. Perhaps the most famous illustration of this was during the American civil rights movement, where the training was led by James Lawson, who had spent several years in India learning nonviolent direct action from Gandhians.While the history of satyagraha through the 20th century has many memorable moments, perhaps nothing is more relatable than the story of Rosa Parks. Across the world, people who may not know the term “satyagraha” know about Parks – an African American woman who refused to vacate her seat on a public bus for a White person, as racial laws in the USA at the time required. Parks had undergone training as an activist of the civil rights movement, but in that moment what she asserted was her power of resolve, the power of her self-confidence, in the face of potential physical violence.Parks later said: “I felt that, if I did stand up, it meant that I approved of the way I was being treated, and I did not approve.”This impulse is universally manifested in diverse situations. Thus, satyagraha, as a formal articulation of this impulse, is more real than aspirational.The events of September 11, 2001 were widely feared as setting the tone for the 21st century. How you feel about this, a quarter century later, is more about where you choose to locate yourself in the flow of ideas and human possibility, than the ceaseless rush of events and actions. If you sense that conflict may be inevitable but violence is not, then picture this – 80 years from now, the bicentenary of the gathering at Empire Theatre will be collectively, joyously, celebrated while the events of 2001 will be mourned and limited mostly to the cold pages of history.Rajni Bakshi is the founder of the YouTube channel ‘Ahimsa Conversations’