5ATYAGRAHA; The Art of Defying Oppression Without Becoming Oppressors
Devi Prasad
To begin with I shall discuss some of the commonly used terms in connection with nonviolent action against oppression, and which are often mistakenly understood to be the same as satyagraha practiced and advocated by Gandhi.  This is to try to point out the differences between the concepts these terms represent and how they are not quite the same as the concept of Satyagrha.  These terms are passive resistance, non-cooperation, direct action, civil disobedience and non-resistance.
My aim is not to minimise, even to the slightest degree, the merits, uses and strength of these methods, but to point out that in contrast to any of them Satyagraha is a complete philosophy, as well as the technique of fundamental social change.  Whereas the philosophy of Satyagraha implies a wholistic approach to both long term as well as immediate issues facing human kind, the practice of the above mentioned concepts is by definition, limited to particular situations without being necessarily related to other social or political problems.
Passive Resistance:  Often times Gandhi himself has used this phrase to denote what he meant by satyagraha.  Nevertheless, he has been careful enough to make a clear distinction between the two concepts.  "Passive resistance", he wrote in 1924, "is the weapon of the weak...  The result of our using the phrase 'passive resistance' in South Africa^ he continues "was, not that people admired us by ascribing to us the bravery and the self-sacrifice of the Suffragists, but we were mistaken to be a danger to person and property, which the Suffragists were, and even a generous friend like Mr Hosken imagined us to be weak.  The power of suggestion is such, that a man at last becomes what he believes himself to be.  If we continue to believe ourselves and let others believe, that we are weak and helpless and therefore offer passive resistance, our resistance would never make us strong, and at the earliest opportunity we would give up passive resistance as a weapon of the weak...    While in passive resistance there is a scope for the use of arms when the suitable occasion arises, in Satyagrahg physical force is forbidden even in the so-called most favourable circumstances. passive resistance is often looked upon as a preparation for the use of force while Satyagraha can never be utilised as such". (1)
...2

-2-
In passive resistance there is often an effort of harassing the other party along with a simultaneous readiness to undergo any hardship entailed upon by such activity; whereas in Satyagraha there is not the remotest idea of harassing or shaming the opponent.  Although passive resistance implies a tremendous endurance of suffering, it does not imply much of creative perspective.  In it love is not a necessary ingradient, while it is the soul force behind Satyagraha, which also equips the resister with a more effective and powerful weapon.
To illustrate this point, the example of the sacrifice of the Arabs at the time of the Moroccan War would be an appropriate one.  The French artilary, many times more powerful than the armed Arabs, was ordered to fire on them, but the Arabs defied death, threw away their arms, and shouting "Allah!  Allah!" rushed towards the firing canons of the French.  The French gunners were so overcome by the bravery shown by the Moroccans that they declined to fire their guns, and cheering threw up their caps and embraced the Arabs.  The Arabs were fighting for their religion and were prepared to face death in frenzy.  However, there was not any spirit of love in their action.  Gandhi once gave this as an example for the Indian Congress men to emulate, as far as the Arabs determination to even die for their cause was concerned, but he called it 'reckless bravery'. (2)  The occasion was the hoisting of the national flag at a Congress meeting.  The flag for him was "a mere piece of cloth", unless it symbolised - and turned that symbol into reality - the ideals behind their struggle for independence.
Gandhi sometimes used the phrase passive resistance because that was the only phrase in the English language that, he felt came nearest to the meaning of Satyagraha.  He was also clear in his mind that what goes under the name of Satyagraha was not all real Satyagraha, as not everything that is called by the name of passive resistance should necessarily be different from Satyagraha.  While drawing the distinction between the two concepts, he wrote, "...    I do not wish to suggest that the merits, or if you like, the defects of passive resistance  ... are to be seen in every movement that passes by that hame, but it can be shown that these defects have been noticed in many cases of passive resistance.  Jesus Christ indeed has been acclaimed as the prince of passive resisters, but I submit in that case passive resistance must mean satyagraha and satyagraha alone.  There are not many cases in history of passive resistance in that sense  ..." (3)