‘Effervescence of the crowd’ is a term used to describe the tendency of people to feed off of a momentary sense of excitement, taking to the streets and appearing briefly to be mobilized for a cause, only for the initial excitement to wear off and for the energy to dissipate (or worse, degenerate into violence and vandalism). This can be related to the yogic idea of a rajasic state, in which apathy has been overcome to reach a state of arousal and activity, but this activity lacks clear, purposeful intention towards a goal.

In nonviolent conflict intervention (also known as third party nonviolent intervention), interposition is the act of literally getting in between conflicting parties to deter them from using violence against one another. Commonly, it is assumed that interposition owes its effectiveness to the conflicting parties’ unwillingness to harm an innocent bystander. However, there is also a more subtle and compelling effect of interposition, which is that violence against another human being depends on the ability of the perpetrator to dehumanize the intended recipient of the violent act, that is, to numb themselves to this person’s humanity. When a nonviolent intervener interposes themselves, they are in effect, saying, “I am willing to sacrifice myself to protect this human being’s life.” This has the effect of awakening the would be perpetrator to the humanity of the would be target, and, momentarily, to their own humanity, thereby making proceeding with violence much more difficult.

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.”

Non-embarrassment is a nonviolent strategic principle employed by Gandhi. “Embarassment,” in this context refers to the alternate definition of embarrass, “to confuse, flummox.”  The principle states that one should never persist actively in a nonviolent resistance campaign towards an opponent while that opponent is distracted. There are two main reasons, both derived from the intention that a nonviolent campaign works as a conversation (primarily through acts rather than words) in which you persuade your opponent of the legitimacy of your position. The first reason is that it is not effective to continue the conversation while your opponent is distracted, because they are not listening to you. The second is that it is an act of good will to allow them time to attend to these other matters, which are unrelated to your cause, since to persist while they are weakened by another challenge would indicate an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of their compromised position in order to defeat them through coercion, rather than your intention to persuade them to the justice of your cause. An example of how Gandhi applied this principle was in 1919 when he called off satyagraha for the duration of the British rail strike; he later called a halt to the movement during each of the World Wars for the same reason.

‘Reference public’ is the term used to describe those who stand to have their views on a given issue influenced through witnessing a nonviolent struggle; it is particularly used in relation to the paradox of oppression.