By Lualhati Madlangawa Guererro
José Rizal’s approach to revolution is often characterized by his deep belief in the power of character-building as the foundation for achieving true freedom. For Rizal, revolution was not merely an act of violent resistance; it was a moral and intellectual struggle for the soul of the nation. He envisioned a society where the Filipino people, through education, moral fortitude, and self-discipline, would earn the right to self-rule. Despite not using the term itself, Rizal’s satyagraha—a concept that resonates with the idea of “holding on to truth”—was rooted in the belief that justice could be achieved not only through peaceful means but also through the development of the people’s moral and intellectual capacities.
Rizal’s Satyagraha: a "Revolution" of Truth and Justice
Rizal’s concept of satyagraha can be viewed as his unique interpretation of “holding on to truth” within the framework of colonial oppression. Although the term is most commonly associated with Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of non-violent resistance, Rizal’s approach was rooted in a similar commitment to truth but diverged significantly in its implications and applications.
For Gandhi, satyagraha represented an unwavering dedication to non-violence and moral strength, emphasizing that the struggle for justice could be achieved through peaceful means. He famously articulated, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.” This perspective underscores Gandhi’s belief that truth and justice could only be attained through peaceful resistance, appealing to the conscience of oppressors and fostering a shared humanity.
In contrast, Rizal acknowledged the harsh realities of colonial rule and the limitations of solely peaceful methods in confronting such oppression. In a letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt, he candidly expressed his belief that if Spain continued to deny the Philippines its rightful independence, that freedom might only be won through armed struggle. He stated, “We cannot be freed by anyone except by ourselves, and it is through our own efforts and sacrifices that the day of our redemption will come.” This quote reveals Rizal’s recognition that while he favored peaceful reform and moral development, he was pragmatic enough to understand that achieving true independence might require more than moral appeals and intellectual discourse.
Rizal’s view of satyagraha—translated as “holding firmly to truth” or “truth-force”—reflects a deeper commitment to exposing the injustices of Spanish rule and advocating for the rights and dignity of the Filipino people. He once wrote, “The youth is the hope of our future,” emphasizing the importance of education and moral integrity in the fight against oppression. Rizal believed that educating the masses about their rights was fundamental to instilling a sense of empowerment, enabling them to stand against tyranny.
Yet, Rizal also understood that merely advocating for truth without the means to back it up could lead to disillusionment. His writings reveal a complex understanding of resistance, combining moral conviction with the necessity of practical action. For instance, Ninoy Aquino, also a believer of freedom as that of Rizal, remarked, “The Filipino is worth dying for,” a powerful affirmation of the inherent value and dignity of the Filipino people, which called for both self-awareness and a willingness to fight for one’s rights.
This interplay between idealism and pragmatism in Rizal’s philosophy illustrates a critical tension in revolutionary thought. He championed moral character and intellectual uplift, yet he recognized that the fight for independence would require the courage to confront oppression directly. Rizal’s satyagraha thus embodies a nuanced approach that insists on the importance of truth while also acknowledging the need for strength in the face of systemic injustice.
Character-Building in an Age of Social Movements
The 19th century was a time of profound social and political upheaval, characterized by movements that sought to assert national identity and rectify social injustices. In Latin America, leaders like Simón Bolívar and inspired revolutionary fervor, demonstrating that freedom was often seized through armed struggle. Similarly, the European revolutions of 1848 such as in France and in Germany revealed the intertwined nature of nationalism and social justice, as citizens fought not only for self-governance but also for economic rights and social equity.
Within this context, José Rizal’s focus on satyagraha—nonviolent resistance through personal and societal moral upliftment—represents a unique, albeit idealistic, approach to achieving Philippine independence. Rizal believed that the path to freedom lay in the moral and intellectual development of the ilustrado class. He famously asserted in El Filibusterismo, “What is the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?” This sentiment captures his conviction that true freedom required an educated and morally responsible citizenry capable of self-governance. Rizal envisioned a transformation not only in political structures but also in the character of the people themselves.
However, this idealism risks appearing too narrow, especially when viewed through the lens of contemporary social struggles. Rizal’s idealism has been critiqued by scholars such as Zeus Salazar, who pointed out that the ilustrado class, including Rizal, often failed to fully engage with the harsh realities faced by the Filipino masses. Salazar argued, “The struggle for independence cannot be separated from the struggle against exploitation,” emphasizing that the fight against colonial rule must also encompass the socio-economic structures that kept many Filipinos in poverty and servitude. For Salazar, Rizal’s intellectual reforms, while significant, did not adequately address the systemic injustices perpetuated by colonialism, particularly through exploitative systems such as the encomienda and hacienda that kept Filipino peasants in a state of servitude. While Rizal critiqued the abuses of the Spanish friars and landlords, his emphasis remained on intellectual reform, which did not fully address the need for a broader social revolution.
Futhermore, Filipino anthropologist F. Landa Jocano critiqued Rizal’s emphasis on the ilustrados as the primary agents of change as also points out that Rizal’s emphasis on satyagraha—his notion of revolution through moral reform—was deeply influenced by his own ilustrado background. He posited that Rizal’s vision was too focused on intellectual and moral reform, arguing that it “did not adequately reflect the broader social realities of the time.” Jocano contended that Rizal’s revolution was an “intellectual one,” aimed at reforming the colonial system through the actions of the educated elite (who Rizal belived would lead the people toward self-rule) rather than mobilizing the masses. And although noting that while Rizal’s vision of moral reform was important, Jocano suggested that true national revolution necessitated a more inclusive approach that recognized the role of common people in the struggle for independence and social justice.
Both Salazar and Jocano highlighted the limitations of Rizal's approach when viewed through the lens of contemporary social struggles. They underscored the necessity of integrating moral and intellectual reform with a robust engagement with economic realities and the lived experiences of the Filipino people. Salazar articulated that “the revolution must be holistic, addressing not only political sovereignty but also the socio-economic conditions of the masses.”
Rizal and Gandhi: A Comparative Lens
In comparing José Rizal and Mahatma Gandhi, one can observe that both figures shared a profound belief in the transformative power of truth and moral reform. However, their approaches to revolution were fundamentally different, shaped by their distinct contexts and philosophies.
Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha was deeply rooted in the principles of ahimsa, or non-violence, and was characterized by mass participation. His approach allowed even the poorest members of Indian society to engage in non-violent resistance through acts of civil disobedience. Gandhi famously stated, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind,” underscoring his conviction that moral power could prevail over oppression without resorting to violence. His vision extended beyond political independence to encompass rural self-sufficiency and economic justice, reflecting his broader notion of swaraj—self-rule that included social and economic dimensions. Gandhi believed that true independence meant not only political sovereignty but also the empowerment of the people at all societal levels. He argued that “Swaraj is not merely political independence; it is self-control and self-restraint,” indicating that his vision of freedom involved personal and communal responsibility.
In contrast, Rizal placed his hopes in the educated elite, believing that gradual reform and education were the keys to achieving independence for the Philippines. He once wrote, “The Filipino is worth dying for,” (eventually quoted by Aquino) emphasizing the inherent dignity and potential of his countrymen. However, his interpretation of satyagraha was not centered on mass mobilization or economic self-sufficiency; rather, it was about demonstrating to the colonizers that Filipinos were intellectually and morally capable of self-governance. Rizal believed that if the Spanish authorities could see the capabilities of the Filipino people, they would be more inclined to grant them the rights to self-rule. He wrote in El Filibusterismo, “What is the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?” This quote captures Rizal’s understanding that moral and intellectual development were prerequisites for true independence.
While both men sought to empower their respective nations, their methods and underlying philosophies reveal critical differences. Gandhi’s revolution was inherently inclusive, drawing strength from the collective will of the masses. His emphasis on economic self-sufficiency and social justice aimed to uplift all segments of society, ensuring that the struggle for independence was also a fight for equality and dignity. He articulated this sentiment when he said, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others,” highlighting his belief in the interconnectedness of individual and collective liberation.
Rizal, on the other hand, envisioned a top-down approach where the enlightened elite would lead the way for the masses. He argued for reform through education, believing that the ilustrados would guide the nation toward progress. Rizal’s focus on the intellectual development of the elite, while noble, limited the scope of his revolutionary vision and left the broader Filipino populace less engaged in the struggle. He recognized this limitation when he remarked, “I die without seeing the dawn brighten over my native land. You, who will see it, welcome it and forget not those who have fallen during the night.” This poignant statement reflects his awareness that while he may not witness the fruits of his labor, the responsibility of the coming generation would be to continue the fight for justice.
In summary, the comparison between Rizal and Gandhi illustrates two distinct paths to social and political transformation. Gandhi’s inclusive approach sought to harness the power of the masses, advocating for a revolution that engaged every level of society. His strategies fostered a sense of collective agency and empowerment, reflecting a vision that combined personal growth with societal change. On the other side, Rizal’s focus on the educated elite revealed a more constrained vision of revolution. While he championed moral character and intellectual uplift, his strategy did not fully mobilize the broader Filipino populace, which limited its effectiveness. His belief that intellectual advancement would convince colonial powers of the Filipinos’ readiness for self-governance highlights his faith in reform through education rather than through collective action.
The Idealism of Rizal: Revolution and its Limitations
Rizal’s emphasis on character-building as a form of revolution reflects a profound idealism rooted in his belief that justice could be achieved through moral and intellectual upliftment. However, historian Renato Constantino points out that Rizal’s failure to fully engage with the broader social struggles of his time limited the effectiveness of his revolutionary vision. Constantino critiques Rizal for focusing primarily on the ilustrado class and for underestimating the urgent economic and social grievances of the Filipino masses, particularly the peasants and laborers who suffered under colonial exploitation. He argues that “Rizal’s vision lacked a concrete plan to address the systemic injustices affecting these marginalized groups.”
Zeus Salazar echoes this sentiment, emphasizing that Rizal’s approach often overlooked the realities faced by the broader populace. Salazar contends that true liberation must encompass not only political sovereignty but also socio-economic justice, a dimension that Rizal’s reformist vision inadequately addressed. He states, “The struggle for independence must be intertwined with the fight against the exploitative structures of colonial rule,” highlighting that Rizal’s emphasis on intellectual reform did not sufficiently tackle these urgent issues.
F. Landa Jocano further critiques Rizal’s focus on the educated elite as the primary agents of change. Jocano argues that while Rizal’s commitment to moral reform was admirable, it ultimately did not capture the broader social and economic struggles necessary for a true revolution. He notes, “Rizal’s reliance on the ilustrados to lead the charge for independence alienated many ordinary Filipinos who felt unrepresented in the movement for change.” Jocano asserts that a more grassroots-oriented approach could have mobilized a wider swath of the population, thus fostering a more inclusive revolutionary spirit.
Teodoro Agoncillo also emphasizes this limitation in his works, arguing that Rizal’s idealism failed to mobilize the masses effectively. He contends, “Rizal’s belief in peaceful reform and the capacity of the educated class to guide the nation did not resonate with the realities of widespread poverty and oppression experienced by the majority of Filipinos.” Agoncillo stresses that a revolution rooted in mass participation and collective action would have been more likely to address the pressing needs of the people.
Despite these critiques, Rizal’s legacy remains significant and impactful. His unwavering commitment to justice, education, and moral integrity continues to inspire generations of Filipinos. While his approach to revolution may have been idealistic, it underscores the importance of truth, justice, and intellectual development in the fight for freedom. Rizal’s notion of satyagraha—his insistence on holding on to truth—serves as a powerful reminder that revolution is not solely about armed struggle; it is also about the moral and intellectual transformation of society.
However, Rizal’s story also highlights a crucial lesson: idealism alone may not be sufficient to overcome the violent realities of colonialism. This understanding resonates deeply in contemporary struggles for justice and freedom, urging activists to engage with the complex social and economic issues that affect marginalized communities. The ongoing dialogue surrounding Rizal's contributions encourages a more inclusive approach to revolution—one that acknowledges the necessity of mobilizing all sectors of society, particularly those who have historically been disenfranchised.
Conclusion
Rizal’s revolutionary vision, though idealistic, was rooted in a deep moral belief in the transformative power of education and character. While his satyagraha shares commonalities with Gandhi’s commitment to truth and justice, Rizal’s approach to revolution was far more focused on gradual reform and intellectual upliftment. His recognition of the necessity of armed struggle, even if treated as secondary, distinguishes him from Gandhi’s strict adherence to non-violence. Yet, Rizal’s focus on character-building and peaceful reform may have been too limited in an era where social movements and national struggles were increasingly intertwined with violent resistance. Through comparisons with thinkers like Salazar, Jocano, and Gandhi, it becomes clear that while Rizal’s vision remains significant, it must also be understood within the broader context of 19th-century global movements that demanded more direct and immediate action against oppression.
References
Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. 1975.
Salazar, Zeus A. Philippine Nationalism: A Historical Analysis. 1990.
Jocano, F. Landa. Filipino Value System: A Cultural Definition. 1997.
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. The Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan. 1956.
Gandhi, Mahatma. The Story of My Experiments with Truth. 1927.