Mahatma Gandhi - Is There Justification for the Use of Civil Disobedience - Research Paper Example

Module Research Paper - Mahatma Gandhi (Is there justification for the use of civil disobedience INTRODUCTION Mahatma Gandhi was a revolutionary leader who violated the established colonial law through non-violent means. Civil disobedience can only be successfully carried out if there are definite conditions that exist. For instance, it has to be carried out against nations or organizations that are actually breaching their own ethical principles. This type of protest is most successful when enacted against nations that follow some type of democratic process, and that support human dignity. In more brutish societies or dictatorial regimes, the concept of civil disobedience is likely to attract cruel punishment without triggering any sense of concern in the existing authorities. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi believed that violence merely attracts more violence. He therefore discouraged his true followers from violently engaging the colonial authorities who ruled India before 1947. Gandhi wanted to force the imperialists to consider the harm that their presence in India was doing to the ethnic population. To this end, Gandhi believed that engaging in terrorist acts would not help India’s cause. He read about the concept of non-violent protest, as described by the American, Henry Thoreau, and fashioned his protest movement on precepts that were propagated by Thoreau. During his lifetime, Henry Thoreau was believed to be a dangerous anarchist. This is because he refused to support a government that had rules in place to support institutions such as slavery- which he deeply disapproved of. Thoreau, however, did not try to start a revolution in his time. He was merely trying to convince the public that there could be a more just government if this was demanded by the citizens. Thoreau believed that responsible citizens had the duty to refuse to pay taxes to a corrupt government. Thoreau actually decided not to pay taxes in order to demonstrate this point. He was arrested and confined to jail in 1848 for this action. He disapproved of the actions of the friend that paid his bail. This experience inspired him to pen the essay ‘Civil Disobedience’, soon after. This proposal on the performance of acts of civil disobedience would be read and implemented years after Thoreau’s death by men like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Thesis Statement: Thoreau’s treatise contributed to the transformation of the world when revolutionary leaders like King and Gandhi used it to launch successful protests against colonialism and institutionalized racism. MAHATMA GANDHI Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who would later simply be known as Mahatma Gandhi, was the last born of Putilbai and Karamchand Gandhi. When he was a youth, Gandhi was a shy individual who shunned publicity. Gandhi was married at 13 years of age to Kasturbai, and fathered four sons. He went to London, in 1888, to study law. It was in England that Gandhi would discover that it was quite easy for an individual to live without having numerous material objects (Brailsford, 89). He also embraced vegetarianism, and tried to cleave to the statutes of Indian culture. Gandhi also started to read the works of serious writers such as Leo Tolstoy and Henry Thoreau. He tried to integrate what he read with Hindu beliefs enshrined in sacred texts such as the Bhagavad Gita. After studying in Britain, Gandhi went to South Africa in 1893. At one time, he undertook a journey from the city of Natal to the Transvaal province which was governed by the Dutch. At Pietermartizburg Station, Gandhi bought a first-class ticket but was forced to leave the train after refusing to stay in a third class passenger car. This was the singular action that triggered the serious change that would put Gandhi on the world stage as a revolutionary leader. Gandhi was inspired to ask other Indians about their experiences, and found out that what had happened to him was far more normal than he had imagined. Gandhi made the decision to remain in South Africa in order to fight injustice. He remained in South Africa for the next two decades, fighting for the rights of Indian workers (Haynes, 58). He also established a number of organizations such as the Natal Indian Congress. This particular organization was initially only frequented by the higher castes. Indian culture supports the existence of different castes which separate people in society. One of Gandhi’s biggest challenges was finding ways for Indians from all castes to work together. Gandhi’s reputation as an activist grew tremendously in India as well as England. He was regarded as the Indian community’s leader in South Africa. It was in this period that Gandhi came up with the concept of ‘Satyagraha’. This was a non-violent style of protesting against unfair or discriminatory practices. Gandhi was aware that the British colonialists had so entrenched themselves in Hindu society, that removing them would not be a simple task. He decided that the best way to deal with the colonialists was to lose the desire for British goods. Gandhi started to advocate for Indians to become self-reliant as a first step towards gaining liberty from the British. To stimulate this act, Gandhi would travel from place to place with his own spinning wheel, which he would use even as he answered questions and gave speeches. Gandhi also encouraged Indians to avoid salt taxes in an effort to protest non-violently. Gandhi conducted such protests in league with millions of citizens all over the nation while also embarking on fasts for different purposes. This dedication to the good of his fellow man would raise his status among people all over the world to that of a near-saint. In 1947, Britain finally honored the wishes of millions of Indian citizens by granting independence to the nation of India. Comparing Thoreau, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. HENRY DAVID THOREAU Henry David Thoreau first introduced the concept of civil disobedience to address the fact that the government of his day was disregarding problems that he, as a citizen, considered to be urgent. In his essay on civil disobedience, Thoreau states that governments are essentially machines that could act for the good of the people, or mistreat them. Contrary to what many believe, Thoreau stated that the people who could be held responsible for collaborating with any government in its oppressive practices were not those who came up with the laws or supported them, but rather those citizens who refused to do anything to change the system. In Thoreau’s lifetime, Slavery was still a state-supported institution. He felt that the best way to address the existence of this problem was not through the government, but rather through individual effort. Thoreau claimed that the individuals who believe in the right do not just have the responsibility of not supporting destructive policies, but also have to ensure that they do not in any way assist the process by complying with the government’s regulations. For Thoreau, this was necessary even if it meant breaking the rules. Governments will inevitably arrest individuals who break the rules, as Thoreau found out. However, he claimed that in such circumstances, there would be no shame in refusing to support an oppressive government. For Thoreau, who was arrested for refusing to pay taxes, his action basically amounted to conducting a peaceable revolution. In his narrative, Civil Disobedience, Thoreau stated that every citizen has the responsibility to extract meaning from normal life. This means that an individual first has to see to his or her personal belief about what is right and wrong. The concern of following government or local state rules comes second. This interpretation means that people should first ensure that the government is adhering to what they believe is right before they pledge to support its existence. Thoreau asserted that the only state that could truly be said to be enlightened was that which recognized its’ citizens’ preeminence. MAHATMA GANDHI Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would later be given the name ‘Mahatma’, which means great soul. He came up with his own kind of non-violent protest ‘Satyagraha’, which translates to ‘truth-forcer. For Gandhi, the whole process of peaceful protest could only exist if it was based on compassion for one’s fellow man, and love. Gandhi’s version of non-violent protest was specially created to fit the Indian situation. In his campaigns against the British colonialists, Gandhi practiced two kinds of Satyagraha (Solnit, 14). The first option involved taking part in courting arrest while still maintaining civility or courteousness when dealing with the oppressors. In this interpretation of non-violent protest, Gandhi was inspired by the writings of Thoreau to engage in acts that resisted the basic functions that were wrong. In Thoreau’s society, this had meant refusing to pay taxes to a government that refused to deal with or completely abolish the institution of slavery which Thoreau did not agree with. For Gandhi, though, this meant refusing to purchase products from the colonialists, or supporting only Indian industries. Gandhi was quite vocal and practical in ensuring that his followers understood that they were not to physically engage or insult the representatives of the establishment that they were protesting against. For instance, Gandhi refused to allow even hostile language to be used in his meetings. He also forbade his followers from destroying government property. He banned these more graphic forms of expression because they would undercut the generation of the trust and loyalty that he was attempting to foster. The other form of Satyagraha that Gandhi used was refusing to cooperate with the colonial government. This meant refusing to work together in any projects with the colonial government, or elements representing it. This took the form of economic boycotts, strikes, and tax refusals. These forms of non-cooperation were also conducted in a civil way. Gandhi’s followers and supporters were actually subjected to imprisonment, harassment, beatings, and destruction of personal property in an attempt to break their wills. Gandhi believed that when they submitted themselves to these kinds of suffering without retaliating, they would inspire a gradual change of heart in the oppressive government. Moreover, this kind of non-cooperation also generated a separate dynamic. This dynamic was not dependent on winning the affection of empathy of elements in the colonial government. It was grounded on the power and capabilities of the citizens (Ratcliffe, 238). Gandhi asserted that the greatest lie that oppressed citizens start to believe in was that the power lies in the actions of the oppressive government. Gandhi emphasized that people can believe that their actions have no power when they are threatened, or forcibly exposed to other actions such as imprisonment or beatings. However, the real power lies in the actions of the individual- whether this be obedience to given rules, or refusal to obey the rules in spite of possible consequences. This is probably why Gandhi was so celebrated throughout the world. He depended on the existence of concepts in the abstract realm which proved to be accurate. He was accused of being too idealistic; but was proven to be the real leader when his methods paved the way for India’s independence. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. Gandhi’s interpretation of Henry David Thoreau’s concept of non-violent protest would be admired by another famous 20th century leader Martin Luther King Jr. King would take on Gandhi’s concept of civil disobedience when he launched a fight against institutionalized racism in the United States. It is a known fact that Martin Luther King would always pay tribute to Gandhi as one of the principle sources of his personal value system. In 1959, King would actually travel to India on a pilgrimage. King stated that ‘Gandhian’ philosophy was the only ethically practical way of catering to the needs of an entire class of oppressed citizens (Dawson, 1). As a Christian, Martin Luther King would come up with his own understanding of what non-violent protest, as well as civil disobedience in the United States would mean. He drew parallels between the beliefs espoused by the bible and what civil disobedience, as proposed by Thoreau and Gandhi meant. King felt that the words of Christ, to practice neighborly love in all situations could be used to confront evil in varied circumstances. King would also mention that he first learned about non-violent protest through the works of Thoreau, when he studied at Morehouse College. He was immediately engrossed with the concept of refusing to collaborate with a government that refused to accord him the rights that it accorded to other citizens. Upon returning from visiting India in 1959, Martin Luther King would state that Mahatma Gandhi was actually the first individual to change the concept of Christian love into a base that would be used to generate social change. King immediately committed, intellectually, to the concept of practicing non-violent protest. In 1955, Martin Luther King had the opportunity to put his beliefs into practice through the Montgomery Bus Boycott. He was assisted in his movement by men like Glenn Smiley and Bayard Rustin. King would soon make changes that made him embrace the full meaning of staging non-violent protests. For instance, he let his bodyguards go in spite of the fact that he regularly received death threats. King would gradually accept the full meaning of non-violent protest when he spontaneously reacted with compassion when his own home was bombed. Non-violence then became an ordinary way of life for him. He would wryly comment that “Christ furnished his spirit with the ideal of non-violent protest, and Gandhi provided the method (Bankston, 6).” King’s version of non-violent protest had several principles. In the first place, he felt that evil could be adequately resisted without the use of violence. He also contended that true change would only be achieved in the society if the protestors succeeded in generating the sympathy and friendship of the oppressors, and not by humiliating or crushing him. King also preached that non-violent protest should be about opposing evil and not certain groups of people. King, like Gandhi, believed in the existence of a redemptive element in suffering or a good purpose. He expected his followers, in the true Christian tradition, to suffer much and not retaliate so that they could gain the moral strength to forge ahead. King did not just expect his followers to refuse to get violent, he also expected them to resist what he referred to as ‘internal violence of the soul’ (Traubel, 22). Essentially, this means that the non-violent protester keeps from fighting his oppressor and even hating him. King’s final principle in the acceptance of non-violent protest involved generating faith that the future will be much better than the present. King believed that the future ages of African Americans would benefit much more from the efforts of what he and his followers were trying to achieve. This concept was particularly difficult for King’s followers to accept at a time when they were hounded regularly, and it seemed that they would all be murdered. King was so impressed with the reality of non-violent protest that he began to advocate for it in the international arena. He sincerely believed that it was as powerful a concept as modern weapons such as nuclear weapons, in changing the future of man. CONCLUSION There is justification for people in all parts of the world to use civil disobedience as a method of contending with oppressive laws or customs in different parts of the world. Henry David Thoreau’s article on Civil Disobedience was probably one of the most powerful and significant works, apart from the Bible, that were ever published. This wok contributed to the collapse of oppressive systems all over the world. The fact that this concept was used by different leaders in different geographical parts of the world who created their own versions of it shows that it could be used to improve conditions in any setting. In addition, it would seem that the whole concept of non-violence is espoused and encouraged by the scriptures of different religions. This makes it quite easy for different people to be able to adapt it to their specific circumstances. Thoreau probably did not imagine such change when he chose to become one of the few who openly criticized the government of his day for supporting the institution of slavery while purporting to be a Christian government. It is evident that non-violent protest works best in circumstances that purport to support the existence of human rights. Thoreau protested against the American government which identified with the Christian religion, while Gandhi worked to embarrass the British colonialists, and appeal to their better nature. King’s efforts on behalf of the African American community would stir the emotions of those who knew that racist policies were wrong, but had been reluctant to get involved in the past. Essentially, the concept of civil disobedience and non-violent protest engages with the positive side of human character, and encourages people to come forward on behalf of what is believed to be fundamentally right. Annotated Bibliography Bankston, III, Carl. “Thoreaus Case for Political Disengagement.” Modern Age 52.1 (2010): 6. Print. Bankston refers to Thoreau as a philosophical anarchist who would prefer for the reigning government to intrude as little as possible in the lives of ordinary citizens. Though Bankston approves of the results that civil disobedience has brought in some circumstances, he appears to disapprove of the way in which Thoreau went about proselytizing on behalf of civil disobedience. He encourages people to critically examine Thoreau’s work on civil disobedience and not merely regard it as a literary piece. Brailsford, Henry, Noel. “India under the Lathi.” New Republic 65.836 (2012): 89. Print. Brailsford felt that the Indians had a right to rule their own government. In writing about the lathi, he addressed discriminatory practices that the colonialists used against the Indians for decades. He also wrote about how the British government had affected the way the Indian masses perceived themselves. Dawson, James. “Recently Discovered Revisions Made by Thoreau to the First Edition Text of "Civil Disobedience.” Concord Saunterer 15(2007): 1. Print. Dawson addresses different intellectual discoveries in his reflection on Thoreau’s civil disobedience article. Dawson also includes the views of different authors like John Roman, and Leslie Wilson on what Thoreau’s greatest revelation was. Moreover, all the authors concur on the importance of Civil Disobedience as a form of civil protest. Haynes, Edward. “It Happened in March Historical Events & Trivia.” Antiques & Collecting Magazine 115.1 (2010): 58. Print. Haynes addresses different factors that have affected history, and are considered as being some of the most human contributions of all time. In regards to civil disobedience, Haynes addresses how civil disobedience has been used by recognized leaders such as Gandhi. In regards to Martin Luther King, Haynes traces the influence of Gandhi’s interpretation of civil disobedience. Ratcliffe, Cyril. “Gandhi at Sixty.” New Republic 60.776 (2010): 238. Print. This in-depth biography on Gandhi follows the progress of his movement from his days as a lawyer in South Africa to independence in India. Ratcliffe also documents some of the more unsavory things that happened upon India’s independence as a result of the separation of India and Pakistan. For Ratcliffe, the theory of civil disobedience should have been used more extensively in order to generate a more meshed society that would have prevented the catastrophe of the war that broke out upon partitioning India and Pakistan. Solnit, Rebecca. “The Thoreau Problem.” Orion Magazine 26.2 (2007): 14. Print. Sonit points to the fact that civil disobedience often results in mistreatment, in spite of the nobleness of its objectives. For leaders who are not aware that this is a possibility, incarceration could result in them compromising their principles. However, in most cases, the trials merely serve to bring publicity to the cause. Traubel, Horace. “Civil Disobedience: Principle and Politics.” Thoreau Society Bulletin 277 (2012): 22. Print. In this article, Traubel addresses the effects of civil disobedience, as recommended by Thoreau, on successive societies. Traubel emphasizes on the fact that in some societies, this concept is actually a part of cultural beliefs about what true heroism is about. He also states that Thoreau’s concept on civil disobedience was triggered by special circumstances which were relayed in different scenarios in the 20th century. Read More