Mohandas Gandhi and the Nonviolent Movement - Essay Example

Mohandas Gandhi and the Nonviolent Movement The Indian independence is unique for one fundamental reason: it was gained without any shot being fired and without any blood being spilled. This was the countrys contribution to the world. The object of self-determination has been a legitimate goal and armed struggle is considered necessary as in the case of many nations who fought their colonizers. But the idea of a non-violent struggle, much more, with the fact that it could succeed made such unconventional approach all the more remarkable and nobler. At the heart of the non-violence strategy to achieving objectives such as liberty and civil rights was Mohandas Gandhi, who led India to independence and to various social reforms such as equality, women rights and the elimination of the Indian caste system. The film, Gandhi, documented this great narrative. This paper – through this material – will explore how the Gandhian way of non-violence and civil disobedience came to be as effective as- or even more effective than brute force. Gandhi is recognized to have developed his model of civil disobedience, the one that finally rid India of the British authority. In this framework, the Indians were called to resist unfair laws, which eventually paralyzed the British in India. This is not a novel concept because the approach has been used in the past and in other countries. For example, civil disobedience was employed by Egyptians as a tool in their rebellion against Britain in 1919. Its origins can be traced as far back as ancient Greece in Sophocles’ portrayal of Antigone’s defiance of her king. Then there was the actual case of the Christians peacefully refusing to follow the Roman religion, imperial laws and regulations. The doctrine is “deliberate and peaceful violation of laws, regulations, police or military orders, which are regarded as inherently immoral, unjust, or tyrannical” (Sharp, 123). The concept as outlined above was effective when implemented by Gandhi partly because it appealed to Indian cultural, religious and social sensibilities. This is depicted in the Indian concept of ahimsa or satyagraha. Here, civil disobedience is the same as widely accepted ideal that a form of respectful disagreement can express compassion (Trimm 2012). This is important in the success of this initiative. According to Schlueter, civil disobedience becomes valid and effective when those who employ it do so openly, lovingly and with willingness to accept the consequence of their action (139). This was clearly demonstrated in the film, Gandhi. For instance, there was the scene where Gandhi was able to muster a handful of protesters and was in the process of burning their passes. This event demonstrated two kinds of civil disobedience and highlighted Gandhi’s success in it. First, there was Khan, burning his pass. It was a kind of non-violent struggle. But one could clearly see his palpable hatred of the British police present, especially the one who accosted and arrested him. Then, afterwards, Gandhi proceeded on burning the other passes. He was prevented from doing so. He was beaten with a stick repeatedly. His reaction, however, was entirely different from that of Khan’s. He displayed no sign of hatred towards his attacker. As a matter of fact, he paid no attention to him with all his determination focused on his objective - to burn the passes. Even afterwards in his conversation with his wife, when he was all stitched up and bandaged, there was no reference about his attacker or about the cruelty of the system. He was ecstatic that he was making progress in making his case noticed by the press. This attitude is ideal in Indian society. The satyagraha, for instance, prescribes that one must harbor no anger and that one must suffer the anger of his opponent instead, putting up with assaults but refusing to retaliate (Avinashilingam, 73). Another important reason why Gandhi succeeded with his non-violent resistance was how he lived what he preached. During the funeral tribute scene after he was assassinated, the British commentator was explaining this, pointing out that he owned no wealth, he lived simply and he had no title to boast of. People were able to identify with him. At the end of the day, most of the Indians during his time were on the same boat, poor and oppressed. Gandhi, in effect, came to symbolize their plight, their desires and aspirations. He was the soul of his people. That is why he was believed in; he was beloved; and, he was followed. Finally and most importantly, Gandhi loved his country. Throughout his life, he was selfless. He has devoted his time and his efforts to causes that would benefit his country and his countrymen. This was clear to his people. That is why in the movements and the battles that he chose, he was able to count on the support of others. There was an implicit recognition that what Gandhi was doing was for the good of India. He was, hence, a natural politician – one that is highly effective and charismatic. The film successfully showed this in the throng of people who gravitated to him wherever he went. Gandhi’s success with civil disobedience would inspire similar struggles later on. Its success would also be replicated. One of the most prominent of these was the American Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. The nonviolent resistance approach was used to successfully reverse discrimination. some of the approaches adopted were freedom rides, boycotts and marches, which created crisis situations that finally brought civil rights issues to national consciousness. Civil disobedience also worked for countries seeking independence in recent times. The example of Georgia’s struggle for independence from Soviet control is a case in point. In October 1990, majority of the seats in Georgian National Congress were taken by the Georgian National Independence Party, which led a massive civil disobedience campaign in order to expedite its independence from the Soviet Union (Olson, 249). All in all, civil disobedience works for struggles to effect social and political change because it is a more moral approach. The experience of Gandhi’s movement demonstrated this. People were more supported because it is aligned with their ideal of what is right and wrong. Moreover, opponents are also more amenable to compromise and accede because the struggle is not typified by bitter conflict. Works Cited Avinashilingam, T.S. The sacred touch: an autobiography. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1990.Print. Schlueter, Nathan. One Dream Or Two?: Justice in America and in the Thought of Martin Luther King, Jr. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Print. Olson, James. An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group., 1994. Print. Sharp, Gene. Sharps Dictionary of Power and Struggle: Language of Civil Resistance in Conflicts. Oxon: Oxford University Press, 2011.Print. Trimm, Cindy. When Kingdoms Clash: Strategies for Prayer in the Heat of Battle. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma Media. Print. Youtube. Gandhi 1982. Youtube, 2012. Web. 10 December 2012. Read More