Mahatma Gandhi’s Non-Violent Civil Disobedience

Civil Rights movement for the independence of India

Who: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was an Indian lawyer, who soon

became a social activist and was the leader of the nationalist

movement against the British rule of India. Before the movement,

he travelled to England to learn more about moral issues, although

he struggled to adapt to their different culture. After returning to

India briefly, he travelled to South Africa and was exposed to the

racial discrimination there, and as such then refused to accept the

injustice.

What:

The Indian Independence movement was a movement which pushed

independence of India from British rule, starting in 1857, and

succeeding on August 15th, 1947 after the Indian Independence Bill took effect. The movement was most known after Gandhi led

the movement with a non-violent policy.

Due to the rapid culture change in India from the British, the Indians

were worried about losing their culture. An Indian revolt began in

1857, that only lasted a year. The British had exerted great pressure

on India’s princes, which effectively allowed Britain to maintain full

control.

Indian flag in 1906

What:It was in 1919 when Gandhi acted and assembled for a Satyagraha(adherence to truth) movement with peaceful protests, shortly after

the enacted Rowlatt Act authorized British authorities to imprison

people who were suspected of sedition without a trial. Yet despite

Gandhi’s efforts, violence broke out, where troops led by General

Reginald Dyer (British Brigadier) fired into a crowd of 400 unarmed

protestors (The Massacre of Amritsar).

What:

Gandhi continued his non-violent movement, and was soon granted

leadership of the Indian National Congress, to which he used his power to

advocate a non-violence and a non-cooperation policy.

The British further discriminated against the Indians with the Britain Salt Act, which prohibited Indians from

collecting and selling salt. This act also heavily taxed the civilians. Gandhi retaliated with the Salt March, where he

and others marched to the Arabian Sea to collect salt to defy the British, although Gandhi along with 60,000 were

arrested afterward. The Quit India movement was launched by Gandhi in 1942, which advocated British

withdrawal from India. Finally, after the victory of the Labour Party in Britain (1945), negotiations took place

between the Congress, the Muslim League, and the British government, which allowed India to become

independent.

Influences of a Civil Rights Movement

● The British educated the Indians with their

own ideas, while removing cultural

practices, such as sati.

● Indian soldiers were forced to fight with

Britain when they declared war on

Germany on India’s behalf.

● The Rowlatt Act authorized British

authorities to imprison people who were

suspected of sedition without a trial

● The Massacre of Amritsar

● The Salt Act

It is evident that the restrictions imposed on the Indians

from various cases as shown during Britain’s rule

provokes questions of ethical implications. The Indians

were under oppression, and when some acted in violence

over the enacted Rowlatt Act, some people may say that

is was justified, while the Massacre of Amritsar by

which the British retaliated with is not justified.

This further emphasizes why Gandhi stood out with his

non-violence policy, as he states that “an eye for an eye

makes the whole world blind”, taking a revolutionary

stance.

Major Events These major events allow us to understand

the viewpoints of the different parties

involved, and how each responded. For

instance, Gandhi was imprisoned 3 times by

partaking in various stages of the

movement, and his protest against the

enacted Salt Act. Furthermore, the United

Nations, which would typically help a civil

rights movement had only been founded on

October 24th 1945, and could not help.

Events that further propagated and

enlarged the movement consist of (but not

limited to):

● Rowlatt Act

● British Salt Act

● The Massacre of Amritsar

Discussion Questions:● Can violence ever be justified if, for instance, in a situation it would be a more effective

solution opposed to peaceful protest?

● During World War 1, when the British declared war on Germany, Indian soldiers were forced into battle alongside them without the British and Indian leaders consulting beforehand. Is this justified since it was a war against Germany for the peace of Europe?

● Considering both World Wars and other conflicts, do you think if a conventional movement which involved more violent resistance from India would have been more effective?○ Considering Britain’s major roles in each conflicts, how would a different choice of

protest from India affect various foreign affairs?

Citations

India and Pakistan win independence. (2010, February 9). Retrieved from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/india-and-pakistan-win-independence

Mahatma Gandhi. (2019, September 4). Retrieved from https://www.biography.com/activist/mahatma-gandhi

Nanda, B. R. (2020, January 26). Mahatma Gandhi. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi

Szczepanski, K. (2020, January 28). How British Rule of India Came About-and How It Ended. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/the-british-raj-in-india-195275