Historical and Rhetorical Drafts

Colin McCormick

ENGL 306

Dr. Brown

November 3, 2016

Historical Context

            To fully understand the intricacies of India’s independence from British rule one must look at the history of the two nations and their relationship. For over two centuries prior to India’s independence in 1947, they were under imperialistic control of the British Empire starting in 1750 after the success of the East India Trading Company:

The British conquered Bengal in the second half of the eighteenth century. The East India Company thereby was transformed from an enterprise primarily serving and protecting the commercial interests of its presidencies along coastal India and other posts in Asia to a territorial governor exercising the powers of state in association with its mercantile responsibilities. This discrete and abrupt change in the fortunes of the Company marked the start of two hundred years of British imperial rule in India. It also was the occasion for the reorganization and reform of the institutions through which the British gradually strengthened the interests of the home authorities in the administration of Indian affairs. (de Schweinitz 86)

This success along with the division of power amongst Indian princess at the time created the perfect situation for the British Empire to take control. Another problem during this time was the British Empires massive scope of territories to which they had political and economic influence. During the 19^th century other Eastern Asian countries such as Thailand and China shared in the British Empires disdain and oppression/opposition of Indian citizens. “The Thai encapsulated their attitude toward South Asians in a popular saying, still much quoted: ‘On your way, if you come across a snake and an Indian, kill the Indian first’” (Kratoska 172). During such an oppressing setting as this the Indian Independence Movement, and more specifically Mahatma Gandhis’ peaceful outlooks on rhetoric in social movements took quite some time to develop, however it could be argued that this oppression also fueled and inspired Gandhi’s teachings.

            Mohandas Gandhi born October 2, 1869 would later become a national figure and leader for the Indian Independence movement. During his early years Gandhi studied law England and later practiced this law in South Africa, where he faced prejudice and racism. The culmination of these events led him back to India in 1915 where “the reins of the nationalist movement of which he had only been a distant spectator were to fall into his hands, and were to remain with him until his death” (Nanda 141). Gandhi made his ideals very clear from the beginning, to gain full independence from the British Empire through peaceful and non-violent acts of protest and rhetoric. As stated by B.R. Nanda “He was heading a mass struggle, the avowed purpose of which was to end alien rule. It was an open rebellion, even though a ‘non-violent’ one” (Nanda 186). During his movement he made it clear that he was protesting the treatment of British ruled Indians, however he himself did not hold resentment against the British for driving Indian society and culture down. Instead he believed that it was the fault of Western culture carrying on the idea and beliefs of ruling over another people.

Gandhi was not ignorant of the origins and the basis of the British rule in India. In Hind Swaraj he had given a merciless analysis of Indian history. The East India Company’s victories he had attributed to the divisions of the Indian princes. He had criticized Pax Brittanica; the peace was in name only, as it had emasculated the Indian nation and made it cowardly. The railways, the law courts and the educational system had all served to tighten the stranglehold of the occupying power. This was a scathing indictment of British rule, but the moral he drew from it was novel: India was ground down not by the British rule but by Western civilization which had perpetuated that rule. (Nanda 187-188)

            Although Gandhi did not resent the British for the issues and inequalities they had created, he was still able to acknowledge that what was happening to India was not in any way right. These issues included unfair taxes on lower caste Indian citizens, as well voting rights for only the top wealthiest Indian citizens. This inequality created the racial resentment held by the British Empire and this is exactly what Gandhi was fighting against, “As Thomas Munro pointed out, there had been foreign conquerors who had been more violent and more cruel, but none had treated Indians with such secret scorn as the British, by stigmatizing ‘the whole people as unworthy of trust’ (Nanda 141).

            Over the course of this rhetoric movement the protest development occurs over two phases; the inception phase; and the rhetorical crisis phase. Due to the fact that this protest movement occurred over a span of decades, the events that occurred can be categorized into these two categories most effectively. Once Gandhi became involved in the movement in 1915 the phase of inception began as the Mahatma began to share and enact his new found ideals of peaceful civil disobedience and protest. This alone sparked a movement for India’s independence one which strove for peaceful resolutions above all else. As the movement progressed and gained notoriety, Gandhi was able to successfully draw the eye of the world to the injustices occurring within India, for example with the Salt March of 1930, Gandhi successfully organized a protest march against Britain’s salt taxes, a march in which Gandhi led followers from Ahmedabad to Dandi on the shore to create their own salt. After being brutally harassed by British policemen while protesting peacefully, the British withdrew themselves and called this event a stalemate, shortly after changing the Salt taxes to more reasonable prices.

Rhetorical Context

            At the beginning of the 1900’s a self-aware India began to emerge from the shadow that was British Imperialism. In 1915 Gandhi returned to India after having spent 21 years in the South African colonies under British rule, these 21 year changed Gandhi and “his exposure to the injustices experienced by Indian indentured labour would prove to have a radicalizing effect” (McLaughlan 431). As Robbie McLaughlan goes onto explain, it was during this time after his return that Gandhi began to develop his philosophies of passive resistance,

The philosophy of passive resistance was given the name satyagraha (satya, truth; agraha, insistence) … For Gandhi, satyagraha represents an absolute refusal to legitimise the presence of Europeans in colonial territories (McLaughlan 431-432).

As McLaughlan explains, satyagraha represented everything that the people of India (including Gandhi) wanted to instill and represent, as well as representing the ideals that they would never accept. During this time Indian culture was being suffocated by imperialistic pressure placed on it by the British Empire, their customs, language, way of life were all dying out to be replaced by Western ideologies and practices. It is from this problem that Gandhi’s protest started for the independence of Indian citizens under British Control. As mentioned above Gandhi’s movement felt no need to accept the presence of Europeans in colonial territories, and took on the ideals and beliefs to essentially be as polar opposite as possible to the British and Western Ideals. McLaughlan stipulates that in Gandhi’s mind violence was a “…European tradition that is fundamentally alien to indigenous Indian culture. Violence is inherently European, so to react to violence with yet more violence is an act of legitimizing the logic and presence of the foreign invader” (McLaughlan 432). Under these ideals, individuals under this movement believed that any violence used would be a direct personification of the subjugation they had experienced. Thus the core ideals and identities of the protest are shown; first, that peaceful civil disobedience is to always be used in the face of violent oppressors, and two, that the use of violence to accomplish a goal, stains the credibility by which you have achieved said goal and furthers the process of colonization through the assimilation of the oppressor’s culture.

            Although there have been many historical accounts of violent revolts yielding desired outcomes for the parties enacting them, the identities that Gandhi’s instilled in his teachings attempted to show that a passive, satyagraha approach to handling a violent adversary can yield the same if not better results. The argument that McLaughlin makes in his journal is one to support the idea that as compared to James Connolly’s violent beliefs on how to gain independence for Ireland from an imperialistic British Empire in the early 20^th century, Gandhi’s methods of civil-disobedience and non-violence were more effective in disrupting and stopping the Imperial British Empires reign.

In refusing to endorse violence, Gandhi establishes a dynamic of conflict between the colonized and the colonizer that completely disrupts the established order of being. In doing so, passive resistance ruptures the logic of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century British imperialism in a way that is significantly more traumatic than the militarism adopted by Pearse and Connolly… Žižek contends that… ‘What Gandhi did, although it was very peaceful but in a way extremely violent, was to boycott customs, etc. He targeted the entire structure of the British Colonial State’. The Indian nationalists, shaped in the image of Gandhi, were successful precisely because they targeted the basic functions of the British Colonial State as opposed to engaging the British in an uneven military conflict (McLaughlan 343-434).

            During the fight for independence, Gandhi’s movement clearly voiced their rhetorical goals, which were to fight the injustices that the British Empire was imposing through the use of non-violent civilly disobedient acts, such as refusing the payment of taxes, making their own clothes, and even making their own salt. These acts of civil disobedience were effective in that because the members of this movement were acting non-violently, any violence inflicted upon them while peacefully protesting made the British appear harsh and cruel to the outside world. This concept is the main idea behind satyagraha and is what makes it effective in resisting violent colonizers. The notion that using non-violent protest methods actually works against violent reformation is exactly the end the result that Gandhi’s movement wanted to shed light upon.

            Civil disobedience as an act of protest is the main rhetorical goal of this movement, however this differs slightly from the legislative, social, and political goals of Gandhi’s movement. Although these goals are similar to the rhetorical goal in the sense that all the goals involve independence from British rule, they differ in the idea that rhetorically Gandhi wanted his followers to ideologically stay away and independent from British/Western influence. Whereas the legislative, social, and political goals of Gandhi’s movement were to become completely independent from Britain and become their own self governing body so as to create their own influence. The difference in these goals is ideological, where one is a state of mind and one is a tangible achievement.

            During Gandhi’s independence movement a key factor to the success of his protests was the context in which each was placed. The reason context plays such an important role is because within certain contexts, Gandhi’s non-violent forms of protest would not be affective, for example if the end goal of a violent entity or country is to eradicate another people, it would most likely not be in the best interest of those ‘people’ to just peacefully lay back and allow them to succeed in eradicating them. However, under the circumstances of a violent oppressive imperialistic force, the context is perfect for Gandhi’s methodology due the oppressors want to stay and maintain a presence/ruling over the resources and people within the colonized nation by using force, and fear. The difference between the two contexts in a broader scope is that under one context the oppressing force has no remorse for the actions they inflict upon the oppressed and only care about their end goals, whereas in the other context the oppressing force must take into consideration remorse, as well as outside speculation on the actions they commit as a ‘parent’ nation.

            The methodology that Gandhi used, and the movement that he started was a revolutionary thought at the time and gained publicity worldwide. This in part helped to support Gandhi’s movement by shedding light (globally) on the social inequities and injustices occurring to colonialized Indians. It also brought Gandhi’s followers closer together under the unified cause of satyagraha when placed under the global spotlight. And ultimately Gandhi’s teachings inspired individuals to be proud and to be determined in holding fast to a non-violent form of protest. 

Analysis of a Movement Artifact

            While looking at Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagahra, the most important aspect to take note of is the non-violent approach to civil disobedience. Gandhi was known for his non-violent work in civil rights for Indians against British Colonialism, however one of his most notable demonstrations/act of civil disobedience was “The Salt March to the remote sea-side village of Dandi” (Weber, 46). This demonstration took place in 1930 and was a message to the British Empire that the citizens of India were tired of the unfair salt taxes, and that to protest them, they would make their own salt and boycott British manufactured salt. “And this was to be done by breaking the iniquitous salt laws that meant that even the poorest laborer who sweated under a hot Indian sun could not gather natural salt to supplement the most meagre of diets without paying exorbitant taxes” (Weber, 46-47).

            A protest event such as this represented Gandhi and his followers’ identities perfectly. The Mahatma preached non-violent approaches to all conflicts, therefore a march and boycott to protest government policies held fast to the identities that they were attempting to evoke. Although the British were the main targets that Gandhi was attempting to influence during this march, he also faced problems amongst the followers that he gained while performing these demonstrations. For example, author Thomas Weber recounts an experience that Gandhi had while still marching to the Dandi,

On the ninth day, at the village of Gajera, Gandhi continued his living sermon. A dais had been erected under a large banyan tree for Gandhi’s afternoon speech. Four to five thousand people sat patiently waiting for the Mahatma to tell them about the iniquities of the salt tax and the evils of British rule, but the ever punctual Gandhi just sat on the platform and waited. And waited. Tension increased. For the first time during the march, untouchables had been prohibited from sitting with the rest of the audience. Gandhi instructed his followers to sit among the excluded and finally announced: ‘This meeting has not yet started…. Either you invite the untouchables and my volunteers to sit freely among you or I’ll have to address you from the hill where they are sitting.’ (Weber, 48)

Due to the influence of British colonialism, the caste system was much more enforced, believed, and upheld. Because of this, individuals within Gandhi’s following who came from a higher caste level unknowingly aimed to destroy Gandhi’s cause if they still held on to their belief in the caste system. Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha represents peaceful civil disobedience, however it also represents Gandhi’s desire to liberate and separate from all British ties, beliefs, and western influences as well as creating equality for every single Indian individual, high caste and untouchables alike. Thus the introduction of individuals who still supported British doctrines or beliefs, even unknowingly, severely challenged Gandhi and his movements goals and identities. Not only was he having to physically protest against British acts of inequity, but he was also having to fight the hold that British colonialism had taken over brainwashed high caste members who thought themselves superior in some way. “It was becoming dark on the last part of the journey so a pressurized petromax lantern was lit. The servant carrying the lantern was prodded to walk faster to keep up with the Mahatma. Gandhi saw what was happening – a lowly local being mistreated by a prominent nationalist” (Weber, 49). As Gandhi dealt with these incidents and inspired change in individuals who still held to these principles, he was representing and evoking his movements identity. By standing up for all his followers, and showing forgiveness in times of turmoil during the Salt March, Gandhi was able to effectively influence his followers that the road to a unified and free India started with accepting all members of one’s society as equal.

            Gandhi was also effective in his use of pathos throughout the Salt March, by utilizing his method of non-violent civil disobedience Gandhi and his followers were able to evoke from the world a feeling of sympathy for themselves. Due to the fact that they were protesting non-violently as they met confrontation from British officials in Dandi, they were seen as victims from a ‘big bad’ British Empire after thousands of Indians were jailed including Gandhi, for making their own salt. This use of pathos and emotional connection, was very important in helping to support Gandhi’s identity of satyagraha, without the sympathy that was gained though its use, satyagraha would ultimately be ineffective in promoting the change it seeks.

            When speaking in terms of rhetorical context, the Salt March was precisely the type of situation that Gandhi and his movement looked for in utilizing their rhetoric strategy effectively.

The context in which the protest was placed was ideal for showing the effectiveness of Gandhi and his movements identity, by utilizing the heartstring on the global eye to show people the inequalities and mistreatment that Indians were facing at the time under British colonial rule. 

1. Is the identity that I am researching clear? Is there anything you think I should add to clarify it?

2. Are my use of resources effective and do they add to my overall paper?

3. What areas specifically do you think need the most work?

             

Works Cited

Chenoweth, Erica. "Civil Resistance: Reflections On An Idea Whose Time Has Come." Global

Governance 20.3 (2014): 351-358. Academic Search Alumni Edition. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

Fernée, Tadd. "Gandhi And The Heritage Of Enlightenment: Non-Violence, Secularism And

Conflict Resolution." International Review Of Sociology 24.2 (2014): 309-324. Academic Search Alumni Edition. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

Ferrari, Michel, et al. "Why Is Gandhi Wise? A Cross-Cultural Comparison Of Gandhi As An

Exemplar Of Wisdom." Journal Of Adult Development 23.4 (2016): 204-213. Academic Search Alumni Edition. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

Gupta, R.C. Indian Freedom Movement and Thought: Nehru and the Politics of ‘Right’ versus

‘Left’ (1930-1947). Sterling Publishers, 1983.

McLaughlan, Robbie. "Connolly, Gandhi And Anticolonial (Non)Violence." Irish Studies

Review 24.4 (2016): 430-440. Humanities International Complete. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

Nanda, B.R. Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford University Press, 28 Oct. 1989.

Phibbs, Cheryl. The Montgomery Bus Boycott: A History and Reference Guide. Greenwood,

2009.

Raina, Vinod. "Political Diversity, Common Purpose: Social Movements In India." Inter-Asia

Cultural Studies 5.2 (2004): 320-327. Humanities International Complete. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

Scalmer, Sean. Gandhi in the West: The Mahatma and the Rise of Radical Protest. Cambridge

University Press, 2011.

de Schweinitz, Karl, Jr. The Rise and Fall of British India: Imperialism as inequality. Methuen,

1983. 
Weber, thomas. "Grandhiam Nonviolence And The Salt March." Social Alternatives 21.2 (2002): 46-51. Political Science Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2016