Final Draft Research Paper

Colin McCormick

ENGL 306

Dr. Brown

December 4, 2016

Final Draft

            Throughout history peace has played a backseat to violence as a problem solving technique used by human societies when fighting for a cause. Although this method of conflict resolution may work, the violence it incites brings into question whether or not other forms of conflict resolution may be more effective and less harmful. Within this paper I look at the effectiveness that Mohandas Gandhi had in using peaceful protest as a conflict resolution rather than violence in the context of overbearing British Colonial rule.

            During British Imperial rule of India Gandhi was a major influential figure and advocate for the liberation of India from Great Britain. During this time Great Britain had an “oppressive” rule over India and enforced heavy tariffs and taxes on the citizens, as well as treating them as second class citizens unless they were wealthy or nobility. It is due to this type of British rule that Gandhi became so passionate about liberating India and without this context it may have never occurred.

            The context in which Gandhi performed his acts of rhetoric was also key in the success of his peaceful movement. Due to their position in the conflict India was able to utilize the strength of their peaceful protest by using the advantage of being seen as peaceful victims being punished by a ‘tyrannical’ British empire. Without this position Gandhi’s movement may not have succeeded due to his methods relying on the sympathy and compassion of the people looking towards the actions of India and Great Britain as well as the feeling that Great Britain did not want to look like merciless, greedy tyrants. If however British plans were changed and they had instead decided to wipe out the Indian population, Gandhi’s form of rhetoric would not have been as effective except to serve as a martyr due to the face that a ‘lay down and take it’ approach does not really work if the objective of your opponent is to kill you. Which is why under this context peaceful protest succeeded, the British wanted to rule over the Indian population therefore any acts of violence against the peaceful Indian protestors from the British seemed ruthless on their part.

            During the remainder of my paper I will discuss and go into more detail about the aspects of both the rhetorical and historical context of my topics as well as provide an analysis of an artifact from this protest movement.

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 19 (Weber), 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 harassed by British police officers while protesting peacefully, the British withdrew themselves and called this event a stalemate, shortly after changing the Salt taxes to prices that are more reasonable.

                         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.

            From a movement with such an impact it is clear that in the context that it was placed, Gandhi’s non-violent ideologies and satyagraha were very effective in enacting change for the colonized Indian people. Due to this context Gandhi and his followers identities could be fully voiced in a manner that acted towards a common goal, and thus shows that certain identities can be articulated better under certain situations that suit the ideologies being represented. In this case the identity of peaceful protest was articulated most effectively under the circumstances of an oppressive colonial rule.

            Overall peaceful protest is very effective in performing acts of civil disobedience geared towards change on a social or political level when facing violence. Although it may have its exceptions in usage, peaceful acts of protest can be seen as a very effective at making a point as well as avoiding (usually) all violence and should be utilized whenever appropriate. Many would argue that there are times and places where violence is unavoidable, and I would agree with them, my point is not that non-violent forms of protest are the only suitable ways to protest. It is that given the option, finding a non-violent resolution to a conflict seems much more preferable than any option involving violence or bloodshed.

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