Gandhi And Civil Disobedience Essay, Research Paper

Civil disobedience and passive resistance was morally superior to all other types of

resistance to unjust laws. The philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi did not incite violence and

was the safest and best way to resolve and abolish unjust laws. An example of this can be

found in the incident at the Dharassana Salt Works, a British factory.

The aspects of his philosophy were all peaceful and did not incite violence. The

aspects were civil disobedience, live simply and serve others. The most important of the

aspects is civil disobedience. One would think that this is a way to incite violence, but the

fact is that civil disobedience means to break an unjust law, and then serve the

consequence to show respect for the need of law and rules. Civil disobedience does not

incite violence. Indians asked for two things basically, freedom and their basic rights.

Gandhi was one of the main influences in India?s independence. The only other way to try

to change unjust laws and get independence is to fight wars. Gandhi never thought about

that. Mohandas Gandhi did not celebrate India?s victory for independence because he was

disappointed that there was so much violence and fighting between the Indians and

British. Violence was something that Gandhi never wanted nor incited. Civil

disobedience proved not to incite violence which was the morally right thing to do.

The Salt March and the Dharassana Salt Works incident were two of the most

important civil disobedience acts. For a long time, Britain had a monopoly of salt in

India. Indians producing salt was strictly outlawed. Gandhi and a large group of people

marched from his house all the way to the ocean and made salt. Even though it was

outlawed he and his men did not struggle when being arrested. Eventually when all the

jails were full of men, the British started beating Indians on the head with sticks, literally.

This was a huge victory for Gandhi because the press followed every move he made and

attention was being spread around the world which is what Gandhi wanted because the

other parts of the world could see how immoral the British were. That was exactly what

Gandhi wanted to do. He did not incite violence, but even if violence did not occur, he

would still get his point out by breaking the law and making salt and getting arrested

without resisting. The press and media were everywhere Gandhi was which was just what

he wanted. With the media covering what was going on, other leaders around the world

could see what awful things the British were doing to the Indians. The most important

event that Gandhi led was the Dharassana Salt Works incident. The Indians wanted to

take over the factory to continue making their own salt. When Gandhi was in jail, a

Muslim leader asked the British guards if they could enter and when the soldiers said no,

the people lined up in rows of five and walked up to the gate. Instead of arresting them

which was moral thing to do, the British soldiers beat them with sticks. This went on for

hours and the press were there to tell all about it. They said, ?what ever little morality the

British had is now lost.?1 That quote was just what Gandhi needed to show the rest of the

world how the Indians were treated. He did not incite violence. The soldiers at the gate

could have just arrested them instead of beating them mercilessly. This proves that civil

disobedience was the morally best thing to do and Gandhi did not incite violence.

To conclude, Mohandas Gandhi?s philosophy was morally the best thing to do to

fight for India?s independence because it did not incite violence. The Salt incidents and

his philosophy proved that civil disobedience did not incite violence. Passive resistance

was the morally right thing to do than all other types of resistance to unjust laws.