Essay, Research Paper: Gandhi And Civil Disobedience

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.