Civil Disobedience Essay Gandhi Ji

Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalistHenry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War (1846–1848).

Title[edit]

In 1848, Thoreau gave lectures at the Concord Lyceum entitled "The Rights and Duties of the Individual in relation to Government".[1] This formed the basis for his essay, which was first published under the title Resistance to Civil Government in a 1849 anthology by Elizabeth Peabody called Æsthetic Papers.[2] The latter title distinguished Thoreau's program from that of the "non-resistants" (anarcho-pacifists) who were expressing similar views. Resistance also served as part of Thoreau's metaphor comparing the government to a machine: when the machine was producing injustice, it was the duty of conscientious citizens to be "a counter friction" (i.e., a resistance) "to stop the machine".[3]

In 1866, four years after Thoreau's death, the essay was reprinted in a collection of Thoreau's work (A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers) under the title Civil Disobedience. Today, the essay also appears under the title On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, perhaps to contrast it with William Paley's Of the Duty of Civil Obedience to which Thoreau was in part responding. For instance, the 1960 New American Library Signet Classics edition of Walden included a version with this title. On Civil Disobedience is another common title.

The word civil has several definitions. The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi used this interpretation to suggest an equivalence between Thoreau's civil disobedience and his own satyagraha.[4]

Background[edit]

The slavery crisis inflamed New England in the 1840s and 1850s. The environment became especially tense after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. A lifelong abolitionist, Thoreau delivered an impassioned speech which would later become Civil Disobedience in 1848, just months after leaving Walden Pond. The speech dealt with slavery, but at the same time excoriated American imperialism, particularly the Mexican–American War.[5]

Summary[edit]

Thoreau asserts that because governments are typically more harmful than helpful, they therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice. The judgment of an individual's conscience is not necessarily inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so "[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."[6] He adds, "I cannot for an instant recognize as my government [that] which is the slave's government also."[7]

The government, according to Thoreau, is not just a little corrupt or unjust in the course of doing its otherwise-important work, but in fact the government is primarily an agent of corruption and injustice. Because of this, it is "not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize".[8]

Political philosophers have counseled caution about revolution because the upheaval of revolution typically causes a lot of expense and suffering. Thoreau contends that such a cost/benefit analysis is inappropriate when the government is actively facilitating an injustice as extreme as slavery. Such a fundamental immorality justifies any difficulty or expense to bring to an end. "This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people."[9]

Thoreau tells his audience that they cannot blame this problem solely on pro-slavery Southern politicians, but must put the blame on those in, for instance, Massachusetts, "who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may... There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them."[10] (See also: Thoreau's Slavery in Massachusetts which also advances this argument.)

He exhorts people not to just wait passively for an opportunity to vote for justice, because voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support.

Paying taxes is one way in which otherwise well-meaning people collaborate in injustice. People who proclaim that the war in Mexico is wrong and that it is wrong to enforce slavery contradict themselves if they fund both things by paying taxes. Thoreau points out that the same people who applaud soldiers for refusing to fight an unjust war are not themselves willing to refuse to fund the government that started the war.

In a constitutional republic like the United States, people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try to use the political process to change the law, but to obey and respect the law until it is changed. But if the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then Thoreau says the law deserves no respect and it should be broken. In the case of the United States, the Constitution itself enshrines the institution of slavery, and therefore falls under this condemnation. Abolitionists, in Thoreau's opinion, should completely withdraw their support of the government and stop paying taxes, even if this means courting imprisonment.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.... where the State places those who are not with her, but against her,—the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.... Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.[11]

Because the government will retaliate, Thoreau says he prefers living simply because he therefore has less to lose. "I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts.... It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case."[12]

He was briefly imprisoned for refusing to pay the poll tax, but even in jail felt freer than the people outside. He considered it an interesting experience and came out of it with a new perspective on his relationship to the government and its citizens. (He was released the next day when "someone interfered, and paid that tax".)[13]

Thoreau said he was willing to pay the highway tax, which went to pay for something of benefit to his neighbors, but that he was opposed to taxes that went to support the government itself—even if he could not tell if his particular contribution would eventually be spent on an unjust project or a beneficial one. "I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually."[14]

Because government is man-made, not an element of nature or an act of God, Thoreau hoped that its makers could be reasoned with. As governments go, he felt, the U.S. government, with all its faults, was not the worst and even had some admirable qualities. But he felt we could and should insist on better. "The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.... Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."[15]

An aphorism often erroneously attributed to Thomas Jefferson,[16] "That government is best which governs least...", was actually found in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Thoreau was apparently paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review: "The best government is that which governs least."[17] Thoreau expanded it significantly:

I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

— Thoreau, Civil Disobedience[18]

Influence[edit]

Mohandas Gandhi[edit]

Indian independence leader Mohandas Gandhi (a.k.a. Mahatma Gandhi) was impressed by Thoreau's arguments. In 1907, about one year into his first satyagraha campaign in South Africa, he wrote a translated synopsis of Thoreau's argument for Indian Opinion, credited Thoreau's essay with being "the chief cause of the abolition of slavery in America", and wrote that "Both his example and writings are at present exactly applicable to the Indians in the Transvaal."[19] He later concluded:

Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. He was one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced. At the time of the abolition of slavery movement, he wrote his famous essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. He went to gaol for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable.

— "For Passive Resisters" (1907).[20]

Martin Luther King, Jr.[edit]

American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also influenced by this essay. In his autobiography, he wrote:

During my student days I read Henry David Thoreau's essay On Civil Disobedience for the first time. Here, in this courageous New Englander's refusal to pay his taxes and his choice of jail rather than support a war that would spread slavery's territory into Mexico, I made my first contact with the theory of nonviolent resistance. Fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system, I was so deeply moved that I reread the work several times.

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. The teachings of Thoreau came alive in our civil rights movement; indeed, they are more alive than ever before. Whether expressed in a sit-in at lunch counters, a freedom ride into Mississippi, a peaceful protest in Albany, Georgia, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, these are outgrowths of Thoreau's insistence that evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice.

— The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.[21]

Martin Buber[edit]

Existentialist Martin Buber wrote, of Civil Disobedience

I read it with the strong feeling that here was something that concerned me directly.... It was the concrete, the personal element, the "here and now" of this work that won me over. Thoreau did not put forth a general proposition as such; he described and established his attitude in a specific historical-biographic situation. He addressed his reader within the very sphere of this situation common to both of them in such a way that the reader not only discovered why Thoreau acted as he did at that time but also that the reader—assuming him of course to be honest and dispassionate– would have to act in just such a way whenever the proper occasion arose, provided he was seriously engaged in fulfilling his existence as a human person. The question here is not just about one of the numerous individual cases in the struggle between a truth powerless to act and a power that has become the enemy of truth. It is really a question of the absolutely concrete demonstration of the point at which this struggle at any moment becomes man's duty as man....

— "Man's Duty as Man" (1962)[22]

Others[edit]

Author Leo Tolstoy has cited Civil Disobedience as having a strong impact on his nonviolence methodology. Others who are said to have been influenced by Civil Disobedience include: President John F. Kennedy, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, and various writers such as, Marcel Proust, Ernest Hemingway, Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, and William Butler Yeats.[23]

References[edit]

  1. ^Thoreau, H. D. letter to R. W. Emerson, 23 February 1848.
  2. ^Thoreau, Esq., H.D. (1849). "The Resistance to Civil Government". Æsthetic Papers; Edited by Elizabeth P.Peabody. Boston and New York: The Editor and G.P. Putnam. pp. 189–211. Retrieved February 1, 2018 – via Internet Archive. 
  3. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. 
  4. ^Rosenwald, Lawrence, The Theory, Practice & Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, quoting Gandhi, M. K., Non-Violent Resistance, pp. 3–4 and 14.
  5. ^Levin, p. 29.
  6. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. Retrieved 2018-02-02. 
  7. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. Retrieved 2018-02-02. 
  8. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. Retrieved 2018-02-02. 
  9. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. Retrieved 2018-02-02. 
  10. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. Retrieved 2018-02-02. 
  11. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. 
  12. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. Retrieved 2018-02-02. 
  13. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. Retrieved 2018-02-02. 
  14. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. 
  15. ^Gross, David M. ""Resistance to Civil Government" by H.D. Thoreau ("Civil Disobedience") • TPL". The Picket Line. Retrieved 2018-02-02. 
  16. ^(1) Berkes, Anna (August 28, 2014). "That government is best which governs least. (Spurious Quotation)". Th. Jefferson Monticello. Charlottesville, Virginia: Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. (Monticello.org). Archived from the original on May 3, 2017. Retrieved September 22, 2017. 
    (2) Coates, Robert Eyler (1999). "The Jeffersonian Perspective: Commentary on Today's Social and Political Issues: Based on the Writings of Thomas Jefferson: "That government is best..."". Archived from the original on September 22, 2017. Retrieved September 22, 2017.  
    (3) Gillin, Joshua (September 21, 2017). "Mike Pence erroneously credits Thomas Jefferson with small government quote". PolitiFact. St. Petersburg, Florida: Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on September 22, 2017. Retrieved September 22, 2017.   ,
  17. ^Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989, Bartleby.com, accessed 20 January 2013
  18. ^Thoreau, Henry David (1849). Civil Disobedience. first paragraph. 
  19. ^Gandhi, M. K. "Duty of Disobeying Laws", Indian Opinion, 7 September and 14 September 1907.
  20. ^Gandhi, M. K. "For Passive Resisters", Indian Opinion, 26 October 1907.
  21. ^King, M. L. "Morehouse College" (Chapter 2 of The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.)
  22. ^Buber, Martin, Man's Duty as Man from Thoreau in Our SeasonUniversity of Massachusetts Press (1962) p. 19.
  23. ^Maynard, W. Barksdale, Walden Pond: A History. Oxford University Press, 2005 (p. 265).

Peabody, Elizabeth (ed). Aesthetic Papers. G.P. Putnam (New York, 1849). Available at the Internet Archive

External links[edit]

  • Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience. EDSITEment Launchpad Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience
  • Peabody, Elizabeth (ed.), Æsthetic Papers. The Editor, Boston, 1849, a digitized copy from the Internet Archive.
  • Thoreau, H. D. A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers. Ticknor and Fields, Boston, 1866, a digitized copy from the Internet Archive.
  • Hypertext version from American Transcendentalist Web
  • A well-footnoted version at panarchy.org.
  • Full text at Project Gutenberg.
  • Annotated version at The Thoreau Reader
  • Resistance to Civil Government with external references and individually hyperlinked paragraphs
  • "The Theory, Practice, and Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience" by Lawrence Rosenwald
  • Henry David Thoreau and Civil Disobedience by Wendy McElroy
  • "Highway Tax vs. Poll Tax: Some Thoreau Tax Trivia" by Carl Watner
  • Introduction by Howard Zinn, The Higher Law: Thoreau on Civil Disobedience and Reform
  • Civil Disobedience– Audio Book, Free public-domain Librivox Audio Recording (full text)
  • "All Things New: On Civil Disobedience Now" by Steven Schroeder, Essays in Philosophy, Vol. 8, No. 2, June 2007

Gandhi and Civil Disobedience



Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1947). (Wikimedia Commons)

Mohandas K. Gandhi, often referred to as Mahatma, the Great Soul, was born into a Hindu merchant family in 1869. He was heavily influenced by the Hinduism and Jainism of his devoutly religious mother. She impressed on him beliefs in non-violence, vegetarianism, fasting for purification, and respect for all religions.

In 1888, Gandhi sailed to England and studied to become a lawyer. His first job for an Indian company required that he move to South Africa. The ruling white Boers (descendants of Dutch settlers) discriminated against all people of color. When railroad officials made Gandhi sit in a third-class coach even though he had purchased a first-class ticket, Gandhi refused and police forced him off the train.

This event changed his life. Gandhi became an outspoken critic of South Africa’s discrimination policies. When the Boer legislature passed a law requiring that all Indians register with the police and be fingerprinted, Gandhi, along with many other Indians, refused to obey the law. He was arrested and put in jail, the first of many times he would be imprisoned for disobeying what he believed to be unjust laws.

While in jail, Gandhi read the essay “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, a 19th-century American writer. Gandhi adopted the term “civil disobedience” to describe his strategy of non-violently refusing to cooperate with injustice, but he preferred the Sanskrit word satyagraha (devotion to truth). Following his release, he continued to protest the registration law by supporting labor strikes and organizing a massive non-violent march. Finally, the Boer government agreed to end the most objectionable parts of the registration law.

After 20 years in South Africa, Gandhi went home to India in 1914. When Gandhi returned, he was already a hero. Gandhi devoted the rest of his life struggling against what he considered three great evils afflicting India. One was British rule, which Gandhi believed impoverished the Indian people. The second evil was Hindu-Muslim disunity caused by years of religious hatred. The last evil was the Hindu tradition of classifying millions of Indians as a caste of “untouchables.” Untouchables, those Indians born into the lowest social class, faced severe discrimination.

Gandhi expected Britain to grant India independence after World War I. When it did not happen, Gandhi called for strikes and other acts of peaceful civil disobedience. The British sometimes struck back with violence, but Gandhi insisted Indians remain non-violent. Many answered Gandhi’s call. But as the movement spread, Indians started rioting in some places. Gandhi called for order and canceled protests. He drew heavy criticism from fellow nationalists, but Gandhi would only lead a non-violent movement.

Gandhi was jailed many times. At one trial he said, “In my humble opinion, non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.” When he was released, he continued leading non-violent protests.
 
When India finally gained independence, the problem became how Hindus and Muslims would share power. Distrust spilled over into violence. Gandhi spoke out for peace and forgiveness. He opposed dividing the country into Hindu and Muslim nations, believing in one unified India. In May 1947, British, Hindu, and Muslim political leaders, but not Gandhi, reached an agreement for independence that created a Hindu-dominated India and a Muslim Pakistan. As Independence Day (August 15, 1947) approached, an explosion of Hindu and Muslim looting, rape, and murder erupted throughout the land. Millions of Hindus and Muslims fled their homes, crossing the borders into India or Pakistan.

Gandhi announced that he would fast until “a reunion of hearts of all communities” had been achieved. An old man, he weakened rapidly, but he did not break his fast until Hindu and Muslim leaders came to him pledging peace. Days later, an assassin shot and killed Gandhi. The assassin was a Hindu who believed Gandhi had sold out to the Muslims.

Gandhi and others like Martin Luther King Jr. confronted injustice with non-violent methods. “It is the acid test of non-violence,” Gandhi once said, “that in a non-violent conflict there is no rancor left behind and, in the end, the enemies are converted into friends.”

For Further Reading

Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma). Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Massachusetts: Beacon Press. 1957.

Return to Black History Month Home Page

Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1947). (Wikimedia Commons)

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *