Civil Disobedience in Thoreau and
Gandhi
Ashu Daftari*, Davis, USA
[*Ashu received an award on this essay when he was in Grade XI.]
Henry David Thoreau's classic essay,
"Resistance to Civil Government" developed ideas that eventually
became influential to thinkers and reformers of the twentieth century.
Thoreau's tract not only serves as a social commentary on the governments'
support Of slavery and its participation in the Mexican War, but also as a
treatise on the individuals' relationship to government. Much of Thoreau's
ideas are similar to the moral and political writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi.
Both writers advocated the superiority of the individual conscience and stressed
the need for individuality. Both writers not only conunented on the duty
of the individual to lead a life of principle, but also argued for the right to
resist an unjust authority. However, it was Gandhi who adopted Thoreau's
ideas into a system that stressed political rebellion through individual
self-suffering and bir non-violent means.
Throughout much of Thoreau's essay, the idea of individual conscience
accumulates into the centrepiece and foundation from which most of his ideas are
built upon. Thoreau often displays a distrust in the actions of a
government based on majority rule. Thoreau maintained that the majority
have access to the most power "not because they are more likely to be in
the right... but because they are physically the strongest". He
further explains that government "in which the majority rule in all cases
cannot be based on justice...... Essentially, the author's inability to trust
the actions of the majority rule further leads him to believe in conscientious
superiority. In the beginning of his treatise, he asks : "Can there
not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right or wrong,
but conscience?". Thoreau, without leaving the question unanswered
later remarks that 'we should be men first, and subjects afterwards. It 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". From this point of view, Thoreau maintains that the
individual conscience inherits a morally superior characteristic than the
government of the majoritv. Thus, Thoreau establishes his entire political
philosophy on the idea that the conscience is ultimately the most trustworthy
criterion of what is politically accurate.
The ultimate consequence of Thoreau's belief of the superiority of the
individual conscience is its assertion for radical individualism. Thoreau
maintains that the individual relying on his selfconscience, rather than the
majority, will attain a better understanding of moral truths. Thus,
"any man more right than his neighbours, constitute a majority of one
already." Thoreau also proclaims that the individual living by conscience
will not only understand moral truths, but will also attain the ability to lead
a "life by principle." For Thoreau, this form of existence is the most
ideal state of living. Furthermore, it becomes an important step in
rebellion against the State. He states that action from principle creates
a strong impact in political rebellion because it "not only divides states
and churches, it divides families; aye, it divides the individual, separating
the diabolical in him from the divine." In this passage, Thoreau implies
that an individual must be free thinking in order to develop his own ideas and
understand clearly the unjust practices of the State. Action from
principle, as Thoreau maintains allows the individual to understand that to '
commit actions, supposedly against the State, based on fundamental principles
would have a stronger impact on the values of society than any other form of
resistance. He maintains that action from principle would force society,
as well as the individual, to re-examine its values and compare them to the
moral truths. Thus, action from principle becomes a powerful force in the
process of civil disobedience.
In the various writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi, the idea of the importance of
the individual conscience and its influence on a life stemming from principle is
often similar to the viewpoint of Thoreau. Gandhi, also had a distrust for
the majority rule and believed in moral growth through the dependency of the
individual conscience. Like Thoreau, he also felt that this form of growth
would lead to individualistic tendencies that would be morally beneficial for
the individual and for society. His distrust for the majority stemmed from
the belief that the majority rules without conscience and without regard for the
minorities. By doing this, he believed that numerical strength savors of
violence when it acts in total disregard of any strongly felt opinion of a
minority" (quoted in Iyer, 142). Thus, Gandhils vision of the State
of majority rule is one that not only remains unsympathetic to the minority, but
builds a foundation built on violence. Because of Gandhi's belief in the
non-violent State as the ideal, he ultimately rejects the notion of the majority
rule.
Like Thoreau, Gandhi also believed that conscience living would eventually
lead to a life of action from of principle he also stressed the importance of
individualism in order for the process of spiritual and moral growth to occur.
However, Gandhi distrusted the more radical form of individualism that separated
the person completely from society. In 1939, he stated "Unrestricted
individualism is the law of the beast of the jungle. We have leamt to
strike the mean between individual freedom and social restraint. Willing
submission to social restraint for the sake of well-being for the whole society,
enriches both the individual and the society of which he is a member"
(quoted in Iyer, 115). For Gandhi, individualism meant the ability to
place the conscience in a higher priority than the State and still remain an
active member of society. By combining "individual freedom" and
"social restraint" the individual would attain the ability to
influence the ethics of society within the confines of law and order.
Gandhi's vision of individualism slightly differed from Thoreau who argued, in
Walden, that "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it
is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which
he hears, however measured or far away.' Thus, Tboreau's idea of individualism
sought an existence that could potentially disregard society completely, while
Gandhi sought ' an individualism that simultaneously remained a morally
responsible member of society.
From his essay, Thoreau implies that action from principle germinates into
the beginning seeds of civil disobedience and later expands his argument in
order to show its deeper significance in society. He attempts to display
how ideology should eventually transform into practical application. As
stated earlier, Thoreau believed in the superiority of the individual conscience
over the rule of the majority. He further states that if the individual's
morally conscience beliefs conflict with the beliefs and practices of the State,
then that person must consider it a duty to disengage from the injustices
committed by society. He states the individual bears no responsibility in
eradicating all the injustices of the State, but must "wash his hands of
it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his
support." He further states that not only must the individual refuse his
allegiance to the State, but must also "withdraw their support, both in
person and property." For Thoreau, the individual existing by conscience
would attain the inability to conform to a inhumane society. By the very
act of living from principle, it would not allow a person to harmonise a
conscientious life while being a member of an unjust State. Thus, the
individual must live according to his nature even if it means a complete removal
of oneself from the State. This idea becomes the central point in
resisting the civil goverrunent. In one particular passage, Thoreau
states: "I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred ... if ten
honest men only-aye, if one honest man, in the State of Massachusetts, ceasing
to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked
up in the county jail therefore, it should be the abolition of slavery in
America." Through this proclamation, Thoreau implies that the mass of
individuals who practiced the right to disengage from society would not only
resist the immorality of the State, but would coerce the reevaluating its
ethical procedures and forcing them to reform.
In this matter of refusing allegiance to the State, Gandhi hardly differs
from Thoreau's convictions. In his philosophical worldview, Gandhi also
embodied a distrust for the State. He viewed the State as a inhumane
infrastructure of individuals that 11 represent violence in a concentrated and
organised form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless
machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very
existence" (quoted in Iyer, 254). Gandhi, like Thoreau, implies that
a State that exists as a "soulless machine" does not have the ability
to exists as a moral and just institution. In this case, he, like Thoreau,
believes it to be the duty of the morally conscience individual to resist the
corrupted authority. In fact, he states that "an evil administration
never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the
evil. A good man will therefore, resist an evil system of administration
... Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is, therefore, a duty"
(quoted in lyer, 257). In this system of thought, both men imply this form
of resistance as the obligation of the conscience minded individual.
In general, both writers would agree that the moral violent manner and
absorbed physical and spiritual individual disengaging from an unjust State
would be an ideal form of civil disobedience. Thoreau believed that this
form of action would eventually influence the conscience of other individuals
and ultimately lead them to disengage from society (Iyer, 268). Gandhi,
however, did not completely embrace Thoreau's convictions and also felt such
actions to be a limited form of resistance. In 1931 he discussed Thoreau
in an written essay and stated : "...Thoreau was not perhaps an out and out
champion of nonviolence. Probably, also, Thoreau limited his of statutory
laws to the revenue laws, i.e., payment of taxes. Whereas the term Civil
Disobedience as practised in 1919 covered a breach of any statutory and unmoral
law. It signified the resister's outlawry in a civil i.e., non-violent
manner" (quoted in Iyer, 275). Essentially, Gandhi felt that he was
extending Thoreau's ideas on civil disobedience. He felt that the
individual conscience ultimately influencing the conscience of mass individuals
could lead to a violent rebellion against the State. He also felt that
this type of action was an appeal to reason. Gandhi felt that reasoning to
an individual conscience was sometimes ineffective because an "appeal to
reason does not answer where prejudices are age-long. " "
(quoted in lyer, 289). Thus, in order to embrace T'horeau's ideas of
disengaging from society without causing a violent resistance, Gandhi developed
a system of civil disobedience, which he called Satyagraha. In this system
of resistance, Gandhi believed that the resister could reform individuals in an
unjust State by undertaking a process of selfsuffering. In 1932 he stated
: "Suffering is the law of human beings ... the penetration of the heart
comes from suffering. It opens the inner understanding of man"
(quoted in Iyer, 287). Gandhi felt that self-suffering would lead to a
non-violent form of disobedience that would change the attitude of society by
appealing to their emotions rather than reason. In this system, Gandhi
stressed a form of civil disobedience that would not violate the unmoral laws of
that particular institution. He believed that the individual that acted in
a non-suffering without violence would be practicing the ideal form of civil
disobedience. Through the suffering of the resister, Gandhi argued, the
individuals of society would realise the injustices of the State's laws, thereby
causing reform in an unanarchistic manner (Iyer, 276).
Comparatively, the philosophy of Thoreau and Gandhi to the relationship
between the individual and the to the relationship between the individual and
the State. Both advocated individualistic free-thinking and the importance
of individual conscience over the belief of a majority ruled State. Both,
also believed that conscience individuals could only prosper in a State that
contained minimum intervention. Gandhi's vision of an ideal State was one
where 'everyone is his own ruler ... In the ideal State, therefore, there is no
political power because there is no State. But the ideal is never fully
realised in life" (quoted in lyer, 254). Thus, his belief in a
limited government very much coincides with Thoreau's idea that "government
is best which governs not at all." However, the difference between the two
writers falls mostly on emphasis. In Thore . au's case, he not only held
the individual conscience as the highest test of truth, but also felt it
"would culminate in conduct that would arouse and ppeal to the conscience
of others" (Iyer, 268). This form of arousal could lead to a state of
anarchy and a violent form of resistance to a unjust authority, an idea that
Thoreau does not deny in his essay. Gandhi, however, felt that an
individual following his own conscience could not be 'dependent on social
recognition" (Iyer, 268). He envisioned a form of resistance that
would not lead to violence and anarchy. While Thoreau discussed the end
and the means, Gandhi placed heavy emphasis on the means. While Thoreau
discussed the rights of the individual to rebel against authority, Gandhi
expressed the duty of individuals to reform an unjust authority while
maintaining law and order. Thus, through his political system, Gandhi was
able to use Thoreau's ideas in a non-violent manner.
|
Previous
Article
