More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of mahatma gandhi in freedom struggle
Nonviolent philosophies and tactics
Gandhi contribution to india freedom
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of mahatma gandhi in freedom struggle
Mahatma Gandhi was an exceptional and prominent leader of the British-rule India. According to Gandhi, civil disobedience is much more dominant than a violent act. That is the main reason as to why he concentrated on redirecting much of his attention at leading non-violent movements to challenge the British government. Civil disobedience is more powerful than violence because the philosophical idea is not a violent approach and can influence a lot of people. It is worth to remembering that very few people have willing hearts of jeopardizing their lives in violence to acquire what they want as distinguished to civil disobedience. In fact, civil disobedience is reflected as the most modest initiative for addressing issues and challenges that
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules.
After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history, such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest.
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
The Civil Rights Movement was a series of actions that really peaked in the 1960's. These political actions were aimed at gaining rights for African Americans. However, there were two ways of going about the movement. There were ones who protested peacefully, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and others who wanted a more pro-active way of fighting, like the black-rights activist Malcolm X. However, which way was more proactive? Even though both had great intentions, Dr. Martin Luther King had a better way of trying to achieve rights for the African American community.
In response to the annexation of Texas in 1845 by the United States, Henry David Thoreau's wrote the essay, Civil Disobedience. Thoreau felt that this purely economic move by the United States expedited the Civil War, which he, and many Americans, disapproved of. In his essay, Thoreau argues that government should not be in control of the people and that the people should be able to rule themselves freely however they please. In addition, he clearly states and points out that in many instances it is best when individual rights take priority over state authority.
Henry David Thoreau, a philosopher and creative artist as well as an anti slavery activist, wrote his short story “From Resistance to Civil Disobedience”. In this story he’s arrested for not paying his state taxes. At the time the state was engaged in the Mexican-American War that was not only fought over boundaries expanding slavery but was also enacted by President Polk under his own decision. Thoreau thought the war was too aggressive and without just reason.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather contradictory. If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history has shown us, as in the case of African Americans, the government will expand its role and take away liberties of the few. The individual is justified in acting out in civil disobedience when the government restricts the liberties of the individual.
From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an inequality. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned for a night, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated his intolerance for the American government. Under British rule, India remained oppressed until Mohandas Gandhi, with his doctrine of non-violence lead the country to freedom.
Civil Disobedience is a deliberate violation against the law in order to invoke change against a government policy. Civil disobedience can come in the form of running a red light or j-walking, or in more noticeable methods such as riots. Coined by American author and poet Henry David Thoreau, the term has developed to define the act of disobeying a law one sees as unfit or unjust. Usually the purpose of civil disobedience is to gain public attention to a perceived injustice and appeal to or gain support from the public in a non-violent way. The idea is to force the government to negotiate or else continue with the unwanted behavior; or in simpler terms, to “clog the machine” (“Civil Disobedience”). It is believed by many that the act of civil disobedience is justifiable in a democratic government like that of the United States. A Democracy is defined as a form of government controlled by elected representatives or by the people themselves. However, in order to have a stable government, it must be built on a stable society. Societal welfare is the general good for the public and how its members take action to provide opportunities and minimum standards. According to societal welfare, which is the sake of the emotional and physical well-being of the community, the laws must be abided and civil disobedience is morally unjust in our society. Once any member of the society questions the affairs of the state, the state may be given up for lost (“Jean Jacques Rousseau”).
Civil disobedience has been around for a long time. In Bible times Christians would disobey laws that would go against their beliefs, such as the law that they couldn’t preach. (Acts 4) Christians still disobey laws in many countries that do not let them practice their faith, some end up in jail or killed.
By definition, civil disobedience means to actively refuse to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence (Wikipedia 2007). Many of the influential people in history have felt passionately about what they believe. These passions caused them to rebel against a government or authority. Many times they felt so strongly about what they believed and how they were being treated was wrong they became disobedient. They would take physical and verbal abuse for being disobedient but would never retaliate. They believed in what they thought was wrong and tried to change the way they were governed. Albert Einstein once said 'never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.' Albert Einstein's views seem to be reasonable. The claim by Albert Einstein is accurate because people should stand up for what they believe, they should know when they are right and their government is wrong, and they should trust in themselves and their own beliefs.
Peaceful resistance, in the forms of civil disobedience, marches, and non-cooperation, can be traced throughout history as one of the most commonly used forms of protest. Marginalized groups often utilize nonviolent protests to raise awareness towards certain issues that they believe are unjust. Peaceful resistance is not only a positive force in a free society, it is crucial towards maintaining individual rights and expressing discontent to those in power. Governments were formed to protect individual rights, and are therefore accountable to the people. Without civil disobedience, the possibility for abuse of power arises.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to carry out the commands of a government, without turning to violence. Some people think Civil disobedience is an ineffective way to change unjust laws and make social change. While others seem to think that civil disobedience is an effective way to change and make social change. However, evidence shows that civil disobedience is and effective way to change unjust laws and make social change. As Gandhi once said “In a gentle way, you can shake the world.”
In Wilde's quote he claims disobedience is benefitting the world. I believe this is to be true because without disobedience the world would not be what it is today.
For better or for worse, the state is held together in only the most fragile way: by the tacit consent of individuals to obey laws which fit in with what they personally believe. The law does not by its definition include contingencies for moral obligations. It might compete with moral obligations for the sympathy of the jury in a court of law, but this is different. Minor civil disobedience can, if tolerated, be transformed into revolutionary fervor and threaten the very existence of the state itself. In the case of Martin Luther King Jr., who disobeyed what he regarded as an unjust application of the law, there is a moral duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. King rebelled on the grounds that doing so was necessary to reform the