Non Violent Civil Disobedience In The Indian Civil Movement

793 Words 4 Pages
The oppressed groups in India, South America and the United States were similarly going through the same thing. The oppressed group in India were mentally and physically enslaved. Their way of life had been altered and westernized. The British in India used the idea of western civilization to enslave the Indians. The British used laws to keep the Indians oppressed . Laws about what they could and could not do. The Africans in South Africa were being oppressed by the government shutting them out from everything. The whites wanted to keep the Africans beneath them. They did not see them as regular people only as people that were inferior to them. As Mandela said in the passage, “the African people were not part of the Government and did not make …show more content…
Passive resistance, which is a method of securing rights by personal; it is the reverse resistance by arms (Underwood 234) . This was pretty much the form of resistance the whole of India followed. They did not see into violence much they rather were passive resisters. As Gandhi suggests from the passage,” independence is really in the hands of the Indians themselves” (Underwood 228). Non-Violent civil disobedience was used in India by the Indians defying the laws the British made to keep them oppressed. They do not cooperate the British. They break the laws in a non violent way and still continue their resistance. It was eventually successful due to the fact that they finally got their independence in 1947. The Africans in South Africa also began with the non violent civil disobedience. In South Africa, the Africans began the Defiance Campaign, which was based on the principles of passive resistance. This only resulted in more strict laws from the government, which made the having any form of resistance to be against the law. This also cause caused the government to answer with “new and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces and to send saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers” into the towns of the African people and intimidate them (Underwood 244). The use of non-violence was not successful at all in South Africa, it only resulted in more harsh treatment from the government. The use of

Related Documents