Mahatma Gandhi's View On Non Violence

Violence is a predictable response from a child who has had their toy taken away, or coming from a government who has had their people attacked. Although on different scales, in both situations the response of violence is not surprising but only in the case of children is it universally reprimanded. The universal acceptance of violence is a staggering reality. Many wonder if there is a way to create change that does not solicit killing people on the opposing side. Non-violent protesting is for some a more enlightened form of combat against the injustices that they face. In fact, in India, it was the way in which they achieved their independence from one of the world’s most powerful governments in the late 1940s. The pioneering of India’s noncooperation …show more content…
He believed that in order to win against such a large global power like Britain, it was important to employ non-violent methods rather than violent ones. His mindset was that if the people of India employed violence in their search for independence, they would inevitably lose because they would not be able to defeat the mighty army of the British which had just come out victorious in World War I (Krishna 44). He inspired people around the country to fight back because he advocated that everyone no matter what class or religion they were a part of could help fight against the oppressive British Raj (Roberts 44). Demonstrations mirroring the values of Gandhi began to occur around the country. Nationalism increased around the country as people organized to plan hartals. This included closing down shops, refusing to pay fines the government imposed. Although all of these protests were voluntary, a large percentage of the Indian population participated as if it were mandatory to stand up against the British. The government’s response was limited due to the lack of violence. They hoped to provoke violence among the crowds in order to justify engaging in violence themselves. Therefore, they tried to combat the resistance through legislation, such as the Emergency Power Bill, that aimed to crack down on nationalism (Krishna 60). Although Gandhi’s satyagraha was widely employed, there were some people who …show more content…
Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal were occurring. Kitchlew was one of the leaders who believed that violence could sometimes be an acceptable response depending on the situation. All of these protests had remained peaceful which frustrated the local army and government because that meant there was little that they could do to respond (Krishna 63). This led to Lieutenant Governor O 'Dwyer to make the rash decision of arresting the two leaders of the movement in the area, Kitchlew and Satyapal. This led to push back from the people who intended to march to the Deputy Commissioner in hopes of convincing him to free the doctors. The government sent out a small army of twelve to prevent them from reaching their destination. However, people came out in masses and soon largely overwhelmed the army that had been sent by the government. The frustration and anger of the Indians heightened. They began stoning the British troops and hitting the horses. As a result of this, the Assistant Commissioner ordered his troops to fire (Lloyd 71). This would be known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. Gandhi would describe the result of this incident even worse than the incident itself. Martial Law was put in place which meant that the government had complete control of how to govern the people. The legislation that resulted from this included