Pacifist Mathama Ghandi's Analysis

Pacifist Mathama Ghandi, believed in the doctrine of Satyagraha and has supported this philosophy during the Indian Independence movement as the leader (McCollough,2010). Satyagraha, directly meaning “’Truth-force’” as stated by Gandhi (McCollough, 2010), means the persistence of the truth. Whether it is thought, speech, or deed, the doctrine prohibits such violence in any way. Ghandhi’s belief goes as far to reject the use of the militaries as he believes conflicts can be resolved through peace. Through Satyagraha, Ghandi embraces civil disobedience and non-cooperation movements towards corrupt states without the use of violence. This is different from passive resistance and Theoreau’s concept of civil disobedience as their means end goes to a …show more content…
Theoreau’s act of civil disobedience to oppose the Mexican war was carried out by his refusal to pay his taxes, causing Theoreau to be sent to jail. Through Theoreau’s actions, his practice of means end of civil disobedience is to eliminate the adversary by harming them to reach the goal. In this situation, if many follow Theoreau’s idea, the means end would be the corruption of the state as citizens in opposition with the war stopped paying taxes as a whole and anarchy would occur if the government does not resolve the issue. Compared to Gandhi’s Satyagraha, the means end is peace where both parties are not harmed. He believes that Theoreau’s actions still proves violence in behavior because he has “restricted his breach of statutory law to the payment of taxes” (McCollough, 2010). To Gandhi, non-cooperation without violence is possible as he has protested against campaigns, women rights, economic reliance, and foreign British made goods by creating his own clothing to wear. Civil disobedience is only brought upon if that is the last resolve. The difference between passive resistance and satyagraha is by the way we think and act through