Nonviolent Conflict Resolution in India’s
Independence Movement
By: Taylor Welzanuk
Throughout history, there has always
been one civilization or another trying to
expand their territory to dominate
another region in order to gain access
to their natural resources and labor.
That’s exactly what happened to India,
when British interests became
entrenched in the region, and the British
Empire demanded that the people of
the region start paying a land tax (called
lagaan) to the British Empire “for their
protection.” The people of India never
forced the British out of their country
when they first arrived and, over the
following decades, the British started to
slowly colonize India (like they did with
many other countries including our
own). It was a long and slow process,
taking about a hundred years to
complete, but the British conquest took
place nevertheless.
This was the overarching theme in three
of the films that we watched in Quantum
Leap.
 Lagaan, a foreign musical (all in
subtitles, I’ll have you know)
depicting the enforcement of
British taxes so great that some
of the smaller villages would
border on starvation in order to
be able to pay.
The image above depicts the imperialistic attitude of the British
and how would always go into weaker countries trying to add
more land and greater resources to their territory. The octopus,
representative of the British, illustrates how the British would
take over a bunch of different countries, making new colonies in
the process. Therefore, this image, a cartoon created in early 19th
century America, flippantly illuminates the plans of the British to
get their hands on Egypt. They had recently purchased the Suez
Canal toward the end of Queen Victoria’s reign, which eventually
served to weaken an already struggling Egypt.
 A&E’s Mahatma Gandhi: Pilgrim of Peace, a biography and documentary on the contributions
and motivations behind India’s Independence Movement, which described his views and
beliefs and how he practiced non-violence through civil disobediences like protesting and
fasting.
 An excerpt from the film, Gandhi, regarding the 240 mile “Salt March,” drove home the point
that Gandhi’s nonviolent methods could incite a passion and determination more ardent than a
violent conflict.
These films illustrated, from the point of view of the oppressed, a time when the British weren’t
welcome, and a time when India’s people were faced with an internal conflict centered on their
religious and spiritual beliefs, but also their political freedom and a declining social and economic
situation.
Nearly 80% or more of the population of India at
that time believed in reincarnation. The Indians
believed that if they did wrong, went against their
moral code, or didn’t fulfill their spiritual beliefs,
no matter how hard they had it now they would
have it worse in their next life. The people of
India were torn in many ways; for example, their
culture dictated that they were born into a certain
lot in life. They had a very strong caste system
that they adhered to. There is usually no way to
move up in the caste system. That is where you
are born and that is where your children will be
born. They believed that the situation that they
were born into was not something that they could
challenge. The British took advantage of this
complacency, and they took advantage of them.
But the British people were also torn. They had
a culture based on a strong structure, and this
structure relied on laws and tradition. It was
civilized and they were a civilized people.
Civilized people abided by custom and their
society was founded on personal liberties and
due course. Because of this, they struggled to
justify ruling the people of India by force. They
did it by rationalizing it. First of all, they believed
that they were intellectually superior to the uncivilized Indians. Secondly, they could apply something
called “Social Darwinism” to this to strengthen their argument (the survival of the fittest). And, thirdly,
they could justify that India’s current state of affairs was not orderly or governed by laws, so the
Indian people needed them to rule them. In India, the British rule was at first known as the “Sakar ki
Churi,” which translates to the knife of sugar and basically just means that although it is made of
sugar it is still a knife.
During the time of unrest in the British occupation of India, Mohandas (Mahatma, Mahatmas)
Karamchand Gandhi was a huge influence over almost everyone in India, as an antagonist of the
British domination and as an inspiration to India’s Independence Movement. Even though the Indians
outnumbered the British by millions and could have quite easily simply attacked and drove them out,
this had not worked for them in the past.
They were not well organized and had no
clear leader to follow yet. In an uprising
known as the Sepoy Rebellion, they
were crushed by the well-armed British
forces. The British were much more
technologically advanced and they used
that to their advantage by intimidating
and subjugating the Indians to an even
greater extent. The people of India were
probably really frightening for a land of
people who were largely vegetarians and
had no need for technologically
advanced weaponry.
When you think about it, a pattern
emerges. The British had a habit of
going into a country, establishing
themselves, then taking over and taxing
the people for everything they could. As
the burdens of the British became
greater, they passed the burden on to
the taxpayers of India until the people
had no other choice but to rise up
against them and fight the British out. As
the burden became too great for the
taxpayers, the enforcements became
more brutal. This was the main reason
that the people of India eventually
rebelled against the British, and it was
the main reason why we did, too. (You
would think they would have noticed the
pattern after they did the same things
with us Americans just a little while before.) Their “downfall” may have come about due to their
imperialistic attitude and their belief that they were somehow superior.
A tipping point occurred in India with the salt tax, and this was something that we read about but also
watched in an excerpt from the film Gandhi. Implementing a tax on something that everyone needed
back then, salt, was both arrogant and foolhardy. Everyone would need salt back then because there
was no refrigeration so that was the only way to save food. In addition, salt is a necessary
component of the human diet; the human body needs salt.
Gandhi organized his satyagrahis (the name translates to “insistence on truth” but was the name of
the groups of followers that Gandhi organized) to march 240 miles to the sea where they would
harvest their own salt in a show of defiance against British rule. Their point was that they refused to
recognize the ban on harvesting salt and believed the taxes to be illegal and unjust. Over one
hundred thousand people were there, far more than the British anticipated, showing their
disobedience to the rule of the British. When news of this reached the people in charge back in Great
Briton, they decided that instead of throwing Gandhi in jail they would throw anyone who followed him
in jail, because what’s a leader if there’s no one left to follow? When they realized that this would not
deter Gandhi, and that he would keep doing it with more and more people, the British started to block
off the salt mines.
Next, the satyagrahis and their
followers approached the salt mines
without any aggression and were
beaten down by the British. With
thousands of people behind his nonviolent ways, Gandhi instructed them
to get in a line and approach the
gates of the salt mines. As they did,
the British guards would knock out
hundreds of them with bamboo sticks
or clubs tipped with steal. They didn’t
have television back then so they had
a reporter for a newspaper come out
and watch the cruelty and brutality
that they were treated with.
These events were highly publicized
and covered in the international news
of the time, bringing word of British
“domination,” “atrocities,” and
“brutality” around the world. It
brought a spotlight to the cause so it
helped the Indian Independence
Movement. If anyone didn't know
about how the Indians were being
treated before this, they definitely did
after that, and anyone who didn't feel
that strongly about the British
occupation of India before these
events definitely did after. The salt
protests weren’t the only way that the satyagrahis had of showing they wanted the British out; they
would protest outside of all British stores and even burn all of the British cloth in huge piles, or refuse
to pay rent on the land that they believed was rightfully theirs.
Gandhi gave his followers many strict rules to follow; they were not to become angry, they were to
quietly endure and suffer the opponent’s strikes against them, they were not to return any assaults.
They were instructed not to submit to an order given in anger, and to refrain from insults and
swearing. Gandhi’s followers were told that, if taken prisoner, they must behave in an exemplary
manner, and agree to obey the orders of satygraha leaders.
Most of these protest movements, known as “Civil Disobedience,” were happening right after Gandhi
was finally arrested by the British, when he was held in jail, or right after he got out and made a
speech that would reinspire a nation. Although Gandhi only had a year of work (1930-1931), he didn’t
actually free India. His actions, however, started the movement.
Although it may seem like Gandhi was against the British, he had lived in England for years. It was
where he received his education to become a lawyer, it wasn't until later in his life that he realized
how cruel they were being to the Indians, to his home, and to his people. Returning to India, Gandhi
helped them start the independence movement. He made it so the Indians had someone to follow,
someone smart enough to realize that the British wouldn’t quit, and someone who believed in helping
those who had been wronged. Gandhi knew that the path to freedom lay in getting out a public
message of oppression. He realized that the people of Great Britain probably didn’t even know that
much about the situation and, if they did, they would not approve. He was clever.
Things like this happen all over the
place, not just in India. An example of
non-violent conflict resolution here in
the United States was based largely on
what Gandhi had demonstrated years
before – it was the Civil Rights
Movement. Here in the United States,
a man by the name of Martin Luther
King, Junior used the same concepts
to support equal opportunities and
rights of African Americans. They
wanted and deserved to be treated like
equals and to have the same
opportunities and privileges that every
white man had. Similarly to Gandhi’s
Salt March, they used civil
disobedience in various other ways.
For example, sitting at lunch counters reserved for white men or drinking from public water fountains
reserved for “whites only” were very effective methods of making their point heard. This happened
again in America with civil rights for the Women’s Movement.
These examples may seem completely different to you, but I’ve noticed that in almost every culture
(or even every civilization) there has been someone being oppressed and another as the oppressor.
While one less-fortunate and weaker group is being made to comply with the other’s expectations
because it’s bigger or stronger, diversity and humanity are lost.
While not all conflicts were solved through non-violent methods, many of them were. Others resorted
to violence out of necessity. The reason that non-violence works in today’s world is because of
exposure. In ancient times, the world was less connected, so atrocities were easier to carry out
without intervention. With our growing global world, where the media airs many events, non-violent
protest methods can be very effective. I would say that this is especially true if you have something
that others want because the world is still a greedy, greedy place.