Mohandas Gandhi: Civil Disobedience

Saman Tanveer

March 29, 2016

LD06

Civil Disobedience: What Gandhi Taught Us All

Beginning in 1857, the residents of India were determined to gain control of their country from the British rulers. Great Britain marched into India, taking over the country as though it was theirs to take. They began to transform the way of life for the Indians, telling them what to do and how to do it. The Indian independence movement started as a result. Mohandas Gandhi was one of the prominent leaders for this movement. Although there were many other documented leaders, Gandhi’s speeches of gaining control over their country through nonviolence inspired his fellow neighbors. This peaceful practice was primarily known as satyagraha, gaining Gandhi the support

The East India Company was a trading company developed in the 1600s, with the agenda to increase trade of spices, silk, and other merchants across Britain and Asia. However, the most projecting trade was held between Britain and India. Queen Elizabeth permitted the East India Company to regulate and transport goods from India. With the authorization of local Indian rulers, the East India Company established trading posts in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. The lasting friendly relationship, however, did not last long as the Indian Rebellion of 1858, also known as the Sepoy Rebellion, occurred. The sepoys were greatly offended by the British because they had to had to bite into the paper and tear it with their teeth open the cartridges and load the rifles, which was rumored to have grease on the cartridges, made of a mixture of beef tallow and pork lard. Eating beef was forbidden in Hinduism, while consumption of pork is haram in Islam. Offended by this, the Indian Rebellion started. Though there is not any direct evidence that point towards this trading company as being the beacon for the invasion, the early relationship between these two countries could have influenced just

To Great Britain, India was a dependency. In the seventeenth century, Britain had both dependencies and colonies. Colonies governed by them were regarded as being self-ruling regions, while dependencies were not. Dependencies were granted no self-government and no representation. They were under complete authoritarian power by Great Britain, which was not their "mother" country as colonies were, but was instead their conqueror and master. Because of this, India was deprived of the privilege to rule for themselves. The Indian civilians had trouble adjusting to this change, considering they had the right to self-rule formerly.

Great Britain’s conquest of India could be viewed in two very different ways, but both ways contain a relation to one another. The first perspective, which was from Britain’s side, believed that the government “provided infrastructure and constitutional values.” The other perspective, however, believed that this “ruined India and that it needed to be removed by any