Salt March - Final Draft

Andrew Koleski

4/26/16

ENG 306

Stephanie Brown

The Salt March and Civil Disobedience

In terms of impact and fame, Mahatma Gandhi is perhaps one of the most well-known leaders of a protest movement in human history, “The Salt March”. In this protest Mahatma Gandhi, an Indian living under British Rule, used non-violent protest in order to spark of movement that not only was successful, but played a key role in India gaining independence from its ruler, Great Britain. By using non-violence, Gandhi was able to learn from protests of the past, like the women’s suffrage movement, and also influence protests of the future, such as Martin Luther King Jr’s Selma march, all the while ending a rule over his country. 

“The Salt March”, which took place in the year 1930, was, specifically, targeting a salt tax, but it was also targeting something much greater. In 1930, the country of India was under British Colonialism, meaning that while the people living in the country where Indians, they were still considered British subjects by Great Britain.   However, Indians were not only thought of just as subjects. To the British, they were also an inferior race. Having been able to conquer a country as large as India, the British had accomplished a great deal, and had thought of themselves to be far superior when compared to the people of India. (PBS, “British Attitudes towards India”). As such, to the British, the identity of Gandhi and the Indian people was one of servants, unfit to rule themselves as well as reap the benefits of their own country.  With “The Salt March”, Gandhi set out to change this identity.

The Salt March is today remembered for being a heroic protest in the face of a nationalistic and near dictatorial power, however in order to understand the protest itself it is important to understand who the perpetrator was, it’s historical context, as well as to know what the protest actually consisted of, when the protest took place, why the protest was “necessary” in the first place, what the goal of the protest was, and if the protestors accomplished that goal by the end of the protest. 

First, it is important to look at what caused the Salt March, and how the leader of the protest, Mahatma Gandhi, decided on the eventual course of action he took. As such, when the British handed down any law to the Indians, they were expected to follow them, as they were supposed to be loyal subjects to the British Empire. However Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of the Salt March, took issue with the Britain’s Salt Acts. These acts made it against the law for Indians to sell salt, or even collect salt. This was very important, because salt was a very important part of the Indian diet. Rather than allow Indians to use or buy the food freely, the British made it so citizens in India had to buy salt from the British, and since the Indians weren’t allowed to sell the salt, the citizens of the country of India had little choice in where they got there salt from. Another problem arose, and that was, because of the taxes, the salt the British where selling was incredibly expensive. Since the majority of Indians where poor, they simply could not afford to buy the salt, and therefore where forced to go without a diet that was not only important to their health, but also their culture and tradition.

Before embarking on the Salt March, Gandhi decided to write to the viceroy, a person “sent by a queen or king to rule a colony” (Mirriam-Webster, “Viceroy), of that time, Lord Irwin. By writing to the viceroy, Gandhi probably was hoping that maybe the salt tax would be amended, or maybe he thought that the British would rethink some policies if their “subjects” where protesting their laws. In the letter, Gandhi lays his plans out; ““If my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month I shall proceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the Salt Laws. I regard this tax to be the most iniquitous of all from the poor man’s standpoint.”(Gandhi, 1939) After that, on March 12, Gandhi left his religious retreat and began his journey with some of his followers. 

They began the march near the city of Ahmedabad, and would march all the way to their destination, they city of Dandi. Dandi was a town near the Arabian Sea, and therefore was a place where there would be a lot of salt to use and collect, thus defying British will, and therefore breaking the law. Gandhi started out with a few followers, but as he continued to travel and speak to his followers, crowds started to gather. The crowd got so big, that by the time Gandhi and his followers actually arrived at Dandi, the protest had grown to include tens of thousands of Indians. The group of protestors, led by Gandhi, finally arrived at Dandi on April 5, 1930. Having arrived at this destination, Gandhi was then able to walk down to the sea by the city, and picked up salt the next morning. Having down that simple action, Gandhi had violated the law. His fellow protestors soon followed. (Pletcher, “Salt March – Indian History”).

The goal of the protest was to gain independence from Britain, or at least gain higher standing in occupied India, and to end the effect that British colonialism had on the country of India. Through their civil disobedience, the Gandhi and his followers hoped to achieve a separation from the rulers they had suffered under for so long. While it may be easy to, today, talk about how successful the Salt March was, it is important to note that the march itself did not bring an end to British rule or gain Indian’s their independence straight away. For example, authors Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall mention that, while the march itself is well known, the end result was “decidedly mixed”. The authors explain this further; “When the second phase (of the protest) finally sputtered out in 1934, Indians had made scant progress toward either dominion status within the Empire or outright independence. Neither had they won any major concessions on the economic and mundane issues that Gandhi considered vital.” (Ackerman, Duvall). Duvall and Ackerman are not the only ones to admit this. “Gandhi and Irwin signed a truce, and the British Government agreed to call a conference in London to negotiate India's demands for independence…but the negotiations proved to be inconclusive” Vinay Lil, of UCLA, writes. However, for many people, the march was successful in serving other purposes, even if it didn’t accomplish what it original set out to do. The group Beautiful Trouble argues that the visual of Indians defying British law, by doing something so simple as attempting to use salt “became concrete and immediate”. (Blach, “The Salt March”) Taking another point of view of Gandhi’s success, Dr. Lester R, Kurtz has stated that Gandhi’s salt march is “a critical case for understanding civil resistance.”

The march was an event that protested the taxing of salt by the British government on the people of India. However, it was also a protest to change the identity of the Indian people, having been given the identity of subjects by the British.Thus, the main identity for the protest was not simply Gandhi himself, but all Indians at the time living under British rule. However for the specific protest, the identity could be all Indians, under British rule, who openly defied the Salt acts and therefore defied British authority, as well as British occupation and rule. 

The main goal set up by the protest, to break free from the British, helped articulate this identity very well. The people that where a part of this identity where the ones who participated in the protest, marched with Gandhi, and openly broke the laws set up by the British.. Also with the response of the British, who resorted to beating up protesters, arrested dissenters, and openly rejected at first the protest and Gandhi, the identity could be made even bigger. So with that, one could also say the protest includes the identity of another group of people; protestors who have peacefully spoken out against a moral injustice law or set of laws, and have been beaten, tortured, killed, gaged etc. in response by those who are currently enforcing those morally injustice set of laws. With all that being said, it can be concluded that, while at first it may seem easy to tie The Salt March protest to one identity, the protest can be linked to multiple identities, both past and present.

Over time, one of those key terms used to describe “The Salt March” is “civil disobedience”. While Gandhi liked to use the word “satyagraha”, which means devotion to truth, many people today cite “civil disobedience” as the key term associated with “The Salt March”. Civil Disobedience was the main strategy used by Gandhi and his followers. It was the act of protesting, but with a twist. The protesters would not use violence of any form, and would instead focus on conveying their message peacefully, without any guns, knives, bombs or weapons of any sort. 

“The Salt March” alone did not bring an end to British rule, however once civil disobedience became the main strategy, it did become difficult for the British to maintain rule. One of the main reasons for this was the media. By making salt, Gandhi and his followers were breaking the law, and the British saw fit to hand out punishment. This included the British imprisoning, and often even beating, multiple protestors. While these set of actions were seen as normal and right by those in power, media portrayal helped show those around the world what was going on. When they saw the act of civil disobedience, and that in particular how it was peaceful and non-violent, people thought the British would respond in kind. (Kurtz, 4). However, this was not the case. With all the beatings and violent attacks being showed on the news, the British gained a bad reputation, and when more protestors replaced the beaten and arrested ones, the British eventually decided to hold talks with Gandhi about Indian independence and freedom. (Kurtz, 4)

One of the most interesting things about Gandhi’s civil disobedience, is how he never abandoned the philosophy of it, even years after the Salt March had taken place, while also keeping the identity of him and his followers intact. For example, one need only look at two letters Gandhi wrote to a world leader to understand Gandhi’s unwavering support of the idea of a non-violent protest. He was so disturbed that this leader was about to start a war, Gandhi decided to try to stop him. What is most noticeable about these particular letters, and also what is somewhat shocking about them, is who the letters are addressed to. In both of the letters, Gandhi, the leader of The Salt March, is attempting to communicate with Adolf Hitler. 

The first leader was written in July of the year 1939. The purpose of it was to convince Hitler, the leader of Germany and the Nazi Party, to not start a war with other European nations. In the Salt March, Gandhi and his followers had accepted and carried the identity of non-violent protestors, and the letter, while short, seems to fit into that identity while also using the rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos. Addressing his identity as a leader of non-violent protest, Gandhi begins his letter with a plea by using pathos: “Dear friend, friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity.” (Gandhi, 1939) Already, Gandhi has brought emotion into the artifact by bringing up the importance of war. War can be a devastating effect on a nation, but Gandhi escalates emotion by tying the decision by Hitler to engage in physical violence not just to one country, but the human race as a whole. In the letter, Gandhi also gives way to reason, using logos as he writes; “It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state.” (Gandhi, 1939)

 In this section, Gandhi is also somewhat using ethos, by admitting that Hitler, who Gandhi might consider wrong and cruel, still holds authority and has a say in whether a war will occur or not. In this, Gandhi is also defining Hitler’s identity, one who is also a leader, though not one who is non-violent. Finally, Gandhi continues using ethos when he mentions his “expertise” in matters of war; “Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately [sic] shunned the method of war not without considerable success?”  (Gandhi, 1939) With this question, Gandhi is referencing the Salt March, and reminding Hitler how Gandhi’s identity, and those of his followers, is tied to the idea of civil disobedience, and that Gandhi, while also having the identity of a protestor, is not in any way tied to the identity of someone who supports war, or violence of any sort in his protest. Also, Gandhi notes that it is possible to have success in a protest, even without using a war of force to get what a leader wants.

The second artifact being used by me is a second letter written by Gandhi. Like the first one, this letter is also being addressed to Adolf Hitler. Unlike the first letter, however, this correspondence takes place a year later, in December 1940. By this time in history, Hitler and the Nazi’s had already invaded other European nations, including Poland, Great Britain, and France. Also, as readers will note when they compare the two; this one is much longer than the first. However, there are similarities between the two. 

First off, much like the first letter, Gandhi relies heavily on pathos to get his message to Hitler across, while also letting Hitler know what Gandhi and his followers’ identity is; “My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed…” (Gandhi, 1940) In this statement, Gandhi is attempting to identify himself as a leader who cares about other human beings as a whole, regardless of what differences they may have. He is also appealing to Hitler’s human emotion, by incorporating words such as “friendship and “befriending”. However, Gandhi does not stop with his own identity, and instead continues to include more people into it; “…a good portion of humanity who have a view living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action.” (Gandhi, 1940) With this Gandhi confirms, at least to himself, that the specific identity he is writing from, in this specific letter, is a group of people who respect humans, believe in “universal friendship”, and view the acts of Hitler as wrong. 

Much like the first letter, Gandhi does not only stop at revealing the identity of his own person, but also paints the identity of Hitler. In the first leader, Gandhi and used some respect, and seemed to give Hitler the identity of leader. However, in this letter, Gandhi paints a different picture. When mentioning the atrocities he has heard about in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Denmark, Gandhi then lashes out. “…I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity.” (Gandhi, 1940) Gandhi has switched Hitler’s identity from that of a leader, and instead now reconsiders it. Gandhi now seems to place the identity of cruelty and injustice on Hitler. However, unlike the first leader where Hitler’s identity was alluded to and Gandhi’s was separate, in this letter Gandhi seems to be comparing the two. Hitler is a person who has no regard for Human dignity, and Gandhi and his followers are just people who have been raised right. Finally, Gandhi does incorporate a little bit of ethos into the letter like the first one. Gandhi lets Hitler know about his expertise a little bit more in this letter, and goes into greater detail. “We have been trying for the past half a century  to throw off the British rule. The movement of independence has been never so strong as now…We have attained a very fair measure of success through non-violent effort.” (Gandhi, 1940) Much like the first letter, Gandhi is letting Hitler know that non-violent protest is not only an acceptable form of confrontation, but can also in certain cases be considered a very successful one. 

The two letters from Gandhi to Adolf Hitler played a big part in Gandhi stating an identity for himself and his followers: The identity of non-violent protestors in the first letter, and the identity of respectable human beings in the second letter. Gandhi also decided on an identity for Hitler in both letters. In the first letter, the identity is this: A leader. In the second one, however, Hitler's identity has changed for the worst. Finally, Gandhi supported these identities by using ethos, pathos, and logos.

While the protest was massive, and while it did garner attention around the world, it is important to realize that one of the main reasons for the attention was the way the protest itself was conducted. Gandhi did not encourage violence from his fellow protestors; in fact the Salt March was an example of civil disobedience, which is a citizen or group of citizens resisting or protesting a law peacefully. The obvious goal of the protest was to resist the Salt Tax, but there were also other goals at play during the event. Gandhi and his followers where getting at a bigger picture by disobeying the British Salt Taxes and that was their discontent at being a part of the British Empire and British Colonialism in general. When they defied the law by picking up and using/selling salt, and when they participated in the Salt March, they were not simply protesting the Salt Tax, but they were protesting Great Britain’s rule over India. By picking up salt, Gandhi was offering a visual breaking of a certain law, but he was also using it as a symbolic event to protest the whole British government. On May 5, 1930, Gandhi was arrested by authorities for breaking British law. (mkgandhi.org, “Years of Arrests & Imprisonment of Mahatma Gandhi”) The protest was so popular and strong, however, that his supporters carried on without him. By the end of 1930, around 60,000 Indians had been arrested.  (Pletcher, “Salt March – Indian History”) This then begs the question; was the goal of the protest met? The short answer would be not quite. Even though the protest included thousands, and the event was followed internationally, by the end of it all India was still under British rule. However, in terms of historical effect, the answer would be definitely yes. This was because in August 1947, not even 20 years after the Salt March protest, India was finally granted its independence from Great Britain, and became its own country free from British, or any other countries, rule. So, if one takes into account the long run, than the Salt March can be considered a successful protest that accomplished its overarching goals.

Works Cited

Ackerman, Peter, and Jack DuVall. A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: St. Martin's, 2000. Print.

Blach, Nadine. "The Salt March." Beautiful Trouble. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Gandhi, Mahatma. “Letter to Adolf Hitler”. July 23, 1939. Mahatma Gandhi.org. April 5, 2016

Gandhi, Mahatma. "Letter to Adolf Hitler" . December 24, 1940. Mahatma Gandhi.org. April 5, 2016

Kurtz, Lester R., Ph.D. "The Indian Independence Struggle." (n.d.): n. pag. Nonviolent-conflict.org. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, June 2009. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.

Lal, Vinay. "Dandi: Salt March." Manas: History and Politics. Ucla, n.d. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.

Merriam-Webster. "Viceroy." Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Mkgandhi.org "Years of Arrests of Mahatma Gandhi." Mkgandhi.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

PBS "The Story of India.". PBS, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Pletcher, Kenneth. "Salt March." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.