Salt March: Rhetorical and Historical Context

Andrew Koleski
4/8/16
ENG 306
Stephanie Brown

Rhetorical Context

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”. The Salt March, led by Gandhi, was a march that protested the taxing of salt by the British government on the people of India. Thus, the main identity for the protest was not simply Gandhi himself, but all Indians currently 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. In a broader sense, the identity could be made larger to include not just Indians living under British rule at that time, but anybody living in an occupied country, or maybe a group of people living in a nation with an overly strict set of laws meant to demean the people, their country, or even their heritage. 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. In history, both past and present, there have been protests that have followed the mold of Gandhi’s civil disobedience, like Martin Luther King Jr.’s Selma march for example. 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. 

When thinking about “The Salt March”, it is important to remember many key terms. Over time, one of those key terms 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. 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. 

The goal of the protest was to gain independence from Britain, or at least gain higher standing in society, and to end the effect that British colonialism had on the country of India. Through they’re 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 they’re 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 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”. 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.” 

Historical Context 

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. 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. 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 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 they’re “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.” 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. Having down that simple action, Gandhi had violated the law. His fellow protestors soon followed.

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. The protest was so popular and strong, however, that his supporters carried on without him. By the end of the protest, around 60,000 Indians had been arrested. 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 it’s independence from Great Britain, and eventually 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 it’s 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. 

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.