13.1 Introduction
Civil disobedience has become an important element in the political power structure of the contemporary world. Key examples: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the US civil rights movement, the “people’s power” movement in the Philippines, and the non-violent collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.
Key statements on the relevance of civil disobedience:
- Dr. Daisaku Ikeda (Gandhi Memorial Lecture, 1992): Gandhi’s spiritual legacy is “one of humanity’s priceless treasures, a miracle of the twentieth century.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.: “If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable.”
- Gunnar Myrdal (Swedish economist): “In a time of deepening crisis in the underdeveloped world, of social malaise in the affluent societies, it seems likely that Gandhi’s ideas and techniques will become increasingly relevant.”
- Albert Einstein: “The problem of bringing peace to the world on a supranational basis will be solved only by employing Gandhi’s method on a large scale.”
Recent examples of civil disobedience movements: anti-nuclear and Green Movements; termination of statist communist administration in Czechoslovakia (1987); popular resistance in Kosovo against Serbian ethnic persecution; anti-apartheid movements.
13.2 Concept of Civil Disobedience
The phrase “Civil Disobedience” is generally credited to Henry David Thoreau, who used it as the title of an essay in 1849 (changed from “Resistance to Civil Government”). No documentary evidence confirms he coined the phrase or explained the title change.
Definition: Civil disobedience implies an act or process of public defiance of a law or policy, duly formulated by a governmental authority, which an individual or group considers unjust and/or unconstitutional.
Key characteristics:
- The defiance must be a pre-meditated act — announced in advance.
- It may take either violent or non-violent form — active or passive.
- The individual/group must be prepared to accept punishment for violation of law — arousing public conscience is its basic spirit.
- The action must be openly insisted on — mere non-compliance does not constitute civil disobedience.
- It is grounded in justice and common good; its end must be a limited one.
- Its basic aim is to arouse consciousness in adversaries and appeal to their conscience.
Most practitioners are committed to non-violence — some pacifist believers consider complete commitment to non-violence ethically superior to violence.
Gandhi’s definition: “I shall consider it to be a public, non-violent and conscientious act contrary to law, usually done with the intent to bring about a change in the policies or laws of the government… It is a political act in the sense that it is an act justified by moral principles which define a conception of civil society and the public good… it involves the conception of justice that revolves around the constitution itself.”
13.3 History of the Concept of Civil Disobedience
Ancient Period
- Greek drama: the “Antigone theme” — conflict between civil law and conscience; the Lysistrata — women captured the Acropolis and Treasury of Athens in an anti-war motif.
- Jews: passive resistance to the introduction of icons into Jerusalem.
- Socrates: obedience to truth is the fundamental aim of human life; justice is an element of truth. While believing an individual must obey the state in a well-ordered society, he was not prepared to sacrifice conscience — the state has no right to force an individual to act unjustly. This justified civil disobedience.
- Aristotle: “Unjust law is not a law.”
- Cicero: “A true law — right reason — which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men and is unchangeable and eternal.”
Medieval Period
- Early Christians: used civil disobedience as justification for religious and moral obedience to God — the first non-violent civil disobedience movement in the West.
- Thomas Aquinas: unjust laws are “acts of violence rather than laws”; “such laws do not bind in conscience.” However, he would not allow any disobedience to the Church and allowed disobedience to the state only in rare cases.
- Modern Neo-Thomists: cautious attitude similar to Aquinas. Pope Pius XII was criticised for not resisting Hitler’s genocide — Rolf Hochhuth (The Deputy, 1963) criticised the Pope.
- Pope John: “If any government does not acknowledge the rights of man or violates them, it not only fails in its duty, but its orders completely lack juridical force.”
Modern Period — Empiricist School
- Hobbes: doctrine of fundamental natural rights as basis for obedience to government; individuals have the right to dissent only when the state is not strong enough to protect their rights and ensure civil peace. Civil disobedience was inherent in this specific conditionality.
- Locke: people have “a right to resume their original liberty and to establish a new government”; people have the right to both non-violent and violent civil disobedience to ensure liberties, properties, and social justice.
- David Hume (Treatise of Human Nature): provided a libertarian concept of civil disobedience.
- Jeremy Bentham: conscientious citizens must “enter into measures of resistance as a matter of duty as well as interest.”
- James Mill: paradoxical — supported the right to violent revolution while opposing the right to advocate limited civil disobedience.
- Henry David Thoreau: adopted an idealistic anarchist view — all civil laws that encroach on moral law have no moral justification. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) supports Thoreau’s contention.
- All empiricists (Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Bentham, James Mill) favoured a negative concept of individual freedom (absence of restraints) — their views against improper use of governmental authority provided the basic ground for modern theories of civil disobedience.
Idealist School
Less hospitable to civil disobedience — from Aristotle to Rousseau, Hegel, and Marxist traditions, all emphasised the importance of the state over individuals and advocated unconditional loyalty to a collectivity for achieving positive freedom.
Syndicalists: obedience to democratic trade union leadership as access to positive freedom.
Anarchists (Tolstoy — idealist tradition; Bakunin, Kropotkin — socialist tradition): total rejection of the state system; provided a new approach to realising man’s social self through civil disobedience.
13.4 Theory of Civil Disobedience and Existentialist Philosophy
The theme of alienation from existentialist philosophy is an important aspect of contemporary theories of civil disobedience. Albert Camus is the leading contributor.
Both Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre and other existentialists believe there is no valid basis for any moral or political authority’s claim to legitimacy or obedience. However, Camus was more forthright:
- Respect for the dictates of justice must precede respect for law.
- In his Nobel Prize address: strongly advocated “refusal to lie about what we know and resistance to oppression.”
- Not averse to the use of physical force — though he always regarded it as a supreme evil — to counteract the worst violence of the state.
- Considered every power elite and state authority as the enemy of justice.
- Considered pacifists as “bourgeois nihilists.”
13.5 Gandhian Concept of Civil Disobedience and Satyagraha
Gandhi is considered the leading theorist in the history of civil disobedience movement. Martin Luther King Jr.: “From my background I gained my regulating Christian ideals; from Gandhi, I learned my operational technique.”
Satyagraha — Core Concept
Gandhi called his concept of civil disobedience the doctrine of “Satyagraha” or “Truth Force” — also called “Love Force” or “Soul Force.”
- The adjective “civil” in “civil disobedience” referred to peaceful, courteous, and “civilised” resistance.
- He found “passive resistance” inadequate — one must resist injustice without any feeling of animosity.
- In the earlier phase, Gandhi spoke of passive resistance as “an all-sided sword”: “Without draining a drop of blood, it produces far-reaching results. Given a just cause, capacity for endless suffering and avoidance of violence, victory is a certainty.”
- He subsequently abandoned “passive resistance” and chose “satyagraha” — devoid of feelings of hatred and violent means; based on spiritual purity.
Arne Naess (leading theoretician on Gandhi): stressed Gandhi’s “constructive imagination and uncommon ingenuity in finding and applying morally acceptable forms of political action.”
Ahimsa and Truth: For Gandhi, Ahimsa (non-violence) and Truth were inseparable — “Ahimsa is the means; Truth is the end.”
Civil Disobedience as Birthright
Gandhi strongly advocated that civil disobedience is the birthright of every citizen. He wrote in 1920: “Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen. He does not give it up without ceasing to be a man. Civil disobedience therefore becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless, or which is the same thing, corrupt.”
Before the Hunter Committee (1919), Gandhi argued that civil disobedience is legitimate even in a democracy. He said that truth-seekers determined to seek redress from unjust laws without violence would be “the best constitutionalists.”
Key Distinctions
Satyagraha vs. Passive Resistance:
| Satyagraha | Passive Resistance |
| Physical force forbidden even in the most favourable circumstances | Scope for use of arms when a suitable occasion arises |
| Based on spiritual purity, love, soul force | Can coexist alongside arms |
| No scope for violence — it is a negation of brute force | Violence and passive resistance can go together |
| An integrated concept covering the whole life process | Limited to specific acts of resistance |
Civility: Gandhi said “civility is the most difficult part of satyagraha” — not mere outward gentleness of speech but “an inborn gentleness and desire to do the opponent good.”
Non-Violence
Gandhi emphasised “civil” in “civil disobedience” to imply non-violence:
- Negative form: non-injury to any living being.
- Positive form: “the greatest love” and “the greatest charity.”
- In Buddhist literature: an attitude of creative coexistence.
Means and Ends
Gandhi always emphasised the value of proper means: “Improper means result in an impure end. One cannot reach truth by untruthfulness. Truthful conduct alone can reach truth. Non-violence is embedded in truth.”
Satyagraha as an Integrated Concept
Satyagraha is not merely an instrument of conflict resolution — it is an integrated concept covering the whole life process of a satyagrahi. It includes: truth, non-violence, chastity, non-stealing, swadeshi, fearlessness, bread-labour, removal of untouchability, and more.
Critical relationship: Civil disobedience is a “branch” of satyagraha. All satyagrahas are NOT civil disobedience, but all cases of civil disobedience ARE cases of satyagraha.
Satyagraha and Self-Suffering
The Gandhian emphasis on self-suffering has been questioned — some trace it to masochism or Hindu spirituality. In fact, it has nothing to do with individual self-mortification. It is a simple condition for the success of a cause — the assertion of one’s freedom and right to dissent. Self-suffering works as a psychological way to change the minds of an opponent.
Theological-Spiritual Foundation
The Gandhian concept of satyagraha is the product of his faith in religion and spiritual values — he was convinced that the supreme law governing all living beings and the universe is love and non-violence, and the Gita carried this message as “soul force.”
Gandhi’s Satyagraha and the Civil Disobedience Movement in India
- The Congress Party organised the Civil Disobedience Movement following the Lahore session (December 1929) resolution on independence — a result of British refusal to accept the Congress demand for Dominion Status.
- Contributing factors: the Lahore Conspiracy Case, the tragic death of Jatin Das in jail (1929), the Meerut Conspiracy Case.
- The movement took forms of: widespread defiance of law, boycott of British goods, withdrawal of support by army and police, and non-cooperation with the government.
- Gandhi highlighted these demands in his letter to the government in 1930 to break the salt law.
13.6 Civil Disobedience in Practice
South Africa: Gandhi used civil disobedience for the first time during his march to Transvaal in 1913 to protest discriminatory policies — the first real mass movement of civil disobedience led by Gandhi. Journalist Louis Fischer on Gandhi’s success with General Smuts: “In the end, Gandhi had not won a victory over Smuts, he had won Smuts over.”
India (key examples):
- 1918: Campaign for textile workers of Ahmedabad.
- 1930: Salt Satyagraha and civil disobedience movement for independence.
- 1939: Fast unto death for the development of social conditions of untouchables.
- Earlier: Removal of grievances of oppressed workers and peasants in Champaran, Kheda, and Bardoli.
South Africa (anti-apartheid):
- 1952: Civil disobedience against apartheid policies.
- 1957: Johannesburg bus boycott.
- 1960: March under Chief Albert J. Luthuli against the Sharpeville massacre.
Other historic examples:
- Buddhist civil disobedience in South Vietnam against American bombing.
- Movement against German occupation in Denmark and Norway.
- Danilo Dolci’s strike in Sicily (1950s).
- Nuclear disarmament campaigns in Western Europe.
- Non-violent demonstrations in Poland.
- Vorkuta prison uprising (1953) in the Soviet Union.
- Montgomery Civil Rights march (1955).
- Anti-Vietnam War march towards Oakland army base (1965).
13.7 Summary (Key Takeaways)
- Civil disobedience = public, pre-meditated defiance of unjust laws or policies, with willingness to accept punishment; grounded in justice and common good; aimed at arousing public conscience.
- The history spans from ancient Greece (Antigone theme, Socrates) through natural law tradition (Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas) to modern empiricists (Hobbes, Locke, Thoreau) and existentialists (Camus).
- Gandhi’s satyagraha = Truth Force/Soul Force — the greatest contribution to civil disobedience theory. It is an integrated concept (truth, non-violence, chastity, bread-labour, removal of untouchability) that goes far beyond mere passive resistance. Civil disobedience is only a branch of the larger concept of satyagraha.
- Key difference: passive resistance allows for arms; satyagraha and brute force are each a negation of the other and can never go together.
- John Rawls: “Civil disobedience is a political act justified by moral principles which define a conception of civil society and the public good.” Citizens submit their conduct but not their judgement to democratic authority.
- T.H. Green: “If government ceases to serve the function of bringing in conditions of freedom which are conditions of the moral life, it loses its claim on our obedience.”
- Barker: civil disobedience is “a method of persuasion rather than recourse to force.”
- Civil disobedience is not inconsistent with democracy — when traditional channels fail to meet legitimate demands, it becomes a strategy for attaining social justice.
