Causes of civil disobedience movement

Table of Contents • • • • • • Civil Disobedience Movement: After the non-action of the government over the Nehru Report and the failure of the government to agree upon any demand for even dominion status, Gandhiji was looking for a new plan amidst growing restlessness among the Congress and nation as a whole. The Congress Working Committee had authorized Mahatma Gandhi to determine the time, place and the issue on which the Civil Disobedience Movement was to be launched. Meanwhile, Gandhi gave 11 point ultimatum to Irwin on 31 January 1930. It seemed to many leaders as a sad climb-down from the Purna Swaraj resolution, since no demand was made for any change in the political structure, not even Dominion status. However, as Sumit Sarkar says “Events soon proved the sceptics wrong, and Gandhi at least partly right”. If the 11 points were a kind of retreat, they also concretized the national demand and related it to specific grievances. The letter to Irwin combined issues of general interest- • 50% cuts in army expenses and civil services salaries. • Total prohibition of intoxicants. • Release of political prisoners. • Changes in the Arms Act enabling citizens to bear arms for self-protection. • Reform in the Central Intelligence Department (C.I.D). • Lowering of the rupee-sterling exchange ratio to 1:4. • Protection of indigenous textile industry. • Reservation of coastal shipping for Indians. • 50% reduction in land revenue. • Abolition of the salt tax and government salt m...

Photo Courtesy: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images News/Getty Images We’re all familiar with the concept of disobedience — defying and questioning authority figures is something most humans start doing in childhood. Civil disobedience takes the concept of breaking the rules to a very adult level by focusing on breaking laws — but in a nonviolent manner and for a worthy cause. In most cases, civil disobedience consists of protests that are organized to shine a light on social injustice or laws that are biased or violate our human or legal rights as American citizens. It has been used as a successful tool to inspire positive change many times throughout U.S. history. Today, the Black Lives Matter movement is poised to go down in history as another positive example of a civil movement that spawned real social and legal changes. Let’s take a look at some of the most notable times civil disobedience paved the road to change in our country. The Boston Tea Party – 1773 One of the most famous historical acts of civil disobedience in American history actually took place before our nation was officially a nation. The not-so-festive Photo Courtesy: Michael Swensen/The Boston Globe/Getty Images — Reenactors celebrate the 245th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. A group of prominent patriots known as the Sons of Liberty — John Hancock, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry among them — denounced Britain’s policies on taxation and protested the arrival of three British East India Company ...

From the Boston Tea Party to Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March, and from suffragists’ illegally casting their ballots to whites-only lunch counter sit-ins, civil disobedience has often played a crucial role in bending the proverbial arc of the moral universe toward justice. But what, if anything, do these acts, and countless others which we refer to as civil disobedience have in common? What distinguishes them from other forms of conscientious and political action? On the most widely accepted account, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies (Rawls 1999, 320). On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience operate at the boundary of fidelity to law, have general respect for their regime, and are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as evidence of their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said on this view to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organized forcible resistance, and revolutionary action, on the other hand. This picture of civil disobedience, and the broader accounts offered in response, will be examined in the first section of this entry, which considers conceptual issues. The second section contrasts civil disobedience, broadly, with other types of protest. The third focuses on ...

Table of Contents • • • • • • Civil Disobedience Movement: After the non-action of the government over the Nehru Report and the failure of the government to agree upon any demand for even dominion status, Gandhiji was looking for a new plan amidst growing restlessness among the Congress and nation as a whole. The Congress Working Committee had authorized Mahatma Gandhi to determine the time, place and the issue on which the Civil Disobedience Movement was to be launched. Meanwhile, Gandhi gave 11 point ultimatum to Irwin on 31 January 1930. It seemed to many leaders as a sad climb-down from the Purna Swaraj resolution, since no demand was made for any change in the political structure, not even Dominion status. However, as Sumit Sarkar says “Events soon proved the sceptics wrong, and Gandhi at least partly right”. If the 11 points were a kind of retreat, they also concretized the national demand and related it to specific grievances. The letter to Irwin combined issues of general interest- • 50% cuts in army expenses and civil services salaries. • Total prohibition of intoxicants. • Release of political prisoners. • Changes in the Arms Act enabling citizens to bear arms for self-protection. • Reform in the Central Intelligence Department (C.I.D). • Lowering of the rupee-sterling exchange ratio to 1:4. • Protection of indigenous textile industry. • Reservation of coastal shipping for Indians. • 50% reduction in land revenue. • Abolition of the salt tax and government salt m...

Photo Courtesy: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images News/Getty Images We’re all familiar with the concept of disobedience — defying and questioning authority figures is something most humans start doing in childhood. Civil disobedience takes the concept of breaking the rules to a very adult level by focusing on breaking laws — but in a nonviolent manner and for a worthy cause. In most cases, civil disobedience consists of protests that are organized to shine a light on social injustice or laws that are biased or violate our human or legal rights as American citizens. It has been used as a successful tool to inspire positive change many times throughout U.S. history. Today, the Black Lives Matter movement is poised to go down in history as another positive example of a civil movement that spawned real social and legal changes. Let’s take a look at some of the most notable times civil disobedience paved the road to change in our country. The Boston Tea Party – 1773 One of the most famous historical acts of civil disobedience in American history actually took place before our nation was officially a nation. The not-so-festive Photo Courtesy: Michael Swensen/The Boston Globe/Getty Images — Reenactors celebrate the 245th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. A group of prominent patriots known as the Sons of Liberty — John Hancock, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry among them — denounced Britain’s policies on taxation and protested the arrival of three British East India Company ...

From the Boston Tea Party to Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March, and from suffragists’ illegally casting their ballots to whites-only lunch counter sit-ins, civil disobedience has often played a crucial role in bending the proverbial arc of the moral universe toward justice. But what, if anything, do these acts, and countless others which we refer to as civil disobedience have in common? What distinguishes them from other forms of conscientious and political action? On the most widely accepted account, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies (Rawls 1999, 320). On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience operate at the boundary of fidelity to law, have general respect for their regime, and are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as evidence of their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said on this view to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organized forcible resistance, and revolutionary action, on the other hand. This picture of civil disobedience, and the broader accounts offered in response, will be examined in the first section of this entry, which considers conceptual issues. The second section contrasts civil disobedience, broadly, with other types of protest. The third focuses on ...

Photo Courtesy: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images News/Getty Images We’re all familiar with the concept of disobedience — defying and questioning authority figures is something most humans start doing in childhood. Civil disobedience takes the concept of breaking the rules to a very adult level by focusing on breaking laws — but in a nonviolent manner and for a worthy cause. In most cases, civil disobedience consists of protests that are organized to shine a light on social injustice or laws that are biased or violate our human or legal rights as American citizens. It has been used as a successful tool to inspire positive change many times throughout U.S. history. Today, the Black Lives Matter movement is poised to go down in history as another positive example of a civil movement that spawned real social and legal changes. Let’s take a look at some of the most notable times civil disobedience paved the road to change in our country. The Boston Tea Party – 1773 One of the most famous historical acts of civil disobedience in American history actually took place before our nation was officially a nation. The not-so-festive Photo Courtesy: Michael Swensen/The Boston Globe/Getty Images — Reenactors celebrate the 245th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. A group of prominent patriots known as the Sons of Liberty — John Hancock, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry among them — denounced Britain’s policies on taxation and protested the arrival of three British East India Company ...

Table of Contents • • • • • • Civil Disobedience Movement: After the non-action of the government over the Nehru Report and the failure of the government to agree upon any demand for even dominion status, Gandhiji was looking for a new plan amidst growing restlessness among the Congress and nation as a whole. The Congress Working Committee had authorized Mahatma Gandhi to determine the time, place and the issue on which the Civil Disobedience Movement was to be launched. Meanwhile, Gandhi gave 11 point ultimatum to Irwin on 31 January 1930. It seemed to many leaders as a sad climb-down from the Purna Swaraj resolution, since no demand was made for any change in the political structure, not even Dominion status. However, as Sumit Sarkar says “Events soon proved the sceptics wrong, and Gandhi at least partly right”. If the 11 points were a kind of retreat, they also concretized the national demand and related it to specific grievances. The letter to Irwin combined issues of general interest- • 50% cuts in army expenses and civil services salaries. • Total prohibition of intoxicants. • Release of political prisoners. • Changes in the Arms Act enabling citizens to bear arms for self-protection. • Reform in the Central Intelligence Department (C.I.D). • Lowering of the rupee-sterling exchange ratio to 1:4. • Protection of indigenous textile industry. • Reservation of coastal shipping for Indians. • 50% reduction in land revenue. • Abolition of the salt tax and government salt m...

From the Boston Tea Party to Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March, and from suffragists’ illegally casting their ballots to whites-only lunch counter sit-ins, civil disobedience has often played a crucial role in bending the proverbial arc of the moral universe toward justice. But what, if anything, do these acts, and countless others which we refer to as civil disobedience have in common? What distinguishes them from other forms of conscientious and political action? On the most widely accepted account, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies (Rawls 1999, 320). On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience operate at the boundary of fidelity to law, have general respect for their regime, and are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as evidence of their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said on this view to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organized forcible resistance, and revolutionary action, on the other hand. This picture of civil disobedience, and the broader accounts offered in response, will be examined in the first section of this entry, which considers conceptual issues. The second section contrasts civil disobedience, broadly, with other types of protest. The third focuses on ...

From the Boston Tea Party to Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March, and from suffragists’ illegally casting their ballots to whites-only lunch counter sit-ins, civil disobedience has often played a crucial role in bending the proverbial arc of the moral universe toward justice. But what, if anything, do these acts, and countless others which we refer to as civil disobedience have in common? What distinguishes them from other forms of conscientious and political action? On the most widely accepted account, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies (Rawls 1999, 320). On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience operate at the boundary of fidelity to law, have general respect for their regime, and are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as evidence of their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said on this view to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organized forcible resistance, and revolutionary action, on the other hand. This picture of civil disobedience, and the broader accounts offered in response, will be examined in the first section of this entry, which considers conceptual issues. The second section contrasts civil disobedience, broadly, with other types of protest. The third focuses on ...