Culture, Society, and Praxis

Volume 3 Number 2 Article 4

January 2005

The Salt March and Political Power

Philip Watkins California State University, Monterey Bay

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp

Recommended Citation Watkins, Philip (2005) "The Salt March and Political Power," Culture, Society, and Praxis: Vol. 3 : No. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol3/iss2/4

This Main Theme / Tema Central is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Digital Commons @ CSUMB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culture, Society, and Praxis by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CSUMB. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Watkins: The Salt March and Political Power

THE SALT MARCH AND POLITICAL POWER By Philip Watkins

This paper explores thevision of Gandhi, one most important leaders of the 20th Century, from a theoretical perspective. According to Gandhi, rulers cannot have power without consent of their subjects. Nonviolent movements of civil disobedience, such as the famous Salt March, are manifestations of the power that can be best interpreted considering the theory of pluralistic dependency, addressing the legitimate origins of power and power contestation.

Introduction theory, we must follow a number of im- portant questions. How did the British For Decades we have all come to admire gain control over India? How did Gandhi historical nonviolent social movements become a potent political force in India? and the leaders that led them. As Ameri- What were the salt tax and the salt march? cans we too have been in struggles of in- Where did Gandhi’s inspiration come justice and foreign control. Perhaps it is from? our history of being under colonial rule that has given us an especially gained lik- British Power in India ing of Gandhi and his vision for an inde- “The British have not taken India; we have pendent India, much like our vision of an given it to them,” Gandhi wrote in 1906. independent America from British rule. “They are not in India because of their Unfortunately our admiration for Gandhi strength, but because we keep them.” (Ac- does not lead us into a deeper understand- kerman & Duvall, 2000, p. 68). The Brit- ing of his philosophy. We also have little ish colonization of India was certainly dif- or no idea about the methodology of non- ferent from the colonization of the Ameri- violence that Gandhi implemented and the cas. In fact colonization was not the first theories behind it. intention of the British. But, as Gandhi If we are to move beyond mere observed in 1906 the British were handed admiration it is very important for us to India by its own people. This allowed the study the actual campaigns that Gandhi British to claim India as their jewel to the led. The most important campaign of non- East. violent civil disobedience in India was the Before we can go into Gandhi’s salt march. The salt march was a monu- second movement of nonviolent civil dis- mental move on India’s road to Independ- obedience, we must first gain an under- ence that needs to be analyzed and com- standing of how the British gained control prehended. We can also analyze the salt over India. The British were first involved march through the pluralistic dependency with India as traders. They came to India theory to understand how and why it in the sixteenth century to set up stations changed India and what ideas stand behind of trade and military along the coast. Fur- those changes. ther inland were the Muslim Meghal em- Leading up to our analysis of the salt perors who had inhabited the interior of march with the pluralistic dependency India since the invasion of their ancestors

CS&P Vol 3 Num 2 May 2005

Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2005 1 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 3, No. 2 [2005], Art. 4

CS&P Philip Watkins 122

from central Asia. The peace amongst dove into using civil disobedience against tribes ended in the eighteenth century the unjust and discriminatory laws toward when they desired more power and influ- Indians in South Africa. Gandhi set up ence over the land. small campaigns that gave him national The fighting decreased trade and notoriety (Hermann & Rothermund 1998: put the East India Company’s monopoly p. 265). over trade with India at risk. To continue In 1915 Gandhi returned to India trade and protect its interest, the East India with reverence from mostly Indian nation- Company accumulated an army in 1765. alists. Gandhi was unsure what it was he With an army at full force the East India wanted to do in India. In fact, he had be- Company proceeded to take over Bengal, come very detached from India by his time Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. With the spent in London and South Africa. Gandhi East India Company’s territories set in decided to take a one-year train tour of place it soon realized that governing all of India to get a feel for the people and their India was an impossible task. In order to surroundings. After the tour Gandhi was make governing easier the East India able and confident in starting small local Company made treaties with influential campaigns. Indian dynasties in exchange for military These small campaigns gave Gan- protection. British control began to take dhi a good following and forced the Indian root. Congress to take notice. Eventually Gan- When the East India Company fi- dhi became involved with the Indian Con- nally dissolved, The British government gress and became a strong political force took control over India making it an offi- in their meetings. When tension grew be- cial colony. The process which the gov- tween the British and the Indian Congress, ernment used to control India was identi- the Congress turned to Gandhi to head a cal to the strategy the East India Company new civil disobedience campaign. Gandhi set forth years before. British officials knew exactly where he should focus this would continue to give money and incen- new campaign, the salt tax. tives to powerful Indians who would in Taxes and the Salt March return stay loyal to the British and con- tinue to push policies that would benefit In 1765 The East India Company set up British Interest. “The Raj” which was the manufacturing monopolies over salt, to- name for British control over India had bacco, and betel nuts. The British took begun. over these monopolies, which imposed their control over the Indian market. With The Rise of Gandhi the monopolies in place, the British also As a young man Gandhi studied law in applied a tax on the sale of salt, tobacco, London and eventually set up a practice in and betel nuts as well. The salt tax was Bombay. His success In Bombay was especially devastating due to the fact that waning so he took up an offer from a salt was a staple food for Indians. (Read, businessman who sent Gandhi to South and Fisher, 1997). The salt tax hurt eve- Africa to do some legal work. While in ryone especially Indians from the lower South Africa Gandhi was recognized as class. Even the poorest laborer could not the only Indian lawyer in the country and gather salt without paying exorbitant he thus came to be the leader of the Indian taxes. (Weber, 2002). The salt tax was bla- minority in South Africa. Gandhi then

CS&P Vol 3 Num 2 May 2005 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol3/iss2/4 2 Watkins: The Salt March and Political Power 123 The Salt March CS&P

tantly inequitable and unfair for the Indian passing town and city with great cheers people. and excitement. In every town Gandhi To start the movement Gandhi de- would take the opportunity to speak to the cided to send a letter to the Viceroy of In- people about the injustice of the salt tax dian, Lord Irwin demanding him to relin- and he would encourage everyone to join quish the salt tax. If Irwin did not except the marchers and boycott all British made Gandhi’s demands, then he would push goods. the movement toward civil disobedience. In the morning of April 6 twelve Gandhi made plans to leave Ahmedabad thousand marchers gathered around the and march for three weeks until he ended shore waiting for Gandhi to give the signal at the city of Dandi. While in Dandi, Gan- to collect salt. When the marchers were dhi and his followers were to go to the sea ready Gandhi raised up a handful of sand and collect salt In defiance of the salt tax signifying the end of the salt monopoly and monopoly. and the beginning of civil disobedience. Gandhi’s reasons for choosing the The news spread all over the country and salt march as the first civil disobedience nearly every town especially those on the were strategic and well thought out. For coast reported people making salt. (Ac- one, he wanted to get the poor, the Mus- kerman, and Duvall, 2000, p. 87). lims, and the Hindu’s to come together in Nationalism and the cry for inde- unity to fight a common injustice that they pendence were at an all time high during have all dealt with. Second, the salt tax the salt march and the other actions that was not a large piece of revenue for the followed. It is true that the salt march had British, meaning that the British would not very little significance to the British, but it use an extreme amount of force against the was arguably the most significant action march. This in affect would lower the for the Indians. The salt march was the level of fear amongst Indians and enable first firm step to a paradigm change in po- more people to participate in the cause. litical power for the Indians. Gandhi was And thirdly the salt tax was symbolic, in the catalyst to this paradigm change with that it portrayed the British unjust colonial his philosophy of nonviolence and social rule over everything including the simple power. everyday lives of Indians. The salt march Gandhi’s Inspiration therefore would increase Indian morale and give them a sense of power and self- Gandhi was inspired by many different respect that was virtually non-existent for people and movements to create his politi- decades. cal philosophy. Perhaps the most influen- tial philosopher on civil disobedience for When the plans were all set in Gandhi was Henry David Thoreau. Tho- place Gandhi took the first step on March nd reau had written an essay titled “Civil 2 by asking the viceroy of India, Lord Disobedience” in which he explains that if Irwin, to accept the demands or face civil the government imposes unjust laws then disobedience. Irwin would not compro- it is the duty of the people to “withdraw all mise to the demands. Gandhi stayed true support both in person and property” to his words and gathered seventy of his (Thoreau, 1993, p. 8) of the government followers who were well disciplined in and cease to abide by the laws labeled as nonviolence and began to march toward unjust. Gandhi adopted ideas such as these Dandi. The marchers were greeted in each in his philosophy of nonviolence. Martin

Culture Society & Praxis Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2005 3 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 3, No. 2 [2005], Art. 4

CS&P Philip Watkins 124

Luther King, Jr. and César Chávez then The amount of power a ruler may have adopted Gandhi’s philosophy in order to depends on the degree of influence the combat the injustices that they faced. ruler has over every power source. There are some differences with Though, every power source is ultimately each leader’s philosophy of nonviolence external from the ruler himself. and the use of civil disobedience. But, one The Pluralistic Dependency The- idea remains constant through out all ory is a more accurate assumption of po- movements of nonviolent civil disobedi- litical power. If the people disregard the ence, and that is the idea of political ruler then essentially the ruler has no one power. The question that every social to rule leaving him or her powerless. As movement raises is, “who wields the po- mentioned before a government’s power litical power?” And the answer always will not function without the obedience remains unchanged, “The people hold the and consent of the subjects. So why is it power.” that people obey the government or ruler The Two Theories of Political Power even when unjust laws or actions are im- According to Gene Sharp posed? There are many complex reasons for different people; here are some: habit Ultimately there are two theories of politi- of obedience, fear of sanctions, morally cal power to choose from. The most com- obligated to obey, incentives (self- mon One is the “Monolith Theory” which interest), psychological or personal identi- states, that people are dependent upon the fication with a ruler, ignorance, and lack government or ruler, which wields all po- of self respect among subjects. It is impor- litical power. The second is the “Plural- tant to note that though obedience is often istic Dependency Theory” which states practiced it is not involuntary, and the that the government or rulers power is de- whole population at any given time does pendent upon the people’s consent. The not completely obey the government uni- sources of power that a government or versally. There are always people that ex- ruler has comes from perception of author- ercise disobedience more often than oth- ity, human resources, skills and knowl- ers. edge of cabinets or loyalists, the subjects’ absence of common goal or self worth, Pluralistic Dependency Theory Applied control of material resources, and ability to the Salt March to use sanctions. “Some conflicts do not yield to compro- Sharp (1973) argues that the mise and can be resolved only through Monolith Theory is “factually not true” (p. struggle. Conflicts which, in one way or 9). In order for the government or ruler to another, involve the fundamental princi- wield power they must draw it from the ples of society, of independence, of self- sources of power mentioned above. Every respect, or of people’s capacity to deter- one of those sources is dependent upon the mine their own future are such conflicts” consent and obedience of the people. For (Sharp, 1973, p. 3) With this sort of con- example, sanctions, which are arguably flict it is inherent to have a concept of po- the most devastating source of power, de- litical power, which in turn decides how pend upon the military or police to obey you intend to struggle for that power. The the orders of the ruler or government. If Monolith Theory is associated with violent the military ceases to obey, then the ruler action because if the ruler is the only one cannot inflict power through sanctions. with power then the only resolution is to

CS&P Vol 3 Num 2 May 2005 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol3/iss2/4 4 Watkins: The Salt March and Political Power 125 The Salt March CS&P

kill him and his loyalists. Nonviolent ac- until the salt march. The collective Indian tion bases its concept of political power on population gave the British a great amount the Pluralistic Dependency Theory, which of authority due to their willingness to gives people the power; they just need to submit their livelihoods. learn to wield it through disobedience. If anything the salt march really For us to come up with a more in helped change the Indians thinking of Brit- depth understanding of the salt march and ish authority. The salt march showed the civil disobedience in India we need to Indians that they don’t have to submit to a view the events through the lens of Gene law and monopoly that is unjust and det- Sharp and his Pluralistic Dependency rimental to their daily lives. Gandhi en- Theory. To do this a set of questions need forced the idea that it was the nation’s to be asked. One: “What sources of power duty to rise up against the salt tax and dis- did the British use to control India?” Two: obey the British authority over the manu- “Why did the Indians obey the British?” facturing of salt. The decrease in British Three: “Was there a paradigm shift relat- authority was evident in the thousands of ing to the Pluralistic Dependency Theory Indians across the nation who participated among the people of India?” and four: in making their own salt. “Was the Pluralistic Dependency Theory India was divided on many differ- an appropriate assumption and way of ent levels. The divisions came from the looking at political power for Gandhi and large populations of Muslims and Hindus, his followers?” and the many languages and dialects that Sources of Power created barriers for communication across The British use of power and the sources the nation. Another source of division that power came from was extensive. They came from the caste system, which as- most certainly had all sources in a firm signed social status of people at birth. The grip to control the people of India. There lowest positions on the caste system were are some sources that do stand out during the “untouchables” which literally were the salt march. Not coincidentally Gandhi not to be touched or even looked at by planned the salt march around decreasing people of a different caste position. These the British control over those sources of divisions were a source of power for the power. The four main sources the salt British. Without a unified front in India march attacked were authority, subject’s then the oppression of the British could lack of a common goal, material resources, not be attacked with much force. As men- and ability to use sanctions. tioned before Gandhi strategically chose the salt tax and monopoly as a cause that The British use of authority was would unify all Indians. That is exactly crucial for their control over the Indian what happened in the salt march. Un- people. Authority is defined as the extent touchables, Muslims, Hindus, and every- that subjects believe in the superiority of one in between marched along side each the ruler. There were varying degrees of other to the sea. The salt march did not the British extent of authority for every completely unify the differences among Indian, for example the Indian Congress people, in fact some people were disgusted tried to reform the British government by with the presence of untouchables and sending petitions. With the actions of the there was less Muslim support because Congress aside, the authority of the British Gandhi himself was a Hindu. It was not was almost completely unchallenged up

Culture Society & Praxis Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2005 5 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 3, No. 2 [2005], Art. 4

CS&P Philip Watkins 126

perfect, but there was still an increase in the breaking of habits especially those that unity among all groups. cause people to obey the British. The British had a large degree of Two reasons for obedience relating control over material resources. They es- to the salt march are also affected by the pecially had a lot of influence over the sale sources of power that the British drew and manufacture of salt. The salt march from. These two reasons are fear of sanc- deliberately ignored the British monopoly tions, and absence of self-confidence over salt. The disobedience that occurred among the subjects. The Indians obeyed during the salt march proved that the mo- because they feared the sanctions that nopoly of salt and the salt tax existed only could be imposed upon them if they dis- because of the consent of the Indian peo- obeyed. The British always had military ple. This consent was thoroughly broken. and police officers at hand. In the case of The British had relied on sanctions if any- the salt march the fear of sanctions one decided to challenge their laws or dropped because the British decided it policies. The salt march had a different would be too costly to use them. affect on the British ability to cast sanc- The most powerful reason for obe- tions. The salt march was an act of non- dience is the fact that most Indians lacked violent disobedience. This placed two dif- a sense of self-confidence. Indians were ficult decisions upon the British. One de- experiencing internalized oppression at a cision was that they could have imposed very high degree. Their lack of self- sanctions and arrested Gandhi and his fol- confidence inversely related to the British lowers, but this would have created mar- authority. One of Gandhi’s main goals for tyrs and an up roar across the nation. Or the salt march was to instill some sort of they could not impose any sanctions and self-respect in the Indian people. He be- allow themselves to look weak. The Brit- lieve that if the people had self respect ish chose the latter decision in the case of then they would not give into the habit of the salt march. In affect the salt march de- obedience, fear of sanctions, and authority creased the British control over sanctions of the British. The salt march increased as long as the movement remained nonvio- self-respect by giving people the chance to lent. stand up for justice in the face of the un- Indian Obedience just salt tax and monopoly. All of the reasons for obedience could ap- A Shift Towards The Pluralistic De- ply one way or another in the case of In- pendency Theory dia’s obedience to British rule. For one, The salt march directly attacked the the British gave powerful Indians incen- sources of power and obedience as men- tives to remain loyal. But, only a few rea- tioned above. In effect the salt march was sons for obedience relate to the salt march. the first step toward a paradigm shift from The first reason was that it was simple the Monolith Theory to the Pluralistic De- habit to obey the salt tax. The very reason pendency Theory. With the movement to- for obedience became the fact that it has ward Pluralistic Dependency Theory always been the habit of the people. No started by the salt march, Indians were one really questioned this habit until Gan- able to decrease the sources of power that dhi showed the injustice of the tax and the the British possessed and slowly come to need to oppose it. The salt march began the realization that the those sources of

CS&P Vol 3 Num 2 May 2005 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol3/iss2/4 6 Watkins: The Salt March and Political Power 127 The Salt March CS&P

power were solely dependent upon the them struggle and oppose their enemy in a themselves obeying or disobeying. nonviolent way. The evidence for the paradigm Gene Sharp and his Pluralistic De- shift is in the fact that the Indians even pendency Theory gives an explanation of followed through with participating in the how the salt march worked and what how salt march. If the Indians believed in the the Indians viewed political power. The Monolith theory then the salt march would Pluralistic Dependency theory is not only be looked upon as a useless cause. If they relevant to the salt march, but it is also were to go forth with the salt march in the relevant to all nonviolent civil disobedient perspective of the Monolith theory then movements. Without the Pluralistic De- the people would destroy the salt factories pendency Theory nonviolence and civil themselves, and they would use violence disobedience would make very little sense. as the only way to possess power. References Conclusion Ackerman, P., & Duvall, D. (2000). A Acting out of violence to gain power for Force More Powerful: A Century of the Indians would have been a bad idea for Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Pal- their situation. If they used violence then grave. there would be nothing unjustified in the Hermann, K., & Rothermund, D. (1998). A British using their military to crush the History of India. (3rd ed.). New York: protesters. The best way of looking at po- Routledge. litical power for the Indians was with the Pluralistic Dependency Theory. There Read, A., & Fisher, D. (1997). The Proud- wasn’t as much risk involved, as with the est day: India’s Long Road to Independ- Monolith theory, all they had to do was ence. New York: W. W. Norton and withdraw support and obedience, which in Company. affect would decrease the illusion of Brit- Sharp, G., (1973). The Politics of Nonvio- ish power. lent Action: Part One Power and Strug- When studying violent struggle gle. Boston: Porter Sargent. and nonviolent struggle they appear to be Thoreau, H. D., & Appelbaum, S. (Ed.). very different. And they most certainly are (1993). Civil Disobedience and Other on many levels. But, the differences of the Essays. New York: Dover. two begin at the fundamental basis of how Weber, T. (2002). Gandhian Nonviolence they view political power. It was my goal and the Salt March. Social Alternatives, for this study of the salt march to get to the 21, 46-51. root of how they view power to make

Culture Society & Praxis Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2005 7