UNIT 5 RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Structure
5.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

5.2 Gandhi’s Individualism

5.3 Concept of Autonomy
5.4 Individual and Satyagraha
5.5 Satyagraha and Swaraj
5.6 Rights and Duties
5.7 Rights of Women
5.8 Conclusion
5.9 Summary
5.10 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The discourse on rights is linked with the rise of liberal individualism. The language of rights
permeates and dominates all walks of modern political, social and economic life. In defining
the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the philosophical defence of
rights have assumed unparalleled importance in the modern political discourse exemplified in
the philosophies of Rawls and Dworkin, the proponents of rights-based liberalism. The other
streams including the Communitarianism do not emphasise on rights; yet individual theorists
like MacIntyre and Walzer accord importance to individual rights. There is a general belief
that rights secure liberty by protecting the individual against the state and other persons,
even a majority, gives a person the shield against arbitrariness and tyranny. It safeguards the
individual’s private sphere ensuring that neither the state nor others can interfere without
justification. Embedded in the concept of right is the acceptance of ideas of personal
autonomy, individuality, liberty and human equality and, any denial or discrimination would
have to have sufficient reasons. The concept is quintessentially anti-statist in nature, also the
basis of Gandhi’s perceptions and philosophy.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
 Gandhi’s concept of rights and duties
 His concepts of individualism and autonomy
 Gandhi’s vision of the individual’s role in Satyagraha
52 Gandhi’s Political Thought

5.2 GANDHI’S INDIVIDUALISM

Gandhi’s suspicion of the modern state apparatus, his denial of the all-powerful state, his
description of the state as a soulless machine and the supreme importance that he accords
to the individual makes him an individualist par excellence. Iyer considers Gandhi as “one
of the most revolutionary of individualists and one of the most individualistic of revolutionaries
in world history”. Writing in 1924, Gandhi declares that ‘the individual is the one supreme
consideration’ and held on this belief right till the end of his life. He writes:
If the individual ceases to count, what is left of society? Individual freedom alone can make
a man voluntarily surrender himself completely to the service of society. If it is wrested from
him, he becomes an automaton and society is ruined. No society can possibly be built on
a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man. Just as a man will
not grow horns or a tail, so will he not exist as a man if he has no mind of his own. In
reality even those who do not believe in the liberty of the individual believe in their own.
Gandhi also does not lose sight of the fact that the individual is essentially a social being
and in this sense his individualism is like that of T.H. Green. He is critical of unbridled
individualism and considers it as unsuitable for social progress.
Unrestricted individualism is the law of the beast of the jungle. We have learnt to strike the
mean between individual freedom and social restraint. Willing submission to social restraint
for the sake of the well being of the whole society, enriches both the individual and the
society of which he is a member.
Gandhi views society as an aggregate of individuals and that a society is incomplete if it
does not cater to individual’s self-development. The individual, for him, is not only a social
person but also a moral one. Individual initiative enhances human dignity and also provides
for a mechanism for resolving conflicts in a non-violent manner. He underlines the importance
of common good without denying the pivotal role for the individual. He considers the
individual as the bearer of moral authority vested with the moral law and duty (dharma)
to judge the state and its laws, by the standards of truth (satya) and non-violence (ahimsa).
His faith in the individual as the basis of a modern society is strengthened by his notion of
relative truth.
Gandhi considers truth and God as inter-dependent and acknowledges the need to go
beyond ‘God is Truth’ to ‘Truth is God’. “In ‘God is Truth’, is, certainly does not mean
‘equal to’ nor does it mean, ‘is truthful’. Truth is not an attribute of God, but He is That.
He is nothing if He is not That. Truth in Sanskrit means Is. Therefore Truth is implied in
Is. God is nothing else is. Therefore the more truthful we are, the nearer we are to God.
We are only to the extent that we are truthful” (Gandhi, 1949, p.29). In view of the concept
of relative truth and recognising the need for establishing some standard and that is human
needs, Gandhi recommends non-violence (ahimsa) as truth differs from person to person
and describes satyagraha as ‘soul force’.

5.3 CONCEPT OF AUTONOMY

Gandhi’s individualism is embedded in his notion of autonomy and is derived from his
extensive view of power which he locates in the state, economy and society and in each
individual. Within this framework he insists that everyone can and should take charge of his
life. Accepting human dignity and worth as intrinsic goods, he is severe in his indictment of
Rights and Duties 53

colonialism and untouchability and interestingly, sees the seeds of degeneration that undermines
and suppresses human dignity within Indian traditions. He emphasises that India got subjugated
because of its moribund and repressive practices and stresses on the need for reforming the
Indian society and in particular, Hinduism, by highlighting some of its inequities and
discriminatory practices towards women, the lower castes and the untouchables. According
to Gandhi, individuals make and remake their lives through their choices and action. The
highest duty for Gandhi is to act morally, regardless of the consequences. The moral way
to proceed is through non-violence. Since each person knows best about his moral project
and the means to realise it in action, each one ought to be free from both domination and
violence.
Gandhi’s autonomous person is also a social person, never apart from the community to
which he belongs and therefore he expects everyone to be concerned not only about their
self-governance but also the autonomy of others. This, in a nutshell, is the meaning of
‘swaraj’ or self-rule, a vision of India ruled by Indians with concern for the poorest, the
destitute and the most vulnerable. Self-rule not only means end of British colonialism but
also an end of other forms of domination such as untouchability and modernisation.
‘Swaraj’, for Gandhi, is when Indians learn to rule themselves, individually and collectively.
It means self-control and self-rule. Like Green, Gandhi seeks to “make life morally meaningful
for all people and both viewed the community as held together not by compulsion but by
the sense of a common interest or good”. The individual has a soul while the state is a
soulless machine “which can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its existence”.
The individual has the moral authority as he consistently pursues satya and ahimsa and
hence his description of the individual as possessing a soul while the state is soulless. He
accepts the state if it uses minimum of violence but the fear is always that the state may
use too much violence against those who differ from it. His concern with the consequences
of excessive centralisation of power makes him concede only a minimal role to the state.
Decentralisation of power ensures greater chance for the collective pursuit of satya and
ahimsa. He admits that state ownership is preferable to private ownership involving the
exploitation of the masses, but in general he considers the violence of private ownership as
less injurious than the violence of the state. In an enlightened anarchy ‘everyone is his own
ruler’. In an ideal state, there is no political power because there is no state. As this ideal
is not realisable, he prefers a minimal state, like Thoreau, namely that government is best
which governs the least. Gandhi limits the ambit of the state and focuses on the civil society
and the role of the individual within it.
“I look upon an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear, because, although
while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind
by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress.”

5.4 INDIVIDUAL AND SATYAGRAHA

According to Gandhi, as all states violate satya and ahimsa, “every citizen renders himself
responsible for every act of his government. And loyalty to a capricious and corrupt state
is a sin, disloyalty a virtue. Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state
becomes lawless or, which is the same thing, corrupt, and a citizen who barters with such
a state shares its corruption and lawlessness”. Satyagraha is the moral right of every
individual, a ‘birthright that cannot be surrendered without losing self respect’. Gandhi
describes satyagrahi as ‘real constitutionalist’ on the grounds that disobedience to evil laws
is a moral duty and in disobeying and accepting punishment, he obeys a higher law. The
54 Gandhi’s Political Thought

existence of injustice justifies political resistance and political protest is basically moral. “To
put down civil disobedience is to imprison conscience. Civil disobedience can only lead to
strength and purity”. The state, for Gandhi, has no right to dehumanise or suppress the
individual. “It is the inherent right of a subject to refuse or assist a government that will not
listen to him”. The individual citizen has the responsibility to uphold satya and practise
ahimsa which cannot be relinquished or abdicated. Gandhi also accepts that a majority
could be wrong and stresses on the fact that an individual, at all times, must have the power
to veto over state action. A citizen, as stated by Antigone1, must have the right to judge
the state on the basis of higher law and like Socrates2 must willingly accept the consequences
of challenging the laws of the state. This is all the more necessary, according to Gandhi, as
modern day states, including representative democracies augment greater power and violence
and ignore truth. Like Locke and Jefferson, he believes that loyalty to a constitution and its
laws need to be reviewed and affirmed once in every generation. He accepts the Lockean
principle that political authority has be judged and questioned, and, if necessary disobeyed.
Satyagraha demonstrates an intricate relationship between means and ends through a
philosophy of action. In its approach to conflict, Gandhi does not seek a compromise but
a synthesis, as a satyagrahi never yields his position which he regards as truth but he is
prepared to accept the opponent’s position, if it is true. By sacrificing one’s position he does
not make any concessions to the opponent but only to a mutually agreeable adjustment.
Both parties are satisfied without either feeling triumphant or defeated as both do not
compromise in course of the resolution of the conflict.
Satyagraha, for Gandhi, is based on a profound respect for law and is resorted to non-
violently and publicly. The Satyagrahi willingly accepts full penalties, including the rigours
of jail discipline as resistance is respectful and restrained, undertaken by law-abiding
citizens. Gandhi insists that ‘disobedience without civility, discipline, discrimination and non
violence is certain destruction’. A satyagrahi accepts personal responsibility publicly. He
must inform the concerned government official(s) about the time and place of the act, the
reason(s) for protest and if possible, the law that would be disobeyed.
A satyagrahi cooperates not out of fear of punishment but because cooperation is essential
for the common good. Satyagraha is resistance without any acrimony or hatred or injury
to the opponent. A satyagrahi also suffers the consequences of resistance. As a person he
owes it to himself to suffer, if necessary for his conscience and as a citizen, it is his duty
to suffer the consequences of his conscientious disobedience to the laws of the state. A
satyagrahi invites suffering upon himself and does not seek mercy. The following rules have
to be followed in satyagraha: (1) self-reliance at all times; (2) Initiative in the hands of the
satyagrahis; (3) Propagation of the objective, strategy and tactics of the campaign, (4)
Reduction of demands to a minimum consistent with Truth, (5) Progressive advancement of
the movement through steps and stages- direct action only when all other efforts to achieve
an honourable settlement have been exhausted, (6) Examination of weakness within the
satyagraha group- no sign of impatience, discouragement or breakdown of non-violent
attitude, (7) Persistent search for avenues of cooperation with the adversary on honourable
terms by winning over the opponent by helping him. There must be sincerity to achieve an
agreement with rather than triumph over the adversary (8) Refusal to surrender essentials
in negotiation and there must be no compromise on basic principles and (9) Insistence on
full agreement on fundamentals before accepting a settlement.
Gandhi suggests on the need to follow these steps in a satyagraha: (1) Negotiation and
arbitration, (2) preparation of the group for direct action- exercise in self-discipline, (3)
Rights and Duties 55

agitation – demonstration such as mass meetings, parades, slogan-shouting, (4) issuing of an

ultimatum, (5) economic boycott and forms of strike- picketing, dharna, non-violent labour
strike and general strike (6) non-cooperation, (7) civil disobedience, (8) usurping of the
functions of government and should step 8 fail then resort to the last one, namely establishment
of a parallel government by securing greatest possible cooperation from the public.
In 1930, Gandhi laid down a code of discipline that satyagrahis would have to adhere to:
(1) harbour no anger but suffer the anger of the opponent, refuse to return the assaults of
the opponent; (2) do not submit to any order given in anger, even though severe punishment
is threatened for disobeying; (3) refrain from insults; (4) protect opponents from insult or
attack, even at the risk of life; (5) do not resist arrest nor the attachment of property, unless
holding property as a trustee; (6) refuse to surrender any property held in trust at the risk
of life; (7) if taken prisoner, behave in any exemplary manner; (8) as a member of a
satyagraha unit, obey the order of satyagraha leaders and resign from the unit in the event
of serious disagreement and (9) do not expect guarantees for maintenance of the dependants.
For Gandhi satyagraha incorporates civil disobedience though it went beyond the pressure
tactics associated with strikes and demonstrations to include moral, social and political
reform (Dalton, 1982, p.148). Satyagraha, unlike civil disobedience, is resistance without
acrimony or hatred or injury to the opponent. ‘Satyagraha’, for him, is both a ‘mode of
action and a method of enquiry’ (Bondurant, 1958, v). Satya is derived from the Sanskrit
word sat, ‘being’, and means both truth and essence. For Gandhi, it means the continuous
search of truth and also a means of resolving conflict by which a person comes to know
himself and the process of his evolution. The idea of openness is embodied in satyagraha.
Actions based on pre-conceived notions and marked by violence are characterised as
duragraha and is similar to the forms of passive resistance.
Passive resistance may be offered side by side with the use of arms. Satyagraha and brute
force, being each a negation of the other, can never go together. In passive resistance there
is always present an idea of harassing the other party and there is a simultaneous readiness
to undergo any hardships entailed upon us by such activity; while in Satyagraha there is not
the remotest idea of injuring the opponent. Satyagraha postulates the conquest of the
adversary by suffering in one’s own person (Gandhi, 1928, p.179).
Satyagraha is coined during the movement of Indian resistance in South Africa to the
‘Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance’ introduced into the Transvaal Legislative Council in
1906. At first, Gandhi called the movement passive resistance but realised that a new
principle had crystallised as the movement unfolded. He then announced through the pages
of his new newspaper, Indian Opinion, a prize for the best name to describe the
movement. One competitor suggested ‘sadagraha’ meaning firmness in a good cause.
Subsequently it was changed to satyagraha, “a force which is born of Truth and Love or
non violence” and gave up the phrase ‘passive resistance’3. Iyer interprets it as following:
“Gandhi’s analysis of civil disobedience conflated two separate notions –the natural right, the
universal obligation of every human being to act according to his conscience in opposition,
if necessary, to any external authority or restraint, and secondly, the duty of the citizen to
qualify himself by obedience to the laws of the state to exercise on rare occasions his
obligation to violate an unjust law or challenge an unjust system, and to accept willingly the
consequences of his disobedience as determined by the legal sanctions of the state”.
Gandhi’s perceptions were determined by the British colonial traditions and the faith he had
in the “British love of justice and fair play”, mainly because of the British constitutional
56 Gandhi’s Political Thought

practice of equality before law, not only of the British citizens, but for all. He idolised the
British constitution because it guarantees both individual freedom and racial equality. Until
the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, he was a loyalist of the Empire and was convinced that
helping the Empire would qualify for swarajya, i.e. self-rule. His understanding of the British
history and character led him to the use of the technique of Satyagraha. He opined that
grievances could be redressed only if people demonstrate their willingness to suffer to get
relief and cited the example of the British Suffragists for Indians in South Africa to emulate.

5.5 SATYAGRAHA AND SWARAJ

Satyagraha is inextricably linked with his notion of swaraj or self-rule or self-restraint.
Swaraj would be attained through the method of satyagraha in which the individual through
voluntary self-sacrifice and suffering achieves self-control, in other words self-discipline. For
Gandhi, swaraj is attained when there is social unity in three major areas of the Indian
society: among the untouchables and the various castes, between the Hindus and Muslims
and narrowing the gap between the city and villages, the former urban, westernised and
educated and the latter rural and illiterate. To be of service for the betterment of the
ordinary people, an idea that Gandhi derived from Vivekananda, Tolstoy, ‘Sermon on the
Mount’ and numerous texts and saints of the Indian tradition, is the quintessence of swaraj.
Swaraj means “all around awakening-social, educational, moral, economic and political”
(Young India, 26-8-1926, II, p.1231). Merely replacing British rulers with their Indian
counterparts is Englishstan and not Hindustan, an “English rule without the Englishman, the
tiger’s nature, but not the tiger” (1997, ch. IV).
By Swaraj I mean the government of India by the consent of the people as ascertained by
the largest number of adult population, male or female, native born or domiciled, who have
contributed by manual labour to the services of the state and who have taken the trouble
of having registered their names as voters…. Real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition
of authority by a few but by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist authority when
it is abused. In other words, swaraj is to be obtained by educating the masses to a sense
of their capacity to regulate and control authority (Gandhi, 1947, p.14).
Gandhi makes welfare of the masses, with fulfilment of their basic needs as basis of
economic freedom, thus reflecting the inspiration that he derives from Ruskin. The India of
My Dreams, as Gandhi envisioned, is the swaraj of the poor person. A truly non-violent
state would be composed of self-governing and self-sufficient small cohesive village
communities in which the majority would rule with due consideration to the rights of the
minorities. It would be a participatory democracy whereby citizens have the positive
freedom to “participate in the process of politics in every possible way, restricting its
activities to the bare minimum,… it did not mean that the state was all-powerful, rather an
intimate relationship should exist between the state and all its citizens”. Satyagraha is the
glue that cements on one hand his ideal of enlightened anarchy and common good and on
the other hand his ideals of individual autonomy and moral self-determinism. Like Thoreau,
Gandhi stresses on the supremacy of the individual conscience against all claims of the state.

5.6 RIGHTS AND DUTIES

The crux of Satyagraha, for Gandhi, is in deciphering what one’s duty is. Gandhi speaks
of rights in the context of duties and that is his distinctiveness; he considers ‘real rights as
a result of performance of duty’ meaning, that all rights to be deserved and preserved as
Rights and Duties 57

rights is derived from duties which are performed well. Rights cannot be divorced from
duties and that rights have to be exercised in the interests of all. The concept of duty, for
Gandhi, is derived from the idea of dispassionate action which the Bhagavad Gita
advocates. Unless one’s action is performed with a degree of detachment one would not
be free from the anxiety of its future consequences. He contends “if we are sure of the
‘purity’ of the means we employ, we shall be led on by the faith, before which any fear
and trembling melt away”. Non-attachment does not mean lack of clarity about the ends
one desires to achieve. For Gandhi, the important thing is to get the people to do what they
ought to do without offering inducements or threats or theological sanctions.
Interestingly, Gandhi accepts the core idea of right-based individualism, the dominant
paradigm in contemporary political theory, namely human equality and moral worth of every
person but rights are coalesced with the idea of duties, assigning individuals with responsibilities
to lead a moral life and devote to the good of their community. He also supports the basic
rights of those at the margins of society, namely women, untouchables and the vulnerable,
who have been objects of domination and humiliation. According to him, Freedom is not
being left alone but the freedom to cultivate love and service which he describes as the best
feature of human nature. He champions equal rights for women and the right of everyone
to make the choices they desire. He rejects ascriptive properties such as gender, class,
birth, caste, education or nationality that can justify unequal treatment and disqualify some
as moral agents.
For Gandhi any discourse of rights would have to focus on how persons are treated. He
pays attention to the role of institutions or the way resources affect choices available for
individuals, an aspect which most theorists on autonomy, with the exception of Raz, ignore.
Another difference between Gandhi and conventional theories of autonomy is that for
Gandhi, individuals are equal members of a harmonious and interdependent cosmos rather
than abstracted selves. It is only through an association with others based on mutual respect
and cooperation that persons become complete or achieve good. The community ought to
be one that is open and tolerant of diverse conceptions of good and that its institutional
practices do not hinder the pursuit of their good by ordinary persons. Gandhi considers
duties as primary and considers the duty to act morally regardless of the consequences as
the highest.

5.7 RIGHTS OF WOMEN

Gandhi speaks of equal rights for women. He wanted women and men to be complimentary
to one another and insists that women and men differ but their differences cannot be the
basis of women’s subjugation and oppression. He wanted marriage to be one of partnership
between two equals. He censured women if they imitated men and appealed to women to
get out of their habits of pleasing men. Writing in 1927, in an address to women in Ceylon,
now Sri Lanka, Gandhi remarks:
What is it that makes a woman deck herself more than a man? I am told by feminine friends
that she does so for pleasing man. Well, I tell you, if you want to play your part in the
world’s affairs, you must refuse to deck yourself for pleasing man. If I was born a woman,
I would rise in rebellion against the pretensions on the part of man that woman is born to
be his plaything.
Gandhi sees the primary tasks of a woman in being a mother and a householder. Additionally
a woman, according to Gandhi, is the repository of spiritual and moral values and a teacher
58 Gandhi’s Political Thought

to man. A woman is the embodiment of suffering and sacrifice and it is for this reason that
he considers her to be the best messenger of peace and non-violence. A woman is
inherently more peaceful than a man. On these grounds he recommends separate education
for women and men as women would make better soldiers than men in non-violent
struggles. He credits his wife Kasturba and the black women in South Africa for helping him
to evolve the technique of satyagraha. He considers the nature of women as being
conducive to non-violent satyagraha based on dharma.
…woman is the incarnation of ahimsa. Ahimsa means infinite love, which again means
infinite capacity for suffering. Who but woman, the mother of man, shows this capacity in
the largest measure? She shows it as she is the infant and feeds it during the nine months
and derives joy in the suffering involved…. Let her transfer that love to the whole of
humanity, let her forget that she ever was or can be the object of man’s lust. And she will
occupy her proud position by the side of man as his mother, maker and silent leader. It is
given to her to teach the art of peace to the warring world thirsting for that nectar. She can
become the leader in satyagraha which does not require the learning that books give but
does require the stout heart that comes from suffering and faith.
Gandhi’s credit lay in the fact that under his stewardship women participated in large
numbers in the nationalist struggle. Initially, in the 1920s he confined them to their homes
and made them take up the spinning-wheel. Subsequently he allowed them picket liquor
shops as he knew majority of women suffered at the hands of drunkard husbands. At the
peak of the civil disobedience movement in the 1930s, he allowed them to join the salt
satyagraha. Women played an important role in many of the humanitarian works that
Gandhi undertook such as helping the poor, nursing, promoting khadi, spinning and weaving.

5.8 CONCLUSION
The distinctiveness about Gandhi’s formulation is not only the acceptance of rights as central
to individual well-being but also stressing on the performance of duties. He considers the
two as inter-twined and that the realisation of one without the other is not possible as both
pave the way for the fulfilment of common good. The underlying assumption of Gandhi to
which he remains steadfast is the idea that the individual is a social person and that the
essence of individuality is social self. The emphasis on duties emanates from his quest for
building a humane society and conflict(s) would be resolved non-violently through adherence
to truth or satyagraha. Duty, for Gandhi, is disinterested action which is performed without
much attention to the result and one which morally conforms to the order of the Universe.
Rights and duties lead to common good which is the basis of swaraj- self-rule, self-
restraint, self-discipline and voluntary self-sacrifice and this in turn is based in the notion of
individual autonomy and moral self-determinism. Gandhi, as a philosophical anarchist, stresses
on individual claims against that of the state, with the aim that the individual armed with
dharma or the moral law is the best to judge authority, take corrective steps if necessary
through acts of satyagraha, and bring about common good with which his good is
inextricably linked.

5.9 SUMMARY
Gandhi is unique in theorising about rights within the framework of duties. Rights cannot be
divorced from duties and that rights have to be exercised in the interests of all. The concept
of duty is derived from the idea of dispassionate action which the Bhagavad Gita
Rights and Duties 59

advocates. Unless one’s action is performed with a degree of detachment one would not
be free from the anxiety of its future consequences. Interestingly, Gandhi accepts the core
idea of right-based individualism, the dominant paradigm in contemporary political theory,
namely human equality and moral worth of every person but rights are coalesced with the
idea of duties, assigning individuals with responsibilities to lead a moral life and devote to
the good of their community. Accepting human dignity and worth as intrinsic goods, he is
severe in his indictment of colonialism and untouchability and interestingly, sees the seeds of
degeneration that undermines and suppresses human dignity within Indian traditions. Gandhi
expects everyone to be concerned not only about their self-governance but also the
autonomy of others. This, in a nutshell, is the meaning of ‘swaraj’ or self-rule, a vision of
India ruled by Indians with concern for the poorest, the destitute and the most vulnerable.

5.10 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Explain Gandhi’s concept of individual autonomy.
2. What is the role of the Individual in Satyagraha?
3. What is the link between Satyagraha and Swaraj?
4. Explain Gandhi’s views on rights and duties.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Andrews, C.F., Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, New York, Macmillan, 1930.
Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied Publishers,
1969.
Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta, Calcutta Book
House, 1969.
Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, Berkeley, University
of California Press, 1967.
Chatterjee, M., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, London, Macmillan, 1983.
Chatterjee, P., Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse, Delhi,
Oxford University Press, 1986.
Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
Haksar, V., “Rawls and Gandhi on Civil Disobedience” Inquiry, 19, 1976.
—————., “Coercive Proposals: Rawls and Gandhi”, Political Theory, 4, 1976.
Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford University Press,
1973.
Pantham, T and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi, Sage,
1986.
Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University Press,
1989.
Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.
60 Gandhi’s Political Thought

(Endnotes)
Antigone is torn between two loyalties, that of her religion which commands her to bury the body of
her brother while that of the state commands that his body be left unburied and unmourned, to be eaten
by dogs and vultures. She obeys her conscience on the grounds that no ruler, however powerful, has
the right to demand acts contrary to divinely ordained norms.
2 A general reading of the Crito, a dialogue about the trial and death of Socrates, reveals that civil
disobedience requires fulfillment of certain conditions. Its underlying assumption being the imperative
obedience to the city, if one is reasonably satisfied with its laws. For Socrates, the entitlement of the
state to obedience is because it confers benefits. Anticipating Locke, he argues that Athenian citizens
ought to obey the laws of their city since they have freely consented to do so and obedience to the
state is for three reasons: gratitude, consent and morality. He does not acknow ledge any limits to an
individual’s duty. He does not consider the fact that person(s) accept benefits with certain assumptions
and in the hope of certain reasonable expectations. If these are not fulfilled then obedience to the state
is no longer tenable, though breaking or defying the law may undermine and eventually destroy the
state, a proposition that is valid if the state is just. In case there are unjust laws, it is better to rectify
it and make the state stronger and just. Socrates and Crito never discuss the justification of disobedience
but rather the reasons for citizens’ obedience to a city. Their answer is that is anybody remains in the
city willingly, that demonstrates his readiness to comply with its laws. Disobedience is only permissible
if vocalized by a superior authority, in that case, the latter’s command overrides that of the city.
3Passive resistance is used first by Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932) and became a part of the lexicon of
his compatriots - Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920) and Aurobindo Ghosh -within the extremist movement.