Henry David Thoreau Impact on Gandhiji

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

Postal Address-   C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur-208020, U.P.

 

 

Henry David Thoreau Impact on Gandhiji

 

 

Henry David Thoreau was an American Author, Poet, and Philosopher. He was born on July 12, 1817 and passed away in aged of 44 on May 6, 1862. His essay civil disobedience impact on Mahatma Gandhi very much. In writing this and subsequent articles on the subject, Gandhiji drew on the essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau (1817-62), the American philosopher, naturalist and writer. The essay first appeared in 1849 under the title “Resistance to Civil Government”.  Mahatma Gandhi wrote an article on civil disobedience. In which he described about the role of Henry David Thoreau in his life. It would seem as if the action of both Houses of Parliament in passing the Bill to legalize the marriage with a deceased wife’s sister will convert the clergy of the Established Church into passive resisters of sorts. The Archbishop of Canterbury today issued a message in which he requested the clergy not to celebrate marriages with a deceased wife’s sister although such unions are now recognized as legal by the law of the land. The Daily Press We has no desire to enter into the controversy as to whether marriage with a deceased wife’s sister is a reform in the right direction or not. We have quoted the above mentioned cablegram in order to show that passive resistance is one of the most approved methods of securing redresses in given circumstances, and that it is the only course law-abiding and peaceful men can adopt without doing violence to their conscience. Indeed, it would appear that it is a method they must adopt if they have a conscience, and it revolts against particular legislation.

It may be retorted that, between the passive resistance offered by British Indians in the Transvaal and that advised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, there is no resemblance. We demur and claim that, if it is lawful for the Archbishop of Canterbury to disregard the deceased wife’s sister relief legislation, it is much more so for British Indians to withhold submission to the Asiatic Registration Act. If there is no penalty provided by law to punish the clergy who may not recognize it, by refusing to perform a marriage ceremony, it should be doubly their duty to accept the law. But the Archbishop, in deliberately giving contrary advice, has brought into play a higher law, and that is the law dictated by conscience. Rightly or wrongly, His Grace believes that there is no warrant for such unions in the Bible and that, therefore, the Legislature has committed a breach of God’s law, which it would be irreligious for the clergy to countenance. In other words, he has recognized what Thoreau has said, that we should be men before we are subjects, and that there is no obligation imposed upon us by our conscience to give blind submission to any law, no matter what force or majority backs it. Such is also the position of British Indians in the Transvaal.

Law abiding they are, and it will take away nothing from the certificate they have enjoyed so long by their now refusing to accept registration under the Asiatic Law, which their conscience rejects as degrading to their manhood and offensive to their religion. It is possible to carry the doctrine of passive resistance too far, but it is equally so with reference to the doctrine of obedience to law. We cannot give the dividing line in words more appropriate than those of Thoreau when, speaking of the American Government, he says: If one were to tell me that this was a bad Government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make any ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have friction, and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But, when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are paramount, I say let us not have any such machine any longer. In the Asiatic Registration Act, British Indians have not only a law which has some evil in it, that is to say, using Thoreau’s words, a machine with friction in it, but it is evil legalized, or it represents friction with machinery provided for it. Resistance to such an evil is a divine duty which no human being can with impunity disregard, and, as in the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so in that of British Indians, it is their conscience that must decide, as it has already decided, whether to submit to the Asiatic Act or not, cost what it may.” 1

 Mahatma Gandhi described the impact of Thoreau and his philosophy. “Many years ago, there lived in America a great man named Henry David Thoreau. His writings are read and pondered over by millions of people. Some of them put his ideas into practice. Much importance is attached to his writings because Thoreau himself was a man who practiced what he preached. Impelled by a sense of duty, he wrote much against his own country, America. He considered it a great sin that the Americans held many persons in the bonds of slavery. He did not rest content with saying this, but took all other necessary steps to put a stop to this trade. One of those steps consisted in not paying any taxes to the State in which the slave trade was being carried on. He was imprisoned when he stopped paying the taxes due from him. The thoughts which occurred to him during this imprisonment were boldly original and were published in the form of a book. The title of this article conveys the general sense of the English title of his book. Historians say that the chief cause of the abolition of slavery in America was Thoreau’s imprisonment and the publication by him of the above mentioned book after his release.

Both his example and writings are at present exactly applicable to the Indians in the Transvaal. We, therefore, give below a summary of these [writings]: I accept that that government is best which governs least. That is, government is a kind of disease and the greater the freedom the people enjoy from it, the more admirable is the government. Many persons say that it would be good if America had no [standing] army or had only a small one. What they say is quite right as far as it goes, but those who hold such a view base it on a false premise. They say that the State is beneficial; it is only the army that is harmful. These eminent men do not realize that an army is but the arm of the State and without it the State cannot exist for a moment. But we cannot see this because we are ourselves intoxicated with the power of the State. Really speaking, it is we, the subjects, who are responsible for the existence of both the State and the army. Thus we see that we are deceiving ourselves. It is not the government of America that keeps the people free, or educates them. The [achievements of] government that we observe is, in some small measure, the result of the inherent character of the American people. In other words, though we are educated and intelligent, we are somewhat less so than we could have been if it were not for the government. But, I do not ask for no government at once, but at once for a better government. This is the duty of every citizen. It is a great error to believe that nothing but justice prevails in a country in which everything is decided by a majority vote. Much injustice continues to be perpetrated because this error is not recognized. It is a mere superstition to believe that what is done by a multitude is bound to be right. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not decide right and wrong, but conscience? Must the citizen always resign his conscience to the legislators?

I would say that we are men first and subjects afterwards. It is not necessary to cultivate a respect for the law so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. Law never made man a whit more just. But I have seen and I do see that even ordinarily well-disposed persons become, through their simplicity, the instruments of injustice. One result of an undue respect for law is that we may see people taking to soldiering and, like monkeys, mechanically carrying out the orders of their superiors unquestioningly. Many people thus take to it [soldiering] as their profession. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; yet they rush to join it. Are they men, or axes in the hands of butchers? Such men are on a level with wood and earth and stones. How can that kind of men command any respect? How can they be valued better than dogs or cats? Then some others become advocates, ambassadors or lawyers. They imagine that they serve the State with their heads. But I find that, unintentionally and unconsciously, they also serve Satan. Those who obey their sense of justice while holding the reins of government are always found to be in conflict with the State.” 2

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Men like Thoreau brought about the abolition of slavery by their personal examples. Says Thoreau, I know this well that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name, if ten honest men only aye, if one honest man, in this State of Massachusetts ceasing to hold slaves were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership and be locked up in the country jail therefore, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be, what is once well done is done for ever. Again he says, I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender rather than seizure of his goods—though both will serve the same purpose, because they who assert the purest right and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. We, therefore, congratulate Mr. Patel and Dr. Kanuga on the excellent example set by them in an excellent spirit and in an excellent cause.” 3

 

References:

 

 

1. Indian Opinion, 7-9-1907
2. Indian Opinion, 7-9-1907
3.   Young India, 7-7-1920