from “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) - essay published in 1847


I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.  Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.  Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.  The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government.  The standing army is only an arm of the standing government.  The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.  Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.  Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it…

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?  Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them.  They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil.  But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil.  It makes it worse.  Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform?  Why does it not cherish its wise minority?  Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt?  Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them?  Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?...

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth--certainly the machine will wear out.  If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.  Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine.  What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn…

Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses.  It is not armed with superior with or honesty, but with superior physical strength.  I was not born to be forced.  I will breathe after my own fashion.  Let us see who is the strongest.  What force has a multitude?  They only can force me who obey a higher law than I.  They force me to become like themselves.  I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men.  What sort of life were that to live?  When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money?  It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that.  It must help itself; do as I do.  It is not worth the while to snivel about it.  I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society.  I am not the son of the engineer.  I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other.  If a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man…


http://www.transcendentalists.com/civil_disobedience.htm

 

                 “On Civil Disobedience” by Mohandas K.  Gandhi (1869-1948)


Speech in reply to a question during a post-prayer meeting at Satyagraha Ashram near Kochrab, Ahmedabad, on July 27, 1916:

There are two ways of countering injustice.  One way is to smash the head of the man who perpetrates injustice and to get your own head smashed in the process.  All strong people in the world adopt this course.  Everywhere wars are fought and millions of people are killed.  The consequence is not the progress of a nation but its decline…No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war.  A nation does not rise that way, it only falls further.  In fact, what comes to it is defeat, not victory.  And if, perchance, either our act or our purpose was ill-conceived, it brings disaster to both belligerents. 

But through the other method of combating injustice, we alone suffer the consequences of our mistakes, and the other side is wholly spared.  This other method is satyagraha[1].  One who resorts to it does not have to break another’s head; he may merely have his own head broken.  He has to be prepared to die himself suffering all the pain.  In opposing the atrocious laws of the Government of South Africa, it was this method that we adopted.  We made it clear to the said Government that we would never bow to its outrageous laws.  No clapping is possible without two hands to do it, and no quarrel without two persons to make it.  Similarly, no State is possible without two entities (the rulers and the ruled).  You are our sovereign, our Government, only so long as we consider ourselves your subjects.  When we are not subjects, you are not the sovereign either.  So long as it is your endeavour to control us with justice and love, we will let you do so.  But if you wish to strike at us from behind, we cannot permit it.  Whatever you do in other matters, you will have to ask our opinion about the laws that concern us.  If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statute-books.  We will never obey them.  Award us for it what punishment you like, we will put up with it.  Send us to prison and we will live there as in a paradise.  Ask us to mount the scaffold and we will do so laughing.  Shower what sufferings you like upon us, we will calmly endure all and not hurt a hair of your body.  We will gladly die and will not so much as touch you.  But so long as there is yet life in these our bones, we will never comply with your arbitrary laws. 


 

satyagraha (sə-tyä'grə-hə) Sanskrit:  insistence on truth – a term used by Gandhi to describe his policy of    seeking reform by means of nonviolent resistance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/5-8.htm#N_13_

 



[1]