1 | P a g e

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL




J URI SPRUDENCE


CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND THE RULE OF LAW




Submitted To: Submitted By:
Mr. Ranjan Sanchit Asthana
2011 BA LLB-87
X Trimester
2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS:


Introduction3
Civil disobedience: Understanding...4
Defining events of Civil disobedience in India...5
Fight against the foreign rule. ....6
Year- 1930
Vision- Mahatma Gandhi
Briefly
Response of the masses
Effects
Fight against the States ruler...7
Year- 1975
Vision- Jay Prakash Narayan
Briefly
Response of the masses
Effects
Fight against the weak rules8
Year- 2011
Vision- Anna Hazare
Briefly
Response of the masses
Effects
Co-relation and contravention in the three events.10
Change forced, Change made, Change awaited.12



3 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

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.
John Rawls, 1971.

The term civil disobedience was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848 essay to
describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the American government to
prosecute a war in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. Throughout history, acts of
civil disobedience famously have helped to force a reassessment of society's moral parameters.
Even the most legalistic and constitutionalist democrat would agree that all this could never be
accomplished if the functioning of democracy were restricted to elections, legislation, planning
and administrative execution. There must also be people's direct action. This action would
almost certainly comprise, among other forms, civil disobedience, peaceful resistance, non-
cooperation - in short, Satyagraha in its widest sense. One of the unstated implications of such
a Satyagraha would be self-change: that is to say, those wanting to change must also change
themselves before launching any kind of action. This project aims at analyzing the three major
events of civil disobedience in India and their interpretations for constructing a base of debate
as to their legality and justification.



4 | P a g e

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: UNDERSTANDING

In civilly disobeying the law, a person typically has both forward-looking and backward-looking
aims. One seeks not only to convey his/her disavowal and condemnation of a certain law or
policy, but also to draw public attention to this particular issue and thereby to instigate a change
in law or policy.
Brownlee, 2004.
In democratic societies, civil disobedience as such is not a crime. If a disobedient is punished by
the law, it is not for civil disobedience, but for the recognized offences that he committed, such
as blocking a road or disturbing the peace, or trespassing, or damaging property, etc. Therefore,
if judges are persuaded, as they sometimes are, either not to punish a disobedient or to punish
him differently from other people who breach the same laws, it is based on some features of his
action which distinguish it from the acts of ordinary offenders.
Non-violence, publicity and a willingness to accept punishment are often regarded as marks of
disobedients fidelity to the legal system in which they carry out their protest. Non-violence does
not distract the attention of the public, and it probably denies authorities an excuse to use violent
countermeasures against disobedients. Civil disobedience is never covert or secretive; it is only
ever committed in public, openly, and with fair notice to legal authorities. Civil disobedience is
generally regarded as more morally defensible than both ordinary offences and other forms of
protest such as militant action or coercive violence. A wide range of legitimate values not wholly
reducible to justice, such as transparency, security, stability, privacy, integrity, and autonomy,
could motivate people to engage in civil disobedience. Those who deny that non-violence and
publicity are features definitive of civil disobedience endorse a more inclusive conception
according to which civil disobedience involves a conscientious and communicative breach of law
designed to demonstrate condemnation of a law or policy and to contribute to a change in that
law or policy. Such a conception allows that civil disobedience can be violent, partially covert,
and revolutionary. A disadvantage of this last conception is that it blurs the lines between the
different types of protest and so might both weaken claims about the defensibility of civil
disobedience and invite authorities and opponents of civil disobedience to lump all illegal protest
under one umbrella.
5 | P a g e

DEFINING EVENTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN INDIA
Total revolution is permanent evolution. It will always go on and keep on changing both our
personal and social lives. This revolution knows no respite, no halt, certainly not a complete halt.
Of course, according to the needs of the situation its form will change, its programme will
change, its processes will change.
Jay Prakash Narayan, 1975

Indian land and people both from the pre-colonial and post colonial times have witnessed some
energy-fed mass movements charged with revolutionary ideas to bring about a change in the
controllers of governance, approach to governance, and infected governance. The three out of
many attempts being noticeable and appealing may be due to their unique approach, thoughtful
strategy or able management. The factors which are common in all three of them are non-
violence, publicity and a conscientious approach towards defying rules that are ruthless,
arbitrary, ineffective, against public morality and inconsistent with the very principle of rule of
law. The same guiding force behind each of them has led to establish a connection amongst
them. The output emanating from the interconnections of the three events defines Civil
Disobedience in India.









6 | P a g e

FIGHT AGAINST THE FOREIGN RULE.
Briefly
On the historic day of 12th March 1930, Gandhi inaugurated The Civil Disobedience Movement
by conducting the historic Dandi Salt March, where he broke the Salt Laws imposed by the
British Government. After a gap of two years, the movement was revived in 1932 as a result of
which the police was given the power to arrest any person, even on the basis of mere suspicion.
Sardar Patel, the then President of Congress and Gandhi were arrested, along with other
Congressmen. In furtherance to the protest Gandhi sat for twenty one days fast on May 8th,
1933. The Civil Disobedience Movement was suspended, when Mahatma Gandi withdrew mass
satyagraha on July 14th 1933. The movement ceased completely on April 7th 1934.

Response of the masses
Each and every corner of the country was gripped in a unique fervor of nationalism. Soon this act
of violation of the Salt Laws assumed an all India character. The entire nation amalgamated
under the call of a single man, Mahatma Gandhi. There were reports of satyagrahas and instances
of law violation from Bombay, Central and United Provinces, Bengal and Gujarat. The program
of the Civil Disobedience Movement incorporated besides the breaking of the Salt Laws,
picketing of shops selling foreign goods and liquor, bonfire of cloth, refusal to pay taxes and
avoidance of offices by the public officers and schools by the students. Even the women joined
forces against the British. Those from orthodox families did not hesitate to respond to the call of
the Mahatma. The British government was perturbed by the growing popularity of the
movement, and imprisoned Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, in a bid to thwart it.
Effects
Though there was no direct effect on the change in governmental order, to overthrow and
derecognize the foreign rule but without any reasonable doubts, it unified the masses, inculcating
nationalistic feelings and enormous power of togetherness to show the foreign rulers the exit
gates. The struggle for attaining Swaraj under the able guidance of Mahatma, served the critical
function of mobilizing the masses on a large scale against the British. The movement founded
new dream for people which was to achieve Complete Independence.
7 | P a g e

FIGHT AGAINST THE STATES RULER
Briefly
The unchanged social, economic and political structure of the country even after 28 years of
having got freedom no real change was brought about in the society. Zamindari was abolished,
land reform laws had been passed, untouchability had been legally prohibited, and so on. But the
villages in most parts of India were still in the grip of the higher castes and the bigger and
medium landowners. The small and marginal landowners were still landless. The educational
system in spite of several committees and commissions remained basically what it was during
British rule. Some industries, banks, life insurance had been nationalized. Railways were
nationalized long ago. New large public-sector industries had been established. But all this added
to state capitalism, inefficiency, waste and corruption. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister
retorted to saying that corruption was a global phenomena and a corruption free India that JP
alluded to was an utopian ideal that was possible only if the entire Indian population consisted of
selfless Jayprakash Narayans. The working class and the public or the people had no place in all
this except as workers or consumers. The movement aimed at bringing about a revolutionary
change in all aspects of the life of both society and individual. The objective of the movement
was not merely to change the Government, but also to change the society and the individual. This
led to name it as Total Revolution.
Response of the masses
Jayprakash Narayan attracted a gathering of 100,000 people at the Ramlila Ground and
thunderously recited Rashtrakavi Ramdhari Singh Dinkars poetry Singhasan khaali karo ke
janata aaati hai. Faced with the rising tide of the JP movement, Indira declared an emergency in
1975 and jailed Jayprakash Narayan. Thousands of JP movement activists including Arun
Jaitley, then president of Delhi University Students Union and Nitish Kumar, then a junior
socialist activist were jailed. Narendra Modi, then a junior RSS pracharak was among those who
evaded arrest and organized an underground resistance movement. As the very idea of a free
India lay in tatters, for millions of Indians, JP was now the only rallying point, the ultimate moral
beacon and the sole hope for liberty.

8 | P a g e

Effects
The JP movement was easily the most remarkable movement of post Independence India as a
single man in the dying moments of his life underscored the huge importance of democracy to
India and its leaders, an institution that no leader since Indira including Indira herself has dared
to mess with. Having Ramnath Goenka as a moral benchmark, the Indian media too came of age
and since then has been fiercely independent routinely felling powerful politicians of all hues.
Inability to eradicate corruption however was a failure of the JP movement which in fact was
originally evolved to eradicate corruption. Due to the imposition of emergency the movement
had to redefine itself for a battle for the much larger goals of liberty and democracy and thereby
the movement couldnt keep its singular focus on corruption. The importance of democracy for
ordinary Indians was underscored in the elections in 1977 that followed, where Indiras Congress
party was wiped out as Jayprakash Narayan would lead the newly formed Janata Party to power.

FIGHT AGAINST THE WEAK RULES
Briefly
Anna Hazare initiated a Satyagraha movement to insure that a stronger anti-corruption Lokpal
(ombudsman) bill in the Indian Parliament as conceived in the Jan Lokpal Bill drafted by N,
Santosh Hegde, former justice of the Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan, a senior lawyer and
Arvind Kejriwal, a social activist along with other members of India Against Corruption
movement. This draft bill incorporated more stringent provisions and wider power to
the Lokpal (Ombudsman) than the draft Lokpal bill prepared by the government in 2010. These
include placing "the Prime Minister within the ambit of the proposed lokpals powers". The
persistent denial of the government to listen to peoples demands and the rapid disclosure of
major corruption instances of the ruling UPA Government, along with the highly increasing
corruption trend in almost spheres of public life forced the revolutionary genes to activate in
most of the citizens of contemporary India who without even knowing the finest detail of the
movement have dedicated themselves to the civil society leadership to curb and the menane of
corruption at any cost.
Response of the masses
9 | P a g e

Armed with a one point demand for a Jan Lokpal Anna Hazare went on a fast unto death. Within
a matter of days the movement spread to Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai,
Patna, Bhopal, Ahemdabad, Ranchi, Pune, Nashik, Kochi, Jammu, Thiruvananthapuram,
Guwahati, Jiapur, New York, London and Sydney and other local territories, as millions of
Indians joined him. Dinkars poetry was replaced this time around by Chetan Bhagats kitschy
slogan Mera Neta chor hain! that became the new war cry for the crusade against corruption
both in the real world as well as in the virtual world of Facebook and Twitter. Within 98 hours of
Annas speech wherein he swore to crusade for the cause till his last breath, Manmohan Singh,
who initially tried to trivialize him as a misguided pawn of the RSS gave in and his government
hilariously proclaimed that they were in fact on Annas side in the war. The huge crowd
gathering in the historical Ramlila Maidan to support Hazare for his fast until death and their stay
of 10 long days with him has depicted the frustration of the masses against the arbitrary rule.
Effects
This time around the peoples movement does not have to fight a far more draining battle for the
very idea of democracy but has to simply crack down on corruption that has become the bane of
Indian democracy. Backed by a fiercely independent 24/7 media and social media his task of
mobilizing the people on his side is much easier than JP who had to rely on student activists from
opposition parties. Significantly Annas foot soldiers are not political activists but those from the
civil society thereby giving the movement a bipartisan halo around it. The mssion is still on and
the government has given some positive response but a final win still remains awaited.





10 | P a g e

CO-RELATION AND CONTRAVENTION IN THE THREE EVENTS

If we want people to have respect for the Law, then we must first make the law
respectable.
Chanakya.
In a nearly just society, civil disobedients address themselves to the majority to show that, in
their considered opinion, the principles of justice governing cooperation amongst free and equal
persons have not been respected by policymakers. The three visionaries behind the above
discussed three movements have almost had same problems and same method to address and
redress the problems. The arbitrary and unjustified rules of governance by the state actors and the
effective, peaceful, non-violent public movements to disobey such rules or other rules of the
arbitrary ruler in order to force the change which becomes necessary for the subsistence of the
Rule of Law and upholding public morality. The three events form a chain where each loop of
the chain derives its strength and ideology from the previous. The unfinished motives and
aspirations are carried forward to the next level with the sole aim to beget a new society pure and
corruption free with a belief that rule of law and democracy can be practiced and implemented in
its true pure sense. Another important similarity that can be seen in these movements was the
Unity in the people and the enormous energy and vigor to change practices and order to do
things themselves the job of which they delegated to their representatives and who failed
miserably. Not only the actions of the people in protest but the terror fed reaction of the state to
such movements have been the same. The arresting of peaceful protesters in huge numbers and
constant efforts to curb the revolution marked with spontaneous and unthought-of comments
exemplify the fear of change in them, change which is against the order that they establish.
Another very important factor which is remains hidden in the analysis of these events is the
outstanding ability of the leaders of these movements to be able to connect with the masses. The
masses within no time develop enormous trust and belief, such leaders appear to the weak alone
and strong together people as a ray of hope who can show them the bright light where their rights
are respected and rule of law is enforced.
The dissimilarity in the three events lies in the argument that the forces against which they
fought for their rights differed in their form, the degree and the means to disregard the public
11 | P a g e

sentiments. The British Raj was constituted of people unknown to the common man of India and
therefore failed to understand the sentiments of the people completely. The emergency period
witnessed a ruler who was too fond of power and in her pursuit of protecting the power she
neglected the sentiments of her fellow citizens abruptly by imposing emergency and imprisoning
thousands of innocent and peaceful protesters. The UPA government currently in power is much
more submissive and understanding as compared to the state power in earlier instances which is
a positive sign for the survival of Rule of Law and Democracy.
Another difference lies in the advancement of technology in the successive times to help the
messages and updates of such mass movements to the public, which helps the movements to gain
momentum and pace and also ensures effective participation of people.
The flow of time since the last century has witnessed the increase in closeness of the public to
the state which is a result of the clear understanding developed by historical instances of the state
authorities that public movements cannot go fruitless. They have enough strength to dig out any
difficulty that lies in their way for claiming valid rights. This is a positive sign and will ensure
that public demands are given serious attention and regards in the coming times.


12 | P a g e

Change forced in 1930, Change made in 1975, Change awaited in
2011.
Can the collective will of the people provide justification to breach laws which were enforced
and enacted in furtherance of Rule of Law? It also provide us with a opportunity to ponder on the
question that whether all the laws and regulations enacted and enforced by following legal
procedures are legally justifiable? What is the remedy available with the people to save
themselves from legal rules which cannot be justified morally in the prevailing scenario? Is there
any legal remedy to question the sate actors who are in their mid way of their term of governance
delegated to them by the people by democratic process to represent their will, when they start
representing their own will instead of respecting the will of the people ?
The questions revolve around a central question that whether acts of civil disobedience be
justified? After carefully analyzing the effects and consequences of movements in past, I feel
that though, people respectfully disrespect the unfair rules or fair rules in protest of unfair rules,
this disrespect falls short in front of the larger purpose served by these movements in changing a
unfair system and promotion of rule of law. This claim is justified in light of the changes from a
foreign rule to a arbitrary rule to a rather submissive rule and awaits to witness rule of law in the
upcoming times.