Defeat British Empirical Rule

This victory deserves the examination of political theories and their influence on the nation’s freedom and their foundational influence to the notion self-rule as determined by influential leader Mohandas Gandhi. Through Hind Swaraj, Gandhi aims to replace the negativities of violence and hatred with fulfilling hopes of positivity to help shape the principles of Indian self-rule. John Locke and Karl Marx offered their distinct views on liberalism and how individuals could benefit from their rationales. They merit comparison in relation to India’s independence and the Indian experience when thinking about justice for the oppressed, and how their rights make them equal, and how passive resistance founded Indian freedom.

In his Second Treatise, John Locke posits that men are entitled to rights, however, when individuals consent to government, they surrender their powers to obey the government they consent to be ruled by, although their natural rights to life, liberty, and property are inalienable.

As part of the consensual accord between the government and the governed, he believes that the government’s function is to protect the rights of the governed.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified writer

Proficient in: Clean India Campaign

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

His beliefs root from the idea that absolute rule would mainly disregard natural rights in favor of an arbitrary, tyrannical government. In his ideal state, he argues for a limited government, that governs through laws and has divided powers. He also believes its main purpose would be to protect man’s inalienable rights, including their property due to man’s selfish human nature. However, it should be noted that his philosophy was based on protecting the natural rights of property owners.

In regards to the rebellion of governments which do not respect property and inalienable rights, Locke believes that individuals are entitled to remove governments that do not honor his outlined ideas of government through majority rule. His note for majority rule is key when comparing it to Gandhian philosophy and the Indian experience. While Locke believes that the majority of the ruled must feel that their inalienable rights are threatened as a means to rebel, Gandhi believes that an individual might rebel because how they view their morality and personal essence is risked. Gandhi mentions “passive resistance as a method of securing rights through personal suffering...when I do a thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soul-force...If I do not obey the law and accept penalty for its breach, I use soul-force”. It speaks to the Indian experience in the need to advocate for unity of everyone suffering from oppression, not just a few property owners that Locke supports through his ideology. There is also a more intense violation of human rights that comes from Gandhi’s words, where he calls for protest when there are violations to existence, as the Indians had been subjected to from 190 years under British rule.

As previously mentioned, Locke focuses on forging a relationship of consent on behalf of the ruler and the ruled. However, his justification of the appropriation of materials through labor becoming the owner’s win favors the narrative of institutionalized oppression of the workers through which owners reap the benefits of. Locke hopes for a “state of perfect freedom” where “[men] order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons and they think fit…” In his perfect freedom, Locke believes that in a perfect world, men, as an oppressor, are rightful to do with his possessions as he deems fit. However, when historically contextualizing Locke’s desires, these possessions include slaves, women, and actual properties which indicated wealth amongst some of the men in society. Locke’s philosophy on liberalism is selectively written for a ruling class that would constitute the oppressors of a new society that would prevent inalienable rights for all. Thus, Locke’s justifications for slavery and economic inequality contradict the sorts of inequities which Marx and Gandhi aim to eradicate in India.

In his writings, Karl Marx trademarks an unprecedented model of freedom for the self and liberalism rooted in equity that calls for systemic change. He campaigns for the ability to pursue liberty while remaining unrestricted by the state or others, as well as for protected rights that liberate the people from harm. In his universal model of freedom, he declares that not everyone can be free unless all have the same rights, and articulates that legal equality allows free play for oppression and discrimination towards others. As part of his stance on the importance of eradication of Capitalism for equity, he asserts that the state allows private property to form differences amongst people that prevent equal rights, especially when it becomes the means of production. He challenges Locke’s reassurance of liberty contingent on ownership of property: “ The right to property is...the right of self-interest. This individual liberty, and its application, form the basis of civil society. It leads every man to see in other men, not the realization, but rather the limitation of his own liberty”. It paves his argument for Feudalism and mutual responsibility because of connections that could be formed between individuals taking into account human social nature. He vouches for political emancipation, as individual emancipation can make it seem that certain problems are the fault of the individual when in reality they result from systemic oppression and its forces.

Similarities could be drawn between Marxian ideology and Gandhi’s strong interest in communal values as a foundation when fighting for liberty. In relation to the discussion of private property, Marx’s belief that private property, driven by Capitalism founded social oppression because of the hindered autonomy for all people. While Locke considered how individuals could impede on the rights of others through taking of private property, Marx took this argument a step further by considering how owners overrule the rights of the workers under Capitalism, and thus reasons why the whole system should collapse: “...the abolition of private property which is identical with it, this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be dissolved; and that then the liberation of each single individual will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes transformed into world history”.

While Gandhi’s fight for justice did not include as much of an argument or recognition for private property as Marx or Locke, he considered the drawbacks of the forces of Capitalism. Like Marx, he finds it exploitatory and demeaning, by alluding that it impedes autonomous self-rule. Speaking to the Indian experience, Gandhi’s position for passive resistance repudiates both Marxian and Lockian approvals for violent rebellion when rights are violated. A sense of Marx’s advocacy for violence can be seen in the German Ideology:

...And if these material elements of a complete revolution are not present (namely, on the one hand the existing productive forces, on the other the formation of a revolutionary mass, which revolts not only against separate conditions of society up till then, but against the very 'production of life' till then, the 'total activity' on which it was based), then, as far as practical development is concerned, it is absolutely immaterial whether the idea of this revolution has been expressed a hundred times already…

Marx’s endorsement of “formations of revolutionary mass” and “revolts” speak to his willingness for destruction and insurrection by means necessary. In opposition to this method, Gandhi promotes a peaceful approach. This might be in part because Marx alludes for the proletariat’s position in society to fuel the rage and fight for equity, whereas Gandhi makes an argument that is aimed at responsible citizenry, possibly because of his support of the caste system that would have remained in the wake of the revolution.

Although Marx and Gandi had many similar views, they also had many contrasting views. Regardless of this, Gandhi utilized peacefulness as the foundation for the Indian emancipation from the British.