In the Realm of Mohandas Gandhi: A Comparative Analysis

Amidst the realm of Mohandas Gandhi, divergent perspectives emerge when juxtaposing the narratives of Gandhi and George Orwell. The impetus for Gandhi's "Defending Nonviolent Resistance" speech lies in the oppressive grip of the British government in India, contrasting with Orwell's portrayal of governmental disdain through the incident of shooting an elephant. Despite shared sentiments, both authors articulate opposing stances towards their respective governments.

Mohandas Gandhi advocates for non-violence in his speech, championing the principle of "spiritual leadership...to achieve political goals through non-violent resistance" (Gandhi 975).

The crux of Gandhi's essay underscores the imperative for Indian freedom, stressing the need for a transformative shift in the British government's approach. Gandhi vehemently expresses, "I wanted to avoid violence, I want to avoid violence. Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed" (Gandhi 976). This articulation reveals Gandhi's unwavering belief in the efficacy of peaceful measures, emphasizing their profound impact on the populace.

Defying the British government, Gandhi declares, "But I had to make my choice.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

Proficient in: Ethics

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

I had either to submit to a system which I considered had done irreparable harm to my country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips" (Gandhi 976). Gandhi's negative perception of British rule prompts a path of rebellion, leading to his arrest and eventually paving the way for Indian independence.

George Orwell, while not fomenting rebellion, occupies a significant role within the British Government in India. As he admits, "I was subdivisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way, anti-European feeling was very bitter" (Orwell 939).

Despite his elevated position, Orwell, much like Gandhi, harbors dissent towards the system they serve. Orwell's assertion, "In a job like that, you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters" (Orwell 940), elucidates his disillusionment with the government. Remarkably, Orwell continues to function within the system despite his reservations.

Gandhi consistently denounces the oppressive nature of the Indian governance, highlighting historical events as evidence. He recalls the impact of the Rowlatt Act, lamenting, "The first shock came in the shape of the Rowlatt Act, a law designed to rob the people of all real freedom" (Gandhi 977). This marks a turning point in Gandhi's tone, escalating into a profound discontent with Indian injustice. Later, he boldly accuses the British system, proclaiming, "I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection had made India more helpless than she ever was before, politically and economically" (Gandhi 978). Gandhi's deep-seated resentment towards the system fuels his rebellion, resulting in a six-year prison sentence.

Orwell and Gandhi diverge in their responses to the system. Gandhi recognizes that British rule in India perpetuates the oppression of his people, prompting him to become a political and spiritual leader in the quest for Indian freedom. In contrast, Orwell, despite once successfully serving the British government, opts to work within the system without challenging its authority. Orwell's handling of the elephant shooting dilemma receives acknowledgment from the British government, despite his personal reservations. Orwell writes, "Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed" (Orwell 945). However, his internal conflict surfaces when he reflects, "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool" (Orwell 945). Orwell's attitude is somewhat hypocritical as he reluctantly conforms to the system he inwardly questions.

Gandhi's pivotal speech before a judge under the British system serves as a powerful statement. He articulates reasons for the system's failure to address the needs of his people. In stark contrast, Orwell's account revolves around the mandated shooting of an elephant, an act imposed by the system. Both narratives convey varying attitudes, with Gandhi transitioning from unwavering loyalty to outright rejection, while Orwell, though acknowledging the system's oppressive nature, continues to work within its confines. Gandhi's defiance and Orwell's ambivalence provide a nuanced exploration of individuals navigating the complexities of their respective governmental structures.

Delving deeper into Gandhi's perspective, it becomes evident that his commitment to nonviolence stems from a profound belief in its moral superiority. He outlines his principles, stating, "Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed" (Gandhi 976). This unwavering commitment to nonviolent resistance becomes the cornerstone of Gandhi's philosophy, an ideology rooted in spirituality and political efficacy. Gandhi's emphasis on the spiritual aspect of leadership sets him apart, positioning him as a figure whose influence extends beyond the political realm.

Moreover, Gandhi's decision to defy the British government was not impulsive but a calculated choice driven by a conviction that the existing system had caused irreparable harm to India. He reflects on this decision, stating, "I had either to submit to a system which I considered had done irreparable harm to my country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips" (Gandhi 976). This deliberate defiance underscores Gandhi's willingness to face the consequences for the greater good, marking a pivotal moment in his journey towards becoming a symbol of resistance.

As we delve into Orwell's narrative, a different facet of dissent emerges. Orwell, stationed within the British government, witnesses firsthand the bitterness of anti-European sentiment. Despite holding a position of authority as a subdivisional police officer, Orwell's account reveals a dissonance between his official role and his personal beliefs. He acknowledges the unsavory aspects of imperialistic endeavors, stating, "In a job like that, you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters" (Orwell 940). Orwell's narrative serves as a candid exploration of the internal conflict faced by individuals serving a system that contradicts their moral compass.

Orwell's handling of the elephant incident further illuminates the complexities of his attitude towards the system. While justifying the act as legally correct, he grapples with the personal motive behind it, admitting, "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool" (Orwell 945). This internal struggle exposes the hypocrisy embedded in Orwell's compliance with a system he inwardly questions, highlighting the moral compromises individuals make in the face of institutional pressure.

Examining both narratives in tandem allows for a nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play within oppressive systems. Gandhi's journey unfolds as a conscious rejection of a system he deems detrimental to his people, evolving into a political and spiritual leader advocating for nonviolent resistance. Orwell, on the other hand, navigates the complexities of his role within the British government, revealing the internal conflicts that arise when personal convictions clash with institutional expectations.

Their disparate approaches to dissent underscore the multifaceted nature of resistance. Gandhi's unwavering commitment to nonviolence and his readiness to face the consequences for his convictions position him as a transformative figure in the fight for Indian independence. In contrast, Orwell's narrative portrays the internal struggles of an individual caught between duty and personal morality, shedding light on the challenges faced by those working within oppressive systems.