A struggle against injustice
At the beginning of the 20th century, India was ruled by Great Britain, something many people experienced as deeply unjust. The British held political power, controlled the economy, and did not treat the Indian population as equals. This created anger, frustration, and a strong desire for change.
Resistance to colonial rule grew, but people disagreed about how the struggle should be fought. Some believed that violence was necessary to gain freedom. Others feared that violence would only lead to more suffering and new forms of oppression.
A new voice
It was in this situation that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi emerged. He agreed that injustice had to be challenged, but he raised a fundamental ethical question:
If the goal is a just society, can unjust means be used to achieve it?
This question is not only about politics, but about ethics – about what is right and wrong to do, even when you yourself are treated unfairly.
More than a political struggle
Gandhi’s fight against British colonial rule in India was not only a political struggle for independence. For Gandhi, injustice was first and foremost a moral and spiritual problem. He believed that a society built on violence and oppression harms not only those who are oppressed, but also those who hold power.
This understanding sets Gandhi apart from many other leaders of liberation movements. He did not only want political independence, but a form of freedom that also changed people’s attitudes, values, and actions. The struggle against colonial rule therefore became a struggle for a different view of humanity.
1 / 3
En statue av Mahatma Gandhi mot en klar blå himmel
A radical idea
Gandhi believed that means and ends are inseparable. If violence is used to create justice, there is a risk of continuing exactly what one is fighting against. Violence can lead to new abuses of power, new hierarchies, and new forms of oppression.
That is why Gandhi chose nonviolence as his path. He did not claim that nonviolence was easy, or that it came without cost. On the contrary, it required great self‑control, discipline, and a willingness to endure suffering without striking back.
Religion and ethics
Gandhi was a Hindu, and his ethical thinking was strongly influenced by Hindu philosophy, especially the concept of ahimsa, which means not harming living beings. This ideal exists in Hinduism, but is particularly strong in Jainism, a religion that influenced Gandhi during his upbringing.
Ahimsa is not only about avoiding physical violence. It also involves controlling thoughts, words, and intentions. Violence begins in the mind, Gandhi believed. True nonviolence therefore required inner discipline, self‑control, and the willingness to endure suffering without retaliation.
Truth and nonviolence
Gandhi connected ahimsa with another key concept: satya, meaning truth. The struggle for justice had to be carried out with honesty and openness. He called this combination satyagraha, meaning “holding on to truth”.
For Gandhi, this was not merely a political strategy, but a religious practice. To fight without violence was to live in accordance with one’s faith.
1 / 3
En gruppe unge voksne som sitter ned under en demonstrasjon
How do you mobilise an entire people?
What made Gandhi special was not only what he believed, but how he managed to involve large numbers of people in the struggle against colonial rule. He did not appeal primarily to those in power, but to ordinary people: farmers, workers, women, and students.
Gandhi used religion to unite people, and this raises important questions.
Religion and politics
When religious ideals are used politically, they can both unite and divide. Gandhi mainly appealed to Hindus, even though he himself wanted an inclusive India where all religions had a place.
He has been criticised for making the struggle for independence too religious. Others argue that he used religion strategically to create unity, without always taking into account those who did not share his faith.
Civil disobedience
Gandhi made resistance accessible to many by making participation simple. Weapons were not required – only the willingness to say no. He encouraged people to stop cooperating as long as laws and systems were unjust.
This is known as civil disobedience: openly and deliberately breaking laws because one believes they are unjust. Gandhi believed that conscience must sometimes outweigh the law, because moral responsibility cannot be handed over entirely to the state. We must follow our moral or religious convictions.
However, this strategy also raises important questions:
Who has the right to break laws? And who should bear the consequences if the state responds with force?
1 / 4
Folk følger en leder
Resistance without striking back
Gandhi organised protests, marches, and boycotts where participants were expected to remain calm and nonviolent, even when met with brutality.
Nonviolence was demanding. It required people to be willing to suffer without retaliation. Many were imprisoned, beaten, or killed, but Gandhi believed that such suffering had moral power and could awaken the conscience of the oppressor.
This form of resistance pressured the British not only politically, but also morally, because the world could see what was happening. It forced people to take a stand.
At the same time, this was a risky strategy. Many were harmed, and some lost their lives. Not everyone agreed that it was right to sacrifice so much without fighting back. Some argued that Gandhi’s demands for nonviolence were too strict and unrealistic.
The salt march – breaking the law
One of the most famous examples of Gandhi’s method is the Salt March of 1930. The British had made it illegal for Indians to produce their own salt. For Gandhi, this symbolised a much larger issue: the right to control one’s own life.
He walked more than 300 kilometres to the coast, and more and more people joined him along the way. When he finally picked up a handful of salt, he broke the law openly and deliberately.
This was civil disobedience in practice. The action was simple, but the consequences were enormous. At the same time, one may ask:
Would such a symbolic act have had the same impact without the massive support Gandhi already had? And could everyone have used this form of resistance in the same way?
1 / 4
Statuer av Mahatma Gandhi og følgere under Saltmarsjen
Why did it work?
Nonviolence is often seen as weak, but in Gandhi’s case it had powerful effects. When peaceful people were met with violence, it became difficult for the British to present themselves as just. It became clear that they were using force to suppress the Indian population, not to protect them.
When people willingly accepted punishment for breaking unjust laws, it appealed to the conscience of both the British and the international community. This created sympathy and global support for the Indian independence movement.
At the same time, widespread civil disobedience made India almost impossible to govern. Any system of rule depends on a cooperative population. When large numbers of people refuse to obey laws, pay taxes, or buy goods, the laws lose their legitimacy. They may still exist formally, but have little real power.
More than one cause
Still, nonviolence alone did not bring about India’s independence. After the Second World War, Great Britain was economically and politically weakened, and international pressure for decolonisation increased. Many colonies demanded independence, and the world became more critical of imperialism.
Historical change rarely happens for a single reason. It usually results from an interaction between ideas, actions, and external conditions.
In 1947, India became independent.
1 / 3
Politibetjent som overvåker en fredelig demonstrasjon
A difficult question
History does not end here, because Gandhi’s struggle leaves us with an ethical dilemma that is still relevant today:
Was Gandhi right in claiming that violence can never lead to real peace and justice? Or are there situations where violence is necessary to protect lives and stop serious injustice?
This is a classic ethical question about the relationship between means and ends. Gandhi believed that justice could never be achieved through violence, because violence destroys human dignity and creates new forms of injustice. In his thinking, nonviolence was an absolute ideal, closely linked to conscience and personal responsibility.
At the same time, history shows that violence has sometimes been considered necessary. During the Second World War, Nazism was defeated through armed force, which many believe was essential to stop genocide and protect millions of lives.
This view is often connected to just war theory, which argues that violence can sometimes be morally justified if the goal is to prevent greater injustice and suffering.
Yet we also know that violence can create hatred, revenge, and long‑lasting conflicts that continue long after the weapons are laid down. For this reason, strong pacifist traditions exist in both religion and philosophy, claiming that violence can never lead to lasting peace, only temporary solutions.
The ethical dilemma arises precisely because we must weigh different values against each other: life, freedom, justice, safety, and responsibility.
1 / 3
En fredsdue som symboliserer frihet, med en olivengren i nebbet, kaster en skygge formet som en bombe
Not just history
The questions Gandhi raised are still relevant today. When people protest, some choose peaceful methods, while others believe stronger measures are necessary. There are many examples of people breaking rules because they believe the laws are unjust.
When Sami activists chain themselves in protest against environmental damage, or when young people refuse to attend school because they believe adults are not taking climate responsibility seriously, the same ethical questions arise as in Gandhi’s time. These are not only political issues, but also ethical ones – about responsibility, justice, and conscience.
Should we always follow the law? When is it right to break it? Which means can be justified in the struggle for something good? On one side stand respect for laws, democratic processes, and the rights of others. On the other stand responsibility for future generations and the protection of life, nature, and human rights.
Different forms of civil disobedience challenge both the law and our conscience. Some believe such actions are necessary to create change, while others argue that change should happen through democratic processes.
This forces us to ask: If the goal is good, are all means acceptable – and who gets to decide that?
1 / 3
Person står på asfalt foran to gule piler som peker i motsatte retninger
A choice without easy answers
Gandhi does not give us a simple answer to how injustice should be fought, but he offers an ethical starting point. He believed that people always carry responsibility for how they act, whether they follow rules or fight for something good. The goal cannot be separated from the means, because everything we do shapes both society and ourselves. The way we act can either build or destroy trust between people.
For Gandhi, this was not just a political strategy, but a religious and worldview‑based choice. He believed that true justice must be based on respect for all life, and that violence could never be the path to lasting peace. Acting in accordance with one’s conscience was more important than winning quickly, even if it involved suffering and resistance.
At the same time, these are demanding ideals. Not everyone is able to endure violence without fighting back, and not every situation allows for peaceful solutions. This is why Gandhi’s views can be challenged – and this is precisely where ethics begins: when we must weigh values such as justice, safety, and responsibility against each other.
You will probably never face an empire, but you will encounter injustice on a smaller scale – in everyday life, at school, or in the society around you. Then you face the same questions Gandhi did:
What are you willing to do for what you believe is right – and which lines will you not cross?
There are no simple answers, but there is responsibility. Ethics is about taking responsibility for the choices we make, even when those choices are difficult.
1 / 3
Veier som deler seg i den grønne skogen
Sources
- Store norske leksikon: Mahatma Gandhi https://snl.no/Mahatma_Gandhi
- Store norske leksikon: Ikkevold https://snl.no/ikkevold
- Store norske leksikon: Sivil ulydighet https://snl.no/sivil_ulydighet
- NDLA: Gandhi https://ndla.no/nb/r/religion-og-etikk/gandhi/279c96cbb7
- NRK: Syv ganger sivil ulydighet endret loven https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/syv-ganger-sivil-ulydighet-endret-loven-1.14796489
Image and Video Rights
- Adobe Stock
- Adobe Stock
- Adobe Stock
- Wikipedia
- Adobe Stock
- Getty Images
- Adobe Stock
- Getty Images
