Salt March to Dandi March 12 to April 6, 1930. | HPS SR. SEC. SCHOOL, SHERGARH HPS SR. SEC. SCHOOL, SHERGARH Posted on March 12, 2011 | Leave a comment Salt March to Dandi The Salt Satyagraha, also known as the Salt March to Dandi, was an act of protest against the British salt tax in Colonial India. Mahatma Gandhi walked from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi, Gujarat to get himself some salt, and large numbers of Indians followed him. The British could do nothing because Gandhi did not incite others to follow him in any way. The march lasted from March 12 to April 6, 1930. In an effort to amend the salt tax without breaking the law, on March 2, 1930 Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy, Lord Irwin: “If my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month I shall proceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the Salt Laws.

I regard this tax to be the most iniquitous of all from the poor man’s standpoint. As the Independence movement is essentially for the poorest in the land, the beginning will be made with this evil.” On March 12, 1930, Gandhi and approximately 78 male satyagrahis set out, on foot, for the coastal village of Dandi, Gujarat, some 240 miles from their starting point in Sabarmati, a journey which was to last 23 days. Virtually every resident of each city along this journey watched the great procession, which was at least two hundred miles in length. On April 6th, Gandhi raised a lump of mud and salt (some say just a pinch, some say just a grain) and declared, “With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.” He then boiled it in seawater to make the commodity which no Indian could legally produce—salt. He implored his thousands of followers to begin to make salt wherever, along the seashore, “was most convenient and comfortable” to them.

A “war” on the salt tax was to be continued during the National Week, that is, up to the thirteenth of April. There was also a simultaneous boycott of British made cloth/goods. Salt was sold, “illegally”, all over the seacoast of India. A pinch of salt from Gandhi himself sold for 1,600 rupees, perhaps $750 dollars at the time. In reaction to this, the British government had incarcerated over sixty thousand people at the end of the month. In Peshawar the satyagraha was led by a Muslim Pashto disciple of Gandhi’s, Ghaffar Khan. Ghaffar Khan had trained an army of non-violent activists, called Khudai Khitmatgar. On April 23, 1930, Ghaffar Khan was arrested. A crowd of Khudai Khitmatgar gathered in Peshawar’s Kissa Khani [Storytellers] Bazaar. The British opened fire on the unarmed crowd and shot hundreds of Khudai Khitmatgar and other demonstrators. One British Indian Army regiment refused to fire at the crowds.

According to some accounts, the crowd acted in accord with their training in non-violence. As people in the front fell, those behind came forward to expose themselves to the firing. The shooting continued from 11 AM until 5 PM. On the night of May 4th, Gandhi was sleeping in a cot under a mango tree, at a village near Dandi. Several ashramites slept near him. Soon after midnight the District Magistrate of Surat drove up with two Indian officers and thirty heavily-armed constables. He woke Gandhi by shining a torch in his face, and arrested him under a regulation of 1827. 0.000000 0.000000 Gandhi's Salt March Updated February 03, 2016. It began with something as simple as table salt. On March 12, 1930, a group of Indian independence protesters began to march from Ahmedabad, India to the sea coast at Dandi some 390 kilometers (240 miles) away. They were led by Mohandas Gandhi , also known as the Mahatma, and intended to illegally produce their own salt from the seawater.

This was Gandhi's Salt March, a peaceful salvo in the fight for Indian independence. The Salt March was an act of peaceful civil disobedience or satyagraha, because under the law of the British Raj in India, salt-making was banned. In accordance with the 1882 British Salt Act, the colonial government required all Indians to buy salt from the British and to pay a salt tax, rather than producing their own. Coming on the heels of the Indian National Congress's January 26, 1930 declaration of Indian independence, Gandhi's 23-day-long Salt March inspired millions of Indians to join in his campaign of civil disobedience. continue reading below our video Profile of Mohandas Gandhi Before he set out, Gandhi wrote a letter to the British Viceroy of India, Lord E.F.L. Wood, Earl of Halifax, in which he offered to halt the march in return for concessions including the abolition of the salt tax, reduction of land taxes, cuts to military spending, and higher tariffs on imported textiles. The Viceroy did not deign to answer Gandhi's letter, however.

Gandhi told his supporters, "On bended knees I asked for bread and I have received stone instead" - and the march went on. On April 6, Gandhi and his followers reached Dandi and dried seawater to make salt. They then moved south down the coast, producing more salt and rallying supporters. On May 5, the British colonial authorities decided that they could no longer stand by while Gandhi flauted the law. They arrested him and severely beat many of the salt marchers. The beatings were televised around the world; hundreds of unarmed protesters stood still with their arms at their sides while British troops smashed batons down on their heads. These powerful images stoked international sympathy and support for the Indian independence cause. The Mahatma's choice of the salt tax as the first target of his non-violent satyagraha movement initially sparked surprise and even derision from the British, and also from his own allies such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. However, Gandhi realized that a simple, key commodity like salt was the perfect symbol around which ordinary Indians could rally.

He understood that the salt tax impacted every person in India directly, whether they were Hindu , Muslim or Sikh , and was more easily understood than complex questions of constitutional law or land tenure. Following the Salt Satyagraha, Gandhi spent nearly a year in prison. He was one of more than 80,000 Indians jailed in the aftermath of the protest; literally millions turned out to make their own salt. Inspired by the Salt March, people across India boycotted all kinds of British goods, including paper and textiles. Peasants refused to pay land taxes. The colonial government imposed even harsher laws in an attempt to quell the movement. It outlawed the Indian National Congress, and imposed strict censorship on Indian media and even private correspondence, but to no avail. Individual British military officers and civil service employees anguished over how to respond to non-violent protest, proving the effectiveness of Gandhi's strategy. Although India would not gain its independence from Britain for another 17 years, the Salt March raised international awareness of British injustices in India. Although not many Muslims joined Gandhi's movement, it did unify many Hindu and Sikh Indians against British rule.

It also made Mohandas Gandhi into a famous figure around the world, renowned for his wisdom and love of peace. Postcolonial Studies | Gandhi’s Salt March to Dandi Gandhi’s Salt March to Dandi The Salt Tax Gandhi during the Salt March, March 1930/public domain After proclaiming the Declaration of Independence of India on January 26, 1930, Mahatma Gandhi came to an impasse in his political career focused on freeing India from British rule. A new anti-government campaign was imperative for achieving the secularization of India for its people; it remained unclear, however, to Gandhi what form was most appropriate for this campaign to take (Sheean 152; 156-7). During the period that followed in which he could find “no light at the end of the tunnel,”; it became apparent to Gandhi that non-violent civil disobedience would form the basis for any ensuing protest (Sheean 152; 156-7).

Beginning in February 1930, Gandhi’s thoughts swayed towards the British salt tax, one of many economic improprieties used to generate revenue to support British rule, as the focal point of non-violent political protest (Ashe 301). The British monopoly on the salt tax in India dictated that the sale or production of salt by anyone but the British government was a criminal offense punishable by law (Ashe 301). More so than in more temperate climates, salt was invaluable to the people of India, many of whom were agricultural laborers and required the mineral for metabolism in an environment of immense heat and humidity where sweating was profuse. Occurring throughout low-lying coastal zones of India, salt was readily accessible to laborers who were instead forced to pay money for a mineral which they could easily collect themselves for free (Jack 235). Moreover, Gandhi’s choice met the important criterion of appealing across regional, class, and ethnic boundaries. Everyone needed salt, and the British taxes on it had an impact on all of India.

(See The Sepoy Mutiny , African American Studies and Postcolonialism , Apartheid ) Led by an “inner voice” during this period of strategic uncertainty, Gandhi used the British Government’s salt tax monopoly as a catalyst for a major “Satyagraha” campaign (Copley 46-8). One of Gandhi’s principal concepts,”satyagraha” goes beyond mere “passive resistance”; by adding the Sanskrit word “Agraha” (resolution) to “Satya” (Truth). For him, it was crucial that Satyagrahis found strength in their non-violent methods: “Truth (Satya) implies Love, and Firmness (Agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force … that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or Non-violence… [If] we are Satyagrahis and offer Satyagraha, believing ourselves to be strong … we grow stronger and stronger everyday.With our increase in strength, our Stayagraha too becomes more effective, and we would never be casting about for an opportunity to give it up” (Gandhi 87).

Judith Brown (1977) considers the choice of the salt tax as an strategic protest point ingenious because every peasant and every aristocrat understood the necessity of salt in everyday life (Copley46-8). The choice also did not alienate Congress moderates and was simultaneously an issue of enough importance to mobilize a mass following (Copley 46-8). The March In an effort to amend the salt tax without breaking the law, on March 2, 1930, Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy, Lord Irwin: “If my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month I shall proceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the Salt Laws. I regard this tax to be the most iniquitous of all from the poor man’s standpoint.

As the Independence movement is essentially for the poorest in the land, the beginning will be made with this evil.” On March 12, 1930, Gandhi and approximately 78 male satyagrahis set out, on foot, for the coastal village of Dandi some 240 miles from their starting point in Sabarmati, a journey which was to last 23 days (Jack 237). Virtually every resident of each city along this journey watched the great procession, which was at least two miles in length (Jack 237). On April 6th he picked up a lump of mud and salt (some say just a pinch, some say just a grain) and boiled it in seawater to make the commodity which no Indian could legally produce — salt (Jack 240). Still from original footage of Salt March, Gujarat, 1930/public domain Upon arriving at the seashore he spoke to a reporter: God be thanked for what may be termed the happy ending of the first stage in this, for me at least, the final struggle of freedom.

I cannot withhold my compliments from the government for the policy of complete non interference adopted by them throughout the march … I wish I could believe this non-interference was due to any real change of heart or policy. The wanton disregard shown by them to popular feeling in the Legislative Assembly and their high-handed action leave no room for doubt that the policy of heartless exploitation of India is to be persisted in at any cost, and so the only interpretation I can put upon this non-interference is that the British Government, powerful though it is, is sensitive to world opinion which will not tolerate repression of extreme political agitation which civil disobedience undoubtedly is, so long as disobedience remains civil and therefore necessarily non-violent … It remains to be seen whether the Government will tolerate as they have tolerated the march, the actual breach of the salt laws by countless people from tomorrow. I expect extensive popular response to the resolution of the Working Committee (of the Indian National Congress). (qtd in Jack 238-239) (See Marx and the Idea of Commodity , Hegemony in Gramsci ) He implored his thousands of followers to begin to make salt wherever, along the seashore, “was most convenient and comfortable” to them.

A “war” on the salt tax was to be continued during the National Week, that is, up to the thirteenth of April. There was also simultaneous boycotts of cloth and khaddar. Salt was sold, illegally, all over the seacoast of India. A pinch of salt from Gandhi himself sold for 1,600 rupees, perhaps $750 dollars at the time. In reaction to this, the British government had incarcerated over sixty thousand people at the end of the month (Jack 240-3; all of last paragraph). On the night of May, 4 Gandhi was sleeping in a cot under a mango tree, at a village near Dandi. Several ashramites slept near him. Soon after midnight the District Magistrate of Surat drove up with two Indian officers and thirty heavily-armed constables. He woke Gandhi by shining a torch in his face, and arrested him under a regulation of 1827. Aftermath The effects of the salt march were felt across India. Thousands of people made salt, or bought illegal salt.

This period is to be considered the apex of Gandhi’s political appeal, as the march mobilized many new followers from all of Indian society and the march came to the world’s attention. After Gandhi’s release from prison he continued to work towards Indian independence, which was achieved in August, 1947. Dandi was a key turning point in that struggle. Works Cited Ashe, Geoffrey. Gandhi: A Study In Revolution. London: Heineman Ltd., 1968. Copley, Anthony. Gandhi: Against the Tide. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1987. Gandhi, Mohandas K. “Victory in South Africa.” The Essential Gandhi. Ed. Louis Fischer. New York: Vintage, 1962. 84-111. Jack, Homer A. The Gandhi Reader: A Source Book of His Life and Writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1956. Sheean, Vincent. Mahatma Gandhi: A Great Life In Brief. New York: A. Knopf, Inc., 1955.

Bibliography Current News: 82nd commemoration of Dandi March and the spirit of peace and non-violence Gandhiji with his followers on the March to Dandi in March 12, 1930 April 6,2012 is yet another red-letter day in the history of India, when the nation witnessed the re-enactment of historic Dandi March by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 82 years ago to protest the British rule for taxing natural salt. It was on this day in 1930, Gandhiji had started the historic march from Sabarmati Ashram with 78 volunteers for Dandi, a village on the sea cost in Gujarat. The 25-day march through dusty and muddy tracks culminated on April 6, 1930. As the march continued, people saw the changing history of the world. It was the whole of India rising up with rekindled enthusiasm and faith. Gandhiji began his march at 6.30 a.m. on 12th March 1930 accompanied by his 78 Ashramites.

It was a historic scene, calling back to our minds, the old legends coupled with the mythological names of Lord Shri Rama and the Pandavas. Motilal Nehru compared it to the march of Shri Rama Chandra to Sri Lanka in search of Sita. While C.F. Andrews regarded it as Moses leading the exodus of Israelites, Americans compared the epic march to Lincoln�s decision to maintain the Union and his sending troops to the Southern States. And all this, by one frail unarmed man at 61, challenging the then strongest empire. In an effort to amend the salt tax without breaking the law, on March 2, 1930 Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy, Lord Irvin: �If my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month, I shall proceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard the provisions of the Salt laws. I regard this tax to be the most iniquitous of all from the poor man�s standpoint.

As the independence movement is essentially for the poorest in the land, the beginning will be made with this evil.� Mahatma Gandhi had undertaken the 241-kilometer march on foot from Sabarmati to Dandi with a disciplined band of non-violent Satyagrahis, which later converted into a bigger movement against the British throughout the country. The road was watered, the path was strewn with fresh flowers, green leaves and decorated with flags and festoons as the Satyagrahis walked. Crowds gathered everywhere to witness the march and paid homage to this strange army and its general amidst the chanting of Gandhi�s favourite bhajans including � �Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram Patitapavan Sitaram.� Gandhiji addressed the people and ignited the fire of patriotism. During his march he declared that he would either die on the way or else keep away from the Ashram until Swaraj was won. His march lasted 24 days. The real significance of the historic march was to break all �tyrannical and unjust� laws of the British Government.

Dandi march was just a symbolic start to the Civil Disobedience movement that began immediately afterwards in all parts of the country that shook the British Empire. The march was widely reported and anxiously watched all over the country and abroad. Each day added to the fervour and enthusiasm. As many as 300 village officers tendered their resignations from the area through which Gandhiji passed. Gandhi had said earlier �Wait till I begin. Once I march to the place, you will know what to do.� He had a clear vision of this scheme of resistance when others were in the dark. The effects of the Salt march were felt across the country. Thousands of people made salt, or bought illegal salt. This period is to be considered the apex of Gandhi�s political appeal as the march mobilized many new followers from all of Indian society and the march came to the world�s attention. By means of such non-violent tools, Gandhiji was not only instrumental in bringing about India�s Independence from the mighty British Rule, but also provided inspiration to the people in British colonies elsewhere in Asia and Africa to work for their own independence and the British Empire ultimately crumbled like proverbial house of cards.

Gandhiji�s principle of Satyagraha or the force of truth has inspired generations of democratic and anti-racist activists including Martin Luther King Junior and the legendary South African Apartheid movement leader Nelson Mandela. Gandhiji had often stated that his values simple, drawn from traditional belief: Satya (truth) and Ahimsa (non-violence.) �On bended knees, I asked for bread and I have received stone instead.� This is what Gandhi remarked, when he set out on his Dandi march. After breaking the Salt laws on 6th April 1930 by taking a lump of salt, Gandhi declared that with the breaking of British law, he had shaken the foundation of the British Empire. Gandhiji�s words proved true and ultimately led the British to quit India. Hectic preparations have been made for the re-enactment of Dandi march, traversing the same path taken by Gandhi. The Platinum Jubilee celebrations have been organized to convey that Gandhi�s ideology remained relevant even today. Mahatma Gandhi�s grandson Tushar Gandhi, who is the Chief Trustee of the Gandhi Foundation, had conceived the idea of re-enactment of the march.

Congress President who is also the Chief Patron of the march, inaugurated the event on 12th March 2005 by administering a pledge of communal harmony and development to the volunteers, who included freedom fighters, their successors, women, students and youth. Some of the freedom fighters, who were present at the assassination of Gandhi in 1948, also participated in the march in various parts of the country. The salient feature of the re-enacted Dandi march is the participation of several foreigners. Gandhi�s other successful strategies for the independence movement included Swadeshi policy � the boycott of foreign made goods, especially the British goods. Linked to this was his advocacy that all Indians should wear Khadi � homespun cloth, instead of relying on British textiles. His stance on India�s independence hardened after the Amritsar Massacre in 1919. On May 8, 1933 Gandhi began a fast that would last 21 days to protest British oppression in India. Gandhi felt that if the British were not prepared to combat the various �evils� afflicting India under colonial rule, he prepared to commence a fresh campaign of Civil Disobedience.

Gandhi�s philosophies and his ideas of truth and non-violence had the influence of the Bhagavad Gita and the writings of Leo Tolstoy. He was also inspired by Henry David Thoreau�s famous essay on Civil Disobedience. Salt, which was the coin of currency in China became the currency of Civil Disobedience movement leading to liberation of India. The question is not the quantum of levy on salt and the commodity. The British did not even spare common man�s commodity, which became the symbol of protest in the hands of the Man and the Mahatma. V. Mohan Rao*(Journalist) How did Gandhi win? - Waging Nonviolence How did Gandhi win? Message (optional) Gandhi during the Salt March, March-April 1930. (Wikimedia Commons/Walter Bosshard) History remembers Mohandas Gandhi’s Salt March as one of the great episodes of resistance in the past century and as a campaign which struck a decisive blow against British imperialism. In the early morning of March 12, 1930, Gandhi and a trained cadre of 78 followers from his ashram began a march of more than 200 miles to the sea.

Three and a half weeks later, on April 5, surrounded by a crowd of thousands, Gandhi waded into the edge of the ocean, approached an area on the mud flats where evaporating water left a thick layer of sediment, and scooped up a handful of salt. Gandhi’s act defied a law of the British Raj mandating that Indians buy salt from the government and prohibiting them from collecting their own. His disobedience set off a mass campaign of non-compliance that swept the country, leading to as many as 100,000 arrests. In a famous quote published in the Manchester Guardian, revered poet Rabindranath Tagore described the campaign’s transformative impact: “Those who live in England, far away from the East, have now got to realize that Europe has completely lost her former prestige in Asia.” For the absentee rulers in London, it was “a great moral defeat.” And yet, judging by what Gandhi gained at the bargaining table at the conclusion of the campaign, one can form a very different view of the salt satyagraha.

Evaluating the 1931 settlement made between Gandhi and Lord Irwin, the Viceroy of India, analysts Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler have contended that “the campaign was a failure” and “a British victory,” and that it would be reasonable to think that Gandhi “gave away the store.” These conclusions have a long precedent. When the pact with Irwin was first announced, insiders within the Indian National Congress, Gandhi’s organization, were bitterly disappointed. Future Prime Minister Jawaharal Nehru, deeply depressed, wrote that he felt in his heart “a great emptiness as of something precious gone, almost beyond recall.” That the Salt March might at once be considered a pivotal advance for the cause of Indian independence and a botched campaign that produced little tangible result seems to be a puzzling paradox. But even stranger is the fact that such a result is not unique in the world of social movements.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s landmark 1963 campaign in Birmingham, Ala., had similarly incongruous outcomes: On the one hand, it generated a settlement that fell far short of desegregating the city, a deal which disappointed local activists who wanted more than just minor changes at a few downtown stores; at the same time, Birmingham is regarded as one of the key drives of the civil rights movement, doing perhaps more than any other campaign to push toward the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. This seeming contradiction is worthy of examination. Most significantly, it illustrates how momentum-driven mass mobilizations promote change in ways that are confusing when viewed with the assumptions and biases of mainstream politics. From start to finish — in both the way in which he structured the demands of the Salt March and the way in which he brought his campaign to a close — Gandhi confounded the more conventional political operatives of his era. Yet the movements he led profoundly shook the structures of British imperialism. For those who seek to understand today’s social movements, and those who wish to amplify them, questions about how to evaluate a campaign’s success and when it is appropriate to declare victory remain as relevant as ever.

To them, Gandhi may still have something useful and unexpected to say. The instrumental approach Understanding the Salt March and its lessons for today requires stepping back to look at some of the fundamental questions of how social movements effect change. With proper context, one can say that Gandhi’s actions were brilliant examples of the use of symbolic demands and symbolic victory. But what is involved in these concepts? All protest actions, campaigns and demands have both instrumental and symbolic dimensions. Different types of political organizing, however, combine these in different proportions. In conventional politics, demands are primarily instrumental, designed to have a specific and concrete result within the system. In this model, interest groups push for policies or reforms that benefit their base. These demands are carefully chosen based on what might be feasible to achieve, given the confines of the existing political landscape. Once a drive for an instrumental demand is launched, advocates attempt to leverage their group’s power to extract a concession or compromise that meets their needs. If they can deliver for their members, they win. Even though they function primarily outside the realm of electoral politics, unions and community-based organizations in the lineage of Saul Alinsky — groups based on building long-term institutional structures — approach demands in a primarily instrumental fashion.

As author and organizer Rinku Sen explains , Alinsky established a long-standing norm in community organizing which asserted that “winnability is of primary importance in choosing issues” and that community groups should focus on “immediate, concrete changes.” A famous example in the world of community organizing is the demand for a stoplight at an intersection identified by neighborhood residents as being dangerous. But this is just one option. Alinskyite groups might attempt to win better staffing at local social service offices, an end to discriminatory redlining of a particular neighborhood by banks and insurance companies, or a new bus route to provide reliable transportation in an underserved area. Environmental groups might push for a ban on a specific chemical known to be toxic for wildlife. A union might wage a fight to win a raise for a particular group of employees at a workplace, or to address a scheduling issue. By eking out modest, pragmatic wins around such issues, these groups improve lives and bolster their organizational structures. The hope is that, over time, small gains will add up to substantial reforms. Slowly and steadily, social change is achieved. The symbolic turn For momentum-driven mass mobilizations, including the Salt March, campaigns function differently.

Activists in mass movements must design actions and choose demands that tap into broader principles, creating a narrative about the moral significance of their struggle. Here, the most important thing about a demand is not its potential policy impact or winnability at the bargaining table. Most critical are its symbolic properties — how well a demand serves to dramatize for the public the urgent need to remedy an injustice. Like conventional politicians and structure-based organizers, those trying to build protest movements also have strategic goals, and they might seek to address specific grievances as part of their campaigns. But their overall approach is more indirect. These activists are not necessarily focused on reforms that can be feasibly obtained in an existing political context. Instead, momentum-driven movements aim to alter the political climate as a whole, changing perceptions of what is possible and realistic. They do this by shifting public opinion around an issue and activating an ever-expanding base of supporters. At their most ambitious, these movements take things that might be considered politically unimaginable — women’s suffrage, civil rights, the end of a war, the fall of a dictatorial regime, marriage equality for same-sex couples — and turn them into political inevitabilities.

Negotiations over specific policy proposals are important, but they come at the endgame of a movement, once public opinion has shifted and power-holders are scrambling to respond to disruptions that activist mobilizations have created. In the early stages, as movements gain steam, the key measure of a demand is not its instrumental practicality, but its capacity to resonate with the public and arouse broad-based sympathy for a cause. In other words, the symbolic trumps the instrumental. A variety of thinkers have commented on how mass movements, because they are pursuing this more indirect route to creating change, must be attentive to creating a narrative in which campaigns of resistance are consistently gaining momentum and presenting new challenges to those in power.

In his 2001 book “Doing Democracy,” Bill Moyer, a veteran social movement trainer, stresses the importance of “sociodrama actions” which “clearly reveal to the public how the power-holders violate society’s widely held values[.]” Through well-planned shows of resistance — ranging from creative marches and pickets, to boycotts and other forms of non-cooperation, to more confrontational interventions such as sit-ins and occupations — movements engage in a process of “politics as theater” which, in Moyer’s words, “creates a public social crisis that transforms a social problem into a critical public issue.” The types of narrow proposals that are useful in behind-the-scenes political negotiations are generally not the kinds of demands that inspire effective sociodrama. Commenting on this theme, leading New Left organizer and anti-Vietnam War activist Tom Hayden argues that new movements do not arise based on narrow interests or on abstract ideology; instead, they are propelled by a specific type of symbolically loaded issue — namely, “moral injuries that compel a moral response.” In his book “The Long Sixties,” Hayden cites several examples of such injuries.

They include the desegregation of lunch counters for the civil rights movement, the right to leaflet for Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement, and the farmworker movement’s denunciation of the short-handled hoe, a tool that became emblematic of the exploitation of immigrant laborers because it forced workers in the fields to perform crippling stoop labor. In some ways, these issues turn the standard of “winnability” on its head. “The grievances were not simply the material kind, which could be solved by slight adjustments to the status quo,” Hayden writes. Instead, they posed unique challenges to those in power. “To desegregate one lunch counter would begin a tipping process toward the desegregation of larger institutions; to permit student leafleting would legitimize a student voice in decisions; to prohibit the short-handled hoe meant accepting workplace safety regulations.” Perhaps not surprisingly, the contrast between symbolic and instrumental demands can create conflict between activists coming from different organizing traditions. Saul Alinsky was suspicious of actions that produced only “moral victories” and derided symbolic demonstrations that he viewed as mere public relations stunts. Ed Chambers, who took over as director of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, shared his mentor’s suspicion of mass mobilizations.

In his book “Roots for Radicals,” Chambers writes, “The movements of the 1960s and 70s — the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the women’s movement — were vivid, dramatic, and attractive.” Yet, in their commitment to “romantic issues,” Chambers believes, they were too focused on attracting the attention of the media rather than exacting instrumental gains. “Members of these movements often concentrated on symbolic moral victories like placing flowers in the rifle barrels of National Guardsmen, embarrassing a politician for a moment or two, or enraging white racists,” he writes. “They often avoided any reflection about whether or not the moral victories led to any real change.” In his time, Gandhi would hear many similar criticisms. Yet the impact of campaigns such as his march to the sea would provide a formidable rebuttal. Difficult not to laugh The salt satyagraha — or campaign of nonviolent resistance that began with Gandhi’s march — is a defining example of using escalating, militant and unarmed confrontation to rally public support and effect change. It is also a case in which the use of symbolic demands, at least initially, provoked ridicule and consternation.

When charged with selecting a target for civil disobedience, Gandhi’s choice was preposterous. At least that was a common response to his fixation on the salt law as the key point upon which to base the Indian National Congress’ challenge to British rule. Mocking the emphasis on salt, The Statesman noted , “It is difficult not to laugh, and we imagine that will be the mood of most thinking Indians.” In 1930, the instrumentally focused organizers within the Indian National Congress were focused on constitutional questions — whether India would gain greater autonomy by winning “dominion status” and what steps toward such an arrangement the British might concede. The salt laws were a minor concern at best, hardly high on their list of demands. Biographer Geoffrey Ashe argues that, in this context, Gandhi’s choice of salt as a basis for a campaign was “the weirdest and most brilliant political challenge of modern times.” It was brilliant because defiance of the salt law was loaded with symbolic significance. “Next to air and water,” Gandhi argued, “salt is perhaps the greatest necessity of life.” It was a simple commodity that everyone was compelled to buy, and which the government taxed.

Since the time of the Mughal Empire, the state’s control over salt was a hated reality. The fact that Indians were not permitted to freely collect salt from natural deposits or to pan for salt from the sea was a clear illustration of how a foreign power was unjustly profiting from the subcontinent’s people and its resources. Since the tax affected everyone, the grievance was universally felt. The fact that it most heavily burdened the poor added to its outrage. The price of salt charged by the government, Ashe writes, “had a built-in levy — not large, but enough to cost a laborer with a family up to two weeks wages a year.” It was a textbook moral injury. And people responded swiftly to Gandhi’s charge against it. Indeed, those who had ridiculed the campaign soon had reason to stop laughing. In each village through which the satyagrahis marched, they attracted massive crowds — with as many of 30,000 people gathering to see the pilgrims pray and to hear Gandhi speak of the need for self-rule.

As historian Judith Brown writes, Gandhi “grasped intuitively that civil resistance was in many ways an exercise in political theater, where the audience was as important as the actors.” In the procession’s wake, hundreds of Indians who served in local administrative posts for the imperial government resigned their positions. After the march reached the sea and disobedience began, the campaign achieved an impressive scale. Throughout the country, huge numbers of dissidents began panning for salt and mining natural deposits. Buying illegal packets of the mineral, even if they were of poor quality, became a badge of honor for millions. The Indian National Congress set up its own salt depot, and groups of organized activists led nonviolent raids on the government salt works, blocking roads and entrances with their bodies in an attempt to shut down production. News reports of the beatings and hospitalizations that resulted were broadcast throughout the world. Soon, the defiance expanded to incorporate local grievances and to take on additional acts of noncooperation. Millions joined the boycott of British cloth and liquor, a growing number of village officials resigned their posts, and, in some provinces, farmers refused to pay land taxes. In increasingly varied forms, mass non-compliance took hold throughout a vast territory.

And, in spite of energetic attempts at repression by British authorities, it continued month after month. Finding issues that could “attract wide support and maintain the cohesion of the movement,” Brown notes, was “no simple task in a country where there were such regional, religious and socio-economic differences.” And yet salt fit the bill precisely. Motilal Nehru, father of the future prime minister, remarked admiringly, “The only wonder is that no one else ever thought of it.” Beyond the pact If the choice of salt as a demand had been controversial, the manner in which Gandhi concluded the campaign would be equally so. Judged by instrumental standards, the resolution to the salt satyagraha fell short. By early 1931, the campaign had reverberated throughout the country, yet it was also losing momentum. Repression had taken a toll, much of Congress’ leadership had been arrested, and tax resisters whose property had been seized by the government were facing significant financial hardship. Moderate politicians and members of the business community who supported the Indian National Congress appealed to Gandhi for a resolution. Even many militants with the organization concurred that talks were appropriate.

Accordingly, Gandhi entered into negotiations with Lord Irwin in February 1931, and on March 5 the two announced a pact. On paper, many historians have argued, it was an anti-climax. The key terms of the agreement hardly seemed favorable to the Indian National Congress: In exchange for suspending civil disobedience, protesters being held in jail would be released, their cases would be dropped, and, with some exceptions, the government would lift the repressive security ordinances it had imposed during the satyagraha. Authorities would return fines collected by the government for tax resistance, as well as seized property that had not yet been sold to third parties. And activists would be permitted to continue a peaceful boycott of British cloth. However, the pact deferred discussion of questions about independence to future talks, with the British making no commitments to loosen their grip on power. (Gandhi would attend a Roundtable conference in London later in 1931 to continue negotiations, but this meeting made little headway.) The government refused to conduct an inquiry into police action during the protest campaign, which had been a firm demand of Indian National Congress activists.

Finally, and perhaps most shockingly, the Salt Act itself would remain law, with the concession that the poor in coastal areas would be allowed to produce salt in limited quantities for their own use. Some of the politicians closest to Gandhi felt extremely dismayed by the terms of the agreement, and a variety of historians have joined in their assessment that the campaign failed to reach its goals. In retrospect, it is certainly legitimate to argue about whether Gandhi gave away too much in negotiations. At the same time, to judge the settlement merely in instrumental terms is to miss its wider impact. Claiming symbolic victory If not by short-term, incremental gains, how does a campaign that employs symbolic demands or tactics measure its success? For momentum-driven mass mobilizations, there are two essential metrics by which to judge progress. Since the long-term goal of the movement is to shift public opinion on an issue, the first measure is whether a given campaign has won more popular support for a movement’s cause. The second measure is whether a campaign builds the capacity of the movement to escalate further.

If a drive allows activists to fight another day from a position of greater strength — with more members, superior resources, enhanced legitimacy and an expanded tactical arsenal — organizers can make a convincing case that they have succeeded, regardless of whether the campaign has made significant progress in closed-door bargaining sessions. Throughout his career as a negotiator, Gandhi stressed the importance of being willing to compromise on non-essentials. As Joan Bondurant observes in her perceptive study of the principles of satyagraha, one of his political tenets was the “reduction of demands to a minimum consistent with the truth.” The pact with Irwin, Gandhi believed, gave him such a minimum, allowing the movement to end the campaign in a dignified fashion and to prepare for future struggle. For Gandhi, the viceroy’s agreement to allow for exceptions to the salt law, even if they were limited, represented a critical triumph of principle. Moreover, he had forced the British to negotiate as equals — a vital precedent that would be extended into subsequent talks over independence. In their own fashion, many of Gandhi’s adversaries agreed on the significance of these concessions, seeing the pact as a misstep of lasting consequence for imperial powers.

As Ashe writes, the British officialdom in Delhi “ever afterwards… groaned over Irwin’s move as the fatal blunder from which the Raj never recovered.” In a now-infamous speech, Winston Churchill, a leading defender of the British Empire, proclaimed that it was “alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal palace… to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.” The move, he claimed, had allowed Gandhi — a man he saw as a “fanatic” and a “fakir” — to step out of prison and “[emerge] on the scene a triumphant victor.” While insiders had conflicted views about the campaign’s outcome, the broad public was far less equivocal. Subhas Chandra Bose, one of the radicals in the Indian National Congress who was skeptical of Gandhi’s pact, had to revise his view when he saw the reaction in the countryside. As Ashe recounts, when Bose traveled with Gandhi from Bombay to Delhi, he “saw ovations such as he had never witnessed before.” Bose recognized the vindication. “The Mahatma had judged correctly,” Ashe continues.

“By all the rules of politics he had been checked. But in the people’s eyes, the plain fact that the Englishman had been brought to negotiate instead of giving orders outweighed any number of details.” In his influential 1950 biography of Gandhi, still widely read today, Louis Fischer provides a most dramatic appraisal of the Salt March’s legacy: “India was now free,” he writes. “Technically, legally, nothing had changed. India was still a British colony.” And yet, after the salt satyagraha, “it was inevitable that Britain should some day refuse to rule India and that India should some day refuse to be ruled.” Subsequent historians have sought to provide more nuanced accounts of Gandhi’s contribution to Indian independence, distancing themselves from a first generation of hagiographic biographies that uncritically held up Gandhi as the “father of a nation.” Writing in 2009, Judith Brown cites a variety of social and economic pressures that contributed to Britain’s departure from India, particularly the geopolitical shifts that accompanied the Second World War. Nevertheless, she acknowledges that drives such as the Salt March were critical, playing central roles in building the Indian National Congress’ organization and popular legitimacy.

Although mass displays of protest alone did not expel the imperialists, they profoundly altered the political landscape. Civil resistance, Brown writes, “was a crucial part of the environment in which the British had to make decisions about when and how to leave India.” As Martin Luther King Jr. would in Birmingham some three decades later, Gandhi accepted a settlement that had limited instrumental value but that allowed the movement to claim a symbolic win and to emerge in a position of strength. Gandhi’s victory in 1931 was not a final one, nor was King’s in 1963. Social movements today continue to fight struggles against racism, discrimination, economic exploitation and imperial aggression. But, if they choose, they can do so aided by the powerful example of forebears who converted moral victory into lasting change. — This story was made possible by our members. Become one today . Help Us Spread The Word Tata Salt :: Home Acres Left Welcome! You are about to undertake an epic journey Scroll to traverse the 36,000 acres of the fertile salt pans of Mithapur, and relive every step of an odyssey that is filled with passion, enterprise and a will to succeed.

1927 Salt problems and Salt March : Articles - On and By Gandhi ARTICLES > SATYAGRAHA / CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE > Salt Problems and Salt March Salt Problems and Salt March By Dr. Shubhangi Rathi* Abstract After Bihar and Orissa, it's now West Bengal where people have resorted to panic buying of salt over rumours that it would disappear from markets. This panic buying led to its price hit an unprecedented high at Rs.100 per kg in Darjeeling. Inflation is the biggest problem in India. As per the media, every middle class person faces problems because of inflation. In November 2013, the State Government appealed to the people not to purchase salt from the black market by paying four to ten times its original price. Today such type of news makes us think of Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March.He wrote that the tax levied on salt in India has always been a subject of criticism. Aim of this paper is to make people aware about the importance and production of salt in India,as well as think about the reasons for Gandhi’s Salt March. Introduction Salt is one of the basic elements of our body. Without saltwe could not exist for a moment.

At the fundamental level of the physical body, we are a walking, breathing, salty ocean. It is the sodium present in salt that the body requires in order to perform a variety of essential functions. Salt helps maintain the fluid in our blood cells and is used to transmit information in our nerves and muscles. It is also used in the uptake of certain nutrients from our small intestines. The body cannot make salt and so we are reliant on food to ensure that we get the required intake. Institute of Medicine recommends people to consume half a teaspoon of salt each day to get sufficient levels of sodium for the body. Sodium is an electrolyte that helps maintain muscle function and hydration. If sodium levels are not replenished, then there is a possibility that the blood pressure will drop which could make a person feel dizzy. So salt is needed by the body in order for it to function optimally. But one thing which should be kept in mind is that you should consume salt as needed and not over eat it. Salt Production: Salt production declined by 2.1% in 2012 versus the previous year due to lower US and Canadian volumes. Winter in North America was mild which caused decline in production.

Several countries also supplied less salt to the world market in 2012, while there was no significant increase in output of any particular country or region. China is the leader in the market with 26.1% share. USA contributes 14.4% of the global volume. Germany, India and Australia add 6.6%, 6.1% and 4.2% to the number, respectively. Other producers are minor and do not influence the salt market.1 Salt is a Central subject in the Constitution of India and appears as item No.58 of the Union List of the 7thSchedule. Salt has been produced all along the Rann of Kutch on the west coast of India for the past 5,000 years.India is the third largest Salt producing Country in the World after China and USA. Global annual production being about 230 million tones. The growth and achievement of the Salt Industry over the last 60 years has been spectacular. When India attained Independence in 1947, salt was being imported from the United Kingdom & Aden to meet its domestic requirement.

But today it has not only achieved self-sufficiency in production of salt to meet its domestic requirement but is exporting surplus salt to foreign countries. The production of salt during 1947 was 1.9 million tones which have increased tenfold to a record 22.18 million tons during 2011-12. India exported salt to the tune of about 35 lakh tones during the year 2011-12. Other major countries importing salt from India are Japan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, South Korea, North Korea, Malaysia, U.A.E., Vietnam, Quatar etc. Historical Background of Salt Tax: Taxation of salt before British rule: Salt is a commodity which has been taxed in India ever since the time of the Mauryas Taxes on salt have been prevalent even during the time of Chandragupta Maurya. Taxation of salt by the British East India Company: In 1772, the then Governor-General Warren Hastings brought the salt trade once again under the Company's control. In 1780, Warren Hastings brought the salt trade once again under government control. From 1788 onwards, the Company took to selling to wholesalers by auction.

On 1 November 1804, the British monopolized salt in newly conquered Orissa. In the early 19th century, to make the salt tax more profitable and stop its smuggling,the East India Company established customs check points throughout Bengal. Taxation of salt by the British authorities: The taxation laws introduced by the British East India Company were in vogue during the ninety years. In 1900 and 1905, India was one of the largest producers of salt in the world, with a yield of 1,021,426 metric tons and 1,212,600 metric tons respectively. In 1923, under the viceroyalty of Lord Reading, a bill was passed doubling the salt tax. The first laws to regulate the salt tax were made by the British East India Company. In 1835, the Government appointed a salt commission to review the existing salt tax. Effect of Salt Tax The high price of salt madeit unaffordable to the common man resulting in a number of diseases arising due to iodine deficiency.

Abhay Charan Das, in his ‘The Indian Ryot’ published in 1881, wrote:“Then again there is a still more wretched creature, which bears the name of labourer, whose income may be fixed at thirty-five rupees per annum. If he, with his wife and three children, consumes twenty-four seers [49 lb.] of salt, he must pay a salt duty of two rupees and seven annas, or in other words 7 ½ per cent income taxes. Now we leave it to our readers to judge, whether the ryots and the labourers can procure salt in the quantities they require. We can positively state from our own experience, that an ordinary ryot can never procure more than two-thirds of what he requires, and that a labourer not more than half.” In South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi had written his first article on the salt tax in 1891 in the periodical The Vegetarian. He wrote in The Indian Opinion:'The tax levied on salt in India has always been a subject of criticism. This time it has been criticized by the well-known Dr.

Hutchinson who says that 'it is a great shame for the British Government in India to continue it, while a similar tax previously in force in Japan has been abolished. Salt is an essential article in our dietary. It could be said that the increasing incidence of leprosy in India was due to the salt tax.' Dr. Hutchinson considers the salt tax a barbarous practice, which ill becomes the British Government.’ In 1909, Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his Hind Swaraj from South Africa, urging the British administration to abolish the salt tax.The Salt March, which took place from March to April 1930 in India was an act of civil disobedience led by Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) to protest against the salt tax levied by the British on Indian. Salt March: Background Britain's Salt Acts prohibited Indians from collecting or selling salt, a staple in the Indian diet. Citizens were forced to buy the vital mineral from the British, who, in addition to exercising a monopoly over the manufacture and sale of salt also exerted a heavy salt tax. Although India's poor suffered most under the tax, Indians required salt.

Defying the Salt Acts, Gandhi reasoned, would be an ingeniously simple way for many Indians to break a British law nonviolently. British rule of India began in 1858. After living for two decades in South Africa where he fought for the civil rights of Indians residing there, Gandhi returned to India in 1915 and began working for India’s independence. Gandhi declared resistance to British salt policies to be the unifying theme for his new campaign of “satyagraha,” or mass civil disobedience. Salt March: 1930 On 12th March 1930, Gandhi set out from his ashram, or religious retreat, at Sabarmati near Ahmedabad with several dozen followers on a trek of some 240 miles to the coastal town of Dandi on the Arabian Sea. There, Gandhi and his supporters were to defy British policy by making salt from seawater. All along the way, Gandhi addressed large crowds and with each passing day an increasing number of people joined the salt satyagraha. By the time they reached Dandi on April 5, Gandhi was at the head of a crowd of tens of thousands.

He spoke and led prayers and early the next morning walked down to the sea to make salt. He had planned to work the salt flats on the beach, encrusted with crystallized sea salt at high tide, but the police forestalled him by crushing the salt deposits into the mud. Nevertheless, Gandhi reached down and picked up a small lump of natural salt out of the mud―and British law had been defied. At Dandi, thousands more followed his lead, and in the coastal cities of Bombay (now called Mumbai) and Karachi, Indian nationalists led crowds of citizens in making salt. Civil disobedience broke out all across India, soon involving millions of Indians, and British authorities arrested more than 60,000 people. Gandhi himself was arrested on May 5, but the satyagraha continued without him. On May 21, the poet Sarojini Naidu (1879-1949) led 2,500 marchers on the Dharasana Salt Works, some 150 miles north of Bombay. Several hundred British-led Indian policemen met them and viciously beat the peaceful demonstrators.

The incident, recorded by American journalist Webb Miller, prompted an international outcry against British policy in India. Salt March: Aftermath In January 1931, Gandhi was released from prison. He later met with Lord Irwin (1881-1959), the then viceroy of India, and agreed to call off the satyagraha in exchange for an equal negotiating role at a London conference on India's future. In August of that year, Gandhi traveled to the conference as the sole representative of the Indian National Congress. The meeting was a disappointment, but British leaders had acknowledged Gandhi as a force they could not suppress or ignore.2 Conclusion We can conclude that in the present scenario middle class and poor Indians are facedwithvarious problems related to price hike.Price hike or inflation is a necessary evil of a growing economy such as ours. This could be tamed through suitable and sustainable measures. It is the duty of the Indian Government and the Economists to bring it under control. The only alternative available is to throw away the neo-liberal model of growth and adopt a people centric development model. The need today is to apply Gandhian values in all aspects of life.

Notes and References Gandhi, Mahatma; Dalton, Dennis (1996). Selected Political Writings. Hackett Publishing Company. Gandhi, M. K. (2001). Non-Violent Resistance(Satyagraha). Courier Dover Publications. Hardiman, David (2003). Gandhi in His Time and Ours: The Global Legacy of His Ideas. Columbia University Press. Google remembers Dandi March on 69th Independence Day | Business Standard News Business Standard Google remembers Dandi March on 69th Independence Day Gandhi started the Dandi March on March 12, 1930 to protest against the tax resistance and the British salt monopoly in colonial India August 15, 2015 Last Updated at 07:57 IST email this article Type address separated by commas Your Email: Enter the characters shown in the image.

Send me a copy: ALSO READ Google marks Earth day 2015 with animated doodle, quiz Google's doodle pays tribute to the king of musical instruments Google doodle pays tribute to Nargis on 86th birthday Google Doodle gives Tagore's birthday a miss Google doodle marks journalist Nellie Bly's 151th birthday Search engine Google today commemorated India's 69th Independence Day by remembering Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi March, which had sparked widespread protests across India against the then British government. The tech giant has dedicated the historic march with a doodle showing Gandhi in his khadi white clothes leading the way with men and women following him. The women in the doodle are traditionally clad in a saree, while the men are wearing a white topi and a kurta. Gandhi started the Dandi March on March 12, 1930 to protest against the tax resistance and the British salt monopoly in colonial India. He began the march from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, and what ensued was a 24-day walk to Dandi, where many Indians joined along the way.

The march had sparked protests across India against British salt laws, and was one of the first campaign to have large number of Indians participating. Last year, the internet giant had posted a doodle on its homepage featuring the independent India's first stamp, commemorating the 68th Independence day. The stamp, which was issued on November 21, 1947 depicted the Indian flag with the slogan 'Jai Hind' on the top right hand corner. Yet to open a Sharekhan Account? Google remembers Dandi March on 69th Independence Day Gandhi started the Dandi March on March 12, 1930 to protest against the tax resistance and the British salt monopoly in colonial India Search engine Google today commemorated India's 69th Independence Day by remembering Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi March, which had sparked widespread protests across India against the then British government. Search engine Google today commemorated India's 69th Independence Day by remembering Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi March, which had sparked widespread protests across India against the then British government. The tech giant has dedicated the historic march with a doodle showing Gandhi in his khadi white clothes leading the way with men and women following him.

The women in the doodle are traditionally clad in a saree, while the men are wearing a white topi and a kurta. Gandhi started the Dandi March on March 12, 1930 to protest against the tax resistance and the British salt monopoly in colonial India. He began the march from Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, and what ensued was a 24-day walk to Dandi, where many Indians joined along the way. The march had sparked protests across India against British salt laws, and was one of the first campaign to have large number of Indians participating. Last year, the internet giant had posted a doodle on its homepage featuring the independent India's first stamp, commemorating the 68th Independence day. The stamp, which was issued on November 21, 1947 depicted the Indian flag with the slogan 'Jai Hind' on the top right hand corner.

Press Trust of India Dandi March: Why It Was Actually A Big Deal To Make SALT – TopYaps Share On Facbook Share on Twitter Described as the “pilgrim on his (Gandhi) quest of truth, quiet, peaceful, determined and fearless who would continue that quiet pilgrimage regardless of consequences” by Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, Dandi March was one of the most significant revolutionary moments in the history of Indian independence. Commonly referred as the Namak Satyagraha, the March began on 12 March 1930 under the composed leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. As one of the most structured revolutionary moments for the Indian independence, Dandi March was a large scale civil revolt against the British Raj in India. 1. It was absurd to keep Indians from making their own salt! The revolutionary campaign began from the Sabarmati Ashram near Ahmadabad under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The nonviolent Father of the Nation was accompanied by eighty satyagrahis to a coastal village called Dandi, located about 390 kilometers south of the ashram.

The strenuous journey of 390 kilometers was completed in 24 days and came to its final stop on 5th April 1930. However, the journey continued as the spirited leader to the Dharasana, but was finally arrested by the British authorities on 4th may 1930. However, the moment spread like a fire in the whole country, initiating several nonviolent moments and societies across the nation. 2. An absolutely necessary commodity, salt should not have been taxed in the first place The main reason that drove this astonishing nonviolent was the planned protest against the salt tax laws set by the British Colonial Empire in India. The first target under this movement was the 1882 British Salt Act, but for the dictating Viceroy, Lord Irwin wasn’t moved by the earlier protests. Surpassing the land revenue boycott by the Indian National Congress, Mahatma Gandhi indicated the salt revolution as the demand of the common man of the nation. Before the Dandi March, the British raj collected 8.2% as the salt tax and it took no time for the congress party to understand the relation of salt and the common man.

Among the numerous revolutionary moments in Indian independence, Dandi March stands a great example of Hindu Muslim unity. The revolutionary movement encouraged the common citizens to come against the unlawful salt taxes of the British Raj and resulted in illegal manufacturing and trade of the basic man’s commodity. 3. A civil, non-violent movement that got media’s attention Renowned for his nonviolent teachings and courageous attitude, Mahatma Gandhi opted for Satyagraha as his best weapon. With his peaceful remonstrations troubling the British Empire for the whole past decade, this wasn’t the first time Mahatma was practicing Satyagraha for a protest. Well before the movement actually began, the campaign got the much needed limelight with several newspapers mentioning the Satyagraha movement to overcome the redundant salt laws. During his march to the coastal village of Dandi, Mahatma Gandhi was accompanied with press and media from different corners of the world as they were about to witness the history in making. This got the revolutionary moment highlighted among the world newspapers and garbed the attention of various other innovative leaders. The nonviolent protests were adopted by Martin Luther King Jr. and further seen during the African-American Civil Rights Movement in U.S. 4.

Dandi March helped further the Indian freedom struggle In an statement to the press Gandhi said “We are entering upon a life and death struggle, a holy war; we are performing an all-embracing sacrifice in which we wish to offer ourselves as oblation.” Making his intensions clear to the British Raj, Gandhi stated the principles of nonviolence and peace as the fundamentals of this moment. All the satyagrahis accompanying the Mahatma were his followers from the Sabarmati Ashram and made an arduous journey of 240 miles and 24 days. In such a long stretch of time, the moment made an impeccable relation with the residents of 48 villages located in 4 districts. With the brilliantly preplanned schedules and scouting techniques, the moment gathered large groups of people from the neighboring areas and where addressed by the Mahatma himself. Also See

Question: In 1930, Ghandi headed a march in protest against a tax on which commodity?
Answer: SALT