Do you agree with the view that Gandhi's campaign methods in the 1930s were effective? Explain your answer, using sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own knowledge. Source 1 shows us that Gandhi's methods were effective in the fact that it was widespread. As the provenance of the Source tells us, the effort to 'end this inhuman rule' was 'read out in towns and villages all over India'. Gandhi brought his protest along at the right time and by adopting methods such as 'Satyagraha' and 'Ahisma'. He gained the moral highground by acting without violence and carried with him charasmatic authority, the people of India were prepared to listen to and to follow him. A key example of this peaceful protest was the Salt March of 1930. This was Gandhi's most famous campaign and a masterstroke of propaganda. The Salt tax unified Indians and Gandhi was able to use this to aid his campaign. By purposely defying the laws on salt, Gandhi drew mass attention to the whole nationalist movement. The obscurity of the tax laid a trap for the British and Gandhi was very clever in targeting the salt tax as it is what the British were most hated for. The march was a sign of commitment to peaceful protest and sacrifice. This event was a black day for the British Empire, and such methods by Gandhi showed Britian in a very unflattering light. A moral crisis had been created back in London, and Gandhi had managed to drive a wedge between British MPs and opinion, unltimately shaking British foundations. Gandhi had completely ruined the British image and reputation worldwide and made it harder for other big powers such as America to support Britain. Source 3 supports this view that through such methods Gandhi's campaigns had been very effective. The phrase 'hung on' suggests that Gandhi had caused the British problems and a great deal of strain, that they struggled in a desperate attempt to keep their control over India. However this phrase can also be interpreted differently. 'Hung on...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document