Let’s look at the big picture of Gandhi’s strategy of non-violence
Civil disobedience against the British (foreign rulers: common enemy)
examples; cotton spinning, making salt, incorporating, etc.
But Fasting against Muslims vs. Hindus fight (local countrymen: no common enemy)
What would have happened if he switched the strategies?
Is this what the current activists (threatening to use civil disobedience against
the government policy)?
Unlike Gandhi’s, is this the reason why most current mob never worked out?
So what do we learn about civil disobedience here?
Note that every civil disobedience is illegal.
The immediate question is what could justify an illegal act.
The answer is “humanity and morality” because the law may be wrong
and the legal action can be immoral.
Now look at most of the street protest today. What the protesters fight for?
Morality or self-interest? The scene: Gandhi’s non-violence speech