The use of Aristotle’s rhetoric, collective oriented rhetoric and adversity rhetoric in Gandhi’s

Quit India Speech

Junior Andrés Rojas Bustos

July, 2019

Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Foreign Languages Department
Grammar II
 1. Introduction

In 1942, Gandhi delivered his Quit India Speech in the presence of the AICC1 in an attempt to
establish the Quit India Resolution in order to face British oppression. Gandhi throughout his speech
was promulgating the use of non-violence resistance as Indian people’s main source in their struggle
for freedom, which was a radical shift in the paradigm with respect of how to achieve independence
since by those days the only known way to accomplish such purpose was by means of wars and
military supremacy and, therefore, non-violent alternatives could have been considered insufficient
to reach their emancipation. However, Gandhi’s speech actually worked and the AICC adopted a
resolution sanctioning “the starting of a mass struggle on non-violent lines on the widest possible
scale under the leadership of Gandhi” (Sahoo, 2017: 29), which eventually, and after a series of
marches and manifestations, led the British to quit India.

This analysis aims to put across the use of Aristotle’s rhetoric and two aspects of charismatic rhetoric,
collective oriented rhetoric and adversity rhetoric, in Gandhi’s Quit India Speech in order to
understand his success when proposing a particular and, by that time, unknown way to reach
emancipation, non-violence resistance.

Some background in regard to the theoretical framework is presented in the next table.

Table 1.
Aristotle’s rhetoric Charismatic rhetoric (collective oriented
rhetoric and adversity rhetoric)
Aristotle identifies three components a speaker Charismatic rhetoric is one of the strategies an
or writer has to take into account when aiming orator has when gathering a group of people in
to persuade an audience and be successful: order to make them pursue a common target.

Logos, Aristotle considered it as the use of According to Bling and Robinson (2010),
reasoning, logical and argumentative discourse. Shamir identifies seven propositions a speaker
can use for his speech to be much more
Ethos makes reference to the trustworthiness or convincing. Collective oriented rhetoric and
credibility of the speaker. It is used to convince adversity rhetoric were selected with the aim of
based on the speaker’s character and actions, analyzing Gandhi’s Quit India speech.
you preach what you actually practice.
Collective focus rhetoric helps speakers to
Pathos is defined as the way a speaker appeals emphasize in the importance of the group in the
to the audience’s emotion to encourage them to achievement of a specific purpose. Speaker’s
act according to the speaker’s intention. main intention when using this kind of rhetoric
is to convince his audience that they all are
The use of these three components makes an working towards the same objective.
argument convincing and helps the speaker to
impact on his audience in a more comprehensive Adversity rhetoric is used when the speaker
way appeals to a difficult situation in the context
where he is placing his speech and takes
advantage of it in order to motivate his audience
(Mshvenieradze, 2013) to overcome anything they are going through.

(Bling and Robinson, 2010)

1
All Indian Congress Committee
 The two different approaches were selected with the purpose of having a broader picture in my
attempt to analyze Gandhi’s speech. Both collective oriented rhetoric and adversity rhetoric offer
an ideal extension to the classical rhetoric if one wants to understand the efficacy of the speaker
message.

2. Analisys

2.1 Logos and collective oriented rhetoric appeals in Gandhi’s Quit India speech

“I believe that in the history of the world, there has not been a more genuinely democratic struggle
for freedom than ours”. This is how Gandhi opened the last part of his speech, a witty prelude to a
series of facts that will endorse his attempt to appeal to the logic and reasoning of his audience or, to
put it another way, what Aristotle called logos. The presence of this prelude is by no means irrelevant.
On the one hand, it is the starting point of the use of logos in the last part of Gandhi’s Quit India
speech since he is placing under the gaze of the Indian people their quest for emancipation as a
relevant piece of human’s history. Besides, it would also open the door for Gandhi to provide two
examples later on in his speech, Carlyle’s French Revolution and Russian revolution, with the aim to
stress the importance of continuing fighting for freedom but getting rid of violence as a means to
reach it. On the other hand, it is not only the use of logos what empowers this first segment of
Gandhi’s argument, but also his subtle handling of collective oriented rhetoric, which is marked by
the next sentence.

(1) there has not been a more genuinely democratic struggle for freedom than ours

Here, the possessive pronoun ours suggests a joint fight towards a common target, Indian people’s
emancipation from the stronghold of British imperialism, and serves to communicate the importance
of the group's mission over individual self-interest (Shamir, 1994). Gandhi’s intention was to boost
Indian people’s desire to continue fighting for their liberation by resorting to the concept of collective-
efficacy, a key aspect when using collective oriented rhetoric (Shamir, 1994). In a nutshell, Gandhi’s
message between the lines was to consolidate the same camp between him and his compatriots; a
common force will achieve what a single person would be able just to keep in his imagery and
longings.

Gandhi’s prelude to his final argument was a good amalgamation of the use of logos and collective
oriented rhetoric. However, for logos to be applied in a broad way the speaker should provide
examples as a means to totally persuade his audience and encourage them to move and act. On that
account, Gandhi makes use of two specific references about emancipation attained by means of
violence and its adverse effects in order to contrast them with the current situation of India and support
the way he was proposing to face British oppression, the use of non-violence acts. Gandhi’s words
are:

(2) I read Carlyle’s French Revolution […] and […] the Russian revolution. But it is my
conviction that in as much as these struggles were fought with the weapon of violence
they failed to realize the democratic ideal.

Gandhi uses these two examples in an effort to progressively build Indian people’s confidence in the
feasibility to pursue the realization of a free nation without using violent means, which is not but a
bright expansion of the use of logos.
 2.2 Ethos appeals in Gandhi’s Quit India speech

When it comes to persuading an audience, the mere use of exemplification, coherent sentences,
cohesion among statements and words that communicate speaker’s intended purpose, or to put it
briefly the use of logos, according to Aristotle’s rhetoric, is not sufficient. A hooking argument should
also be equipped with the speaker’s trustworthiness, or what Aristotle defined in his rhetoric as ethos;
the credibility of the character of the speaker (Flowered & Richardson, 2018). Gandhi’s
persuasiveness in Quit India speech was much stronger due to his daily life behavior, he practiced
what he preached and the non-violence philosophy, he promulgated as a means to reach emancipation,
was not the exception. In Quit India speech he employed the non-violence notion to support the
achievement of democracy as follows:

(3) In the democracy which I have envisaged, a democracy established by non-violence,

there will be equal freedom for all.

And throughout his life he underpinned his non-violence philosophy by partaking in daily problems
and struggles of his peers, throughout his political career in India he engaged in daily physical work,
lived according to a very strict diet, wore self-spun, simple clothes and spent years in jail solely for
propagating his ideas of the basic method of non-violence (Flowered & Richardson, 2018) What’s
even more, he committed himself to solving daring situations where there was no room for fraud,
deceit, or lying, fundamental cornerstones of his non-violence philosophy (Gandhi, 1948).

Gandhi’s daily life, commitment with his people and life philosophy applied at the service of others
helped him to enhance Indian people’s conviction on what he was claiming for the whole nation to
be the path to follow, the non-violence resistance. It is possible to realize that Gandhi was not basing
his words on a utopian way of thinking, feeling and acting, he actually proved that human beings can
overcome difficulties of any type without getting involved in violent excesses and without the
necessity to establish supremacy at any price. From any angle it is viewed, Gandhi’s rhetoric ethos
was, without a doubt, one of his best weapons against violence and British oppression, it also helped
him to gain more credibility and make his speech much more convincing.

2.3 Pathos and adversity rhetoric appeals in Gandhi’s Quit India Speech

The third component of Aristotle’s rhetoric is known as pathos. Aristotle defined it as “the power
with which the writer's (speaker’s) message moves the audience to his or her desirable emotional
action” or how a speaker, in this case Gandhi, tries to persuade others by activating their emotions
such as fear, anger, shame, jealousy among others (Mshvenieradze, 2013) To my way of thinking,
Gandhi by adopting pathos in his speech tried to arise the next emotion in his audience: Ambition,
but not of any kind rather Indian people’s ambition to set themselves free once and for all based on
the benefits a democratic nation will bring with it, among many equal freedom for all.

(4) In the democracy which I have envisaged, a democracy established by non-violence,

there will be equal freedom for all […] It is to join a struggle for such democracy that I
invite you today.
Gandhi was setting a clear target, equal freedom for all, around which he wanted the AICC, Hindus,
Muslims and every Indian citizen to feel they deserve to live without any oppression, what every
nation and human being has longed since ancient times as part of democratic development.

In addition, and together with the use of pathos in this last part of his speech, Gandhi, being aware of
the tension Hindus and Muslims were having because of religious disagreements and that the
consolidation of a single side against the British empire would not be possible if this two groups failed
to come to terms (Gandhi, 1948), makes use of adversity rhetoric which is, according to Fiol (1999),
the ability to articulate the intolerable nature of the current situation to motivate followers to achieve
a better future. Gandhi remarked in his speech the next words:

(5) Once you realize this you will forget the differences between the Hindus and Muslims,
and think of yourselves as Indians only, engaged in the common struggle for
independence.

Gandhi took advantage of the difficult situation between Muslims and Hindus with the intention of
refereeing to Indians as one nation, as one people and, once again, he claimed that the unity among
every single Indian would be a cornerstone in the accomplishment of independence.

3. Final thoughts

A final thought on Quit India speech is that Gandhi’s speech cannot be considered useless by no
means. Gandhi’s use of rhetoric language was effectively implemented in his speech so that he opened
the door for Indians to achieve emancipation without putting at risk any life and also for the whole
humanity to consider more forceful ways to combat violence besides weapons and military power.
Gandhi faced the difficult task to accomplish with words what most of the nations around the world
have achieved by means of wars and armed conflicts, however, he knew how powerful a speech could
be and the approaches discussed in this paper help us to understand Gandhi’s succeed as promulgator
of non-violence resistance against violent attacks.
4. References

Bligh, M & Robinson, J (2010) Was Gandhi “charismatic”? Exploring the rhetorical leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi

Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social
change. The Leadership Quarterly.

Flowerdew, J & Richardson, E (2018) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies

Gandhi, M.K. (1948) My Non-violence Compiled by: Sailesh Kumar Bandopadhyaya

Mshvenieradze, T (2013) Logos Ethos and Pathos in Political Discourse

Sahoo, S (2017) Mahatma Gandhi and the Quit India Movement - A Study of Gandhian Strategy and
Dynamics

Shamir, B (1994) The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: a theoretical extension, a case study, and
implications for research