During the 20th century, leaders of the people in many oppressed countries have risen from

the oppression of the imperialist invaders: Mahatma Gandhi is one of them. He and his
Satyagraha Movement began in India, crossed the Pacific Ocean, and influenced numerous
leaders all over the world, including Martin Luther King. Nevertheless, Gandhi’s nonviolent
tactics makes him convey a firm but conciliatory tone in this rhetorical choices so as not to
undermine peace with inflammatory words. This rhetoric is skillfully used when he tries to
justify his movement in the letter to the British Viceroy Lord Irwin. Gandhi adroitly uses an
emphasis on “servitude” to affirm his desire for mutual benefit, repeated “it- then” logical
constructions to present a reasoned argument, and a focus on making concessionary
statements to build a negotiating opportunity.

Primarily, Gandhi shows a sense of disobedience with ethos by affirming a desire for mutual
benefit and selflessness. From the first glimpse, the repeated use of the word “service” carries
a contrasted meaning in this letter as he uses “service” to show his disobedience, the opposite
of servitude. This choice of diction, therefore, boosts Gandhi’s ethos to appeal a negotiation
and readers’ emotional response. Gandhi first uses “serve” to demonstrate that he wishes “to
serve [your British] people” even was he “want[s] to serve [his] own people”. This humble
diction directly contrasts with the claim that Gandhi has “ambition”, which “is no less than
to convert the British people through non-violence, and thus to make them see the wrong they
have done to India”. In this way, Gandhi’s use of “servitude” shows juxtaposition of
ambitious aims and humble, nonviolent tactics. Moreover, even when Gandhi's "eyes were
opened", meaning he was already aware of this British oppression of India, yet "the object
still was to serve them". His soft response contrasted with Britain's oppressed movement, and
convinces readers about his selflessness: he not only want to seek benefits for Indians but
also the British. This seems to attract readers’ attention as he uses the paradox to boost his
credibility for his role as caring figure rather than just an irrational, unrealistic, idealistic
revolutionary leader. It also somehow convinces readers that he truly cares the benefit of both
parties. When Gandhi continue using dictions, saying “I believe I have always served them
[your people]”, he provides a further appeal to his own credibility and authority. By saying
“[he] served [the British people] up to 1919, blindly”, he builds an image of knowing how to
assist or “serve” the British people. However, the fact that he sees himself no longer “blind”
but still providing “service” shows how Gandhi deals with the British relationships with
India, indicating his authority in this movement. This convinces us as readers to acknowledge
his credibility as a leader who seeks changes and peace.

Secondly, Gandhi then articulate his reasoning in repeated “if- then” statement. The use of the
if-then characterizes deductive reasoning, often considered more scientific and/or credible
than induction, anecdotes, or assumption. Gandhi therefore uses these constructions to
emphasize an appeal to logic- if his argument follows logically from the circumstances in
India, his readers ought to believe he is right or justified. He says, “if we want to serve the
British connection, it is because of such evils” that he plans to “combat”. Gandhi uses this to
argue that the Indians have not acted unreasonably but instead are reaching to inciting “evils”
by the British. Therefore, if his readers agree there are some “evils” in how the British have
acted, they should agree with Gandhi’s movement. Furthermore, Gandhi says that only “if
you cannot see your way to deal with these evils… I shall proceed”. By providing a plan with
provisions by which Viceroy Irwin could prevent Gandhi’s disobedience, he cast Irwin as the
one in the wrong if the knows he could prevent the Salt March and opposes it but does not
act. Gandhi therefore appears more reasoned and ideologically consistent. Gandhi finally
argues that “if the British commerce with India is purified of greed, you will have no
difficulty in recognizing our independence”. This forces the British reader to examine their
potential “greed” as part of the premise of this logical conclusion. Gandhi also uses this to lay
out a clear path or plea, guiding readers through his logic to support independence.

Finally, Gandhi makes concessions to present himself as calm and conciliatory individual.
Gandhi anticipates British claims and actions, conceding “it is … open to you [Irwin] to
frustrate my design by arresting me”. By conceding nonviolence may not succeed in a direct
confrontation with British imperial strength and authority, Gandhi points out that he has
carefully seem potential problems with his acts. That allows him to draw British readers like
Irwin who believe in British strength into agreement before Gandhi says others will renders
his arrest inconsequential to the movement, portraying the British opposition as unnecessary
or unhelpful to the British cause. Gandhi then says he is open to “discussion” and is making
conciliation like “special deliver[y] b a young English friend”. It boosts his ethos as an
implicit challenge that the British is to be similarly willing to compromise.

In conclusion, Gandhi’s rhetorical choices, his logical if- them statement, and concessionary
tone serve to boost his image as a reasoned, idealistic yet realistic and passionate leader of his
movement.