im assuming that this is a reference to Mohandas Gandhi and his various prosecutions during his campaign of civil disobedience in India.
The whole point of civil disobedience is that it causes a great deal of trouble and embarrassment for the civil authority. The offences are relatively minor and there is no attempt to resist arrest or prosecution.
Gandhi, himself a barrister, would not have denied that he had, indeed, broken the law. To recognise the authority of the law, even if it is believed to be an unjust law, and to accept the penalty the law provides is to retain the moral high ground.
All of this depends upon the civil authority operating according to the rule of law and imposing punishments that are proportionate to the offences. Civil disobedience embarrassed the British in India. One need not ask how the Japanese, the Germans or the Russians in the 1930s would have dealt with Ghandi.
2.they thought india needed help.
3.The options, as Gandhi put it in his statement to the presiding judge, was this: "The only course open to you, Mr. Judge, is . . . either to resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty.”
