Ghandi’s philosophy of non-violence adopts non-violence as a way of life. His theory offers the idea that nonviolence is not a weapon of the weak, however it is a weapon that can be tried by all. It can be noted that Ghandi extended the principle of nonviolence from the individual to the social and political plane. This idea of non violence, can be noted to explicitly differ from that of Fanon, who denotes that violence is an essential aspect in the combat of colonialism and is utilised both in the political and communal sphere. Below, I have segregated few of the key notions developed in Ghandi’s Ahmisa Nonviolence and have contrasted and compared such concepts to ideologies presented by Fanon.
Ghandi argues, “Man as animal is violent, but in spirit he is non-violent, the moment he awakes to the spirit within, he cannot remain violent” (CITE) Ultimately highlighting the nature of violence whereby non-violence always triumphs violence. One can argue, that if applied to Fanon’s ideology regarding the implementation of violence as a force against inferiority for the colonised- this form of force in fact challenges the basic nature of man. Regarding God as truth and love, Ghandi believed love imamates from the heart of a man where God dwells. Ghandi envisioned God and love as one. “When you want to find truth as
…show more content…
Ahimsa has been attached high position in ethics and religion. Gandhiji’s work cited the work of Budda, Mahaviair and Christ which has allowed emphasis on Ahimsa in a range of religious discourses. This became a powerful and was used against the British authority in India. This explicitly demonstrates how during the time of colonisation in India, Ghandi’s ideologies were drawn upon in combating the British
Mohandas Gandhi was born into a Hindu family of the Vaisya caste. This was the third ranking caste in the class structure of Hinduism. This class was for farmers and merchants. The whole system was so complex that in Gandhi’s lifetime it had begun to disintegrate. Gandhi’s father and grandfather were not farmers or merchants. They were prime ministers of the tiny principality of Porbandar in Gujarat. Mohandas was extremely shy. He rushed to and from school, too nervous to talk to any of his classmates. Then a pretty and strong-willed girl was married to him by an arranged marriage at the age of 13. Her name was Kasturbai. A marriage at this age was typical in Hindu custom. He was a strict husband and kept control over actions. Kasturbai disliked this. They didn’t spend more than the first five years of their marriage together, since it was typical for the girl to visit her family. At this point in his life, he was very depressed. He was little and suffered fears that didn’t bother his wife. An athletic and older boy who was Muslim fascinated him. He told Mohandas to eat meat if he wanted to become bigger and stronger. He said the Indians were weak and small people, because they didn’t eat meat, and this is why the British, who did, had the strength to rule over them. This was against his religion, but he tried anyway. He ate the meat in secrecy, but after a few meals he stopped. He didn’t like the taste of meat and fe...
“Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon without cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
Mohandas Gandhi and Mao Zedong were two great leaders who succeeded in many ways through their actions and decisions. Gandhi was an Indian leader and Mao a Chinese leader. However, their approach to success, peace, and ultimately, a revolution, was very different. Mao favored peace through violence, and Gandhi favored peace through non-cooperation and standing up for what is right. He also believed that these changes would be accomplished by “conscious suffering”, which was the way he put it.
King has identified six main points of his doctrine. The first item King argued that passive resistance is not cowardice, but the group of strong people. Another highlight for the characterization of non-violence is that using it does not pursue to overthrow or shame the rival, but try to win his companionship and consideration. The next feature of the idea of nonviolence is that it is directed against evil, namely racial discrimination, not against the people standing on its defense. The fourth point here is the desire to make the supporters of King suffering without retaliation. Fifth paragraph defining the non-violent resistance is that it can help to avoid not only outside physical violence, as well as inside violence of spirit. That is, an adherent of non-violent resistance has neither right to cause physical pain to the enemy, nor to hate him. The principle of love is the center for non-violence. Six main characteristic of non-violent resistance is an understanding that justice is on the side of the world. Therefore, those who believe in nonviolence deeply believe in the future (King,
The author of this paper disagrees with this assessment. TWE is more than that; it is an informed way out of a psychological deadlock, cannot be resolved in any other way. It is an attempt to stop a severe form of subjugation and degradation that focuses on the wellbeing of the oppressed. The only player in the “Manichean game” that was willing to end it. Fanon’s “regression” to violence is not a sign of resignation, nor of radicalization. It is a well-informed recourse to get rid of an abuser that has proven to be hopelessly egocentric, unsuited to live in a truly humanist society, even less so in bringing it about. Hence, Fanon was to the very end committed to improve the lives of the
If this had actually been the one of Dr. King’s last days; it would have meant that the world would have been deprived of a ten year, non-violent campaign that did in fact change society for the better. A little less than a year after his near fatal stabbing he and his family would embark upon a journey to India accompanied by Dr. D.L. Reddick. There he meet Ghandi himself giving him newfangled prospective on non-violent campaigns.
The role of violence in the fight against injustice is a tricky one. If an oppressor is willing to use violence to maintain control should not the oppressed use violence to achieve liberation? Franz Fanon would argue that the pent up anger and frustration must be released in violent action to tear down the oppressor’s regime. However, there is a better way and that is through non-violence and understanding that Martin Luther King, Jr. champions. Only through creating tension around injustice via non-violent direct action can the conversation begin around mutual understanding and justice. It is this justice achieved through non-violent means that will last as violent action is ultimately unjust in nature.
Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy of natural law allows one to better act for the common good than Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha since it allows individuals and countries a way to justifiably defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm. Violence for the sake of violence is never justified, however, one must have the courage and strength to stand up to those who do evil and do what is necessary to stop them. It may come at a great personal cost, however, no matter what physical pain or injury one may endure, one should compromise their morality and turn a blind eye to evil.
Mohandas K. Gandhi, a great Indian philosopher, wrote the essay “My Faith in Nonviolence”. His essay focuses on the use of nonviolence means on overthrowing the British rule of India. Gandhi’s main claim on this essay is that love is the higher law of life and that “every problem lends itself to solution” (p. 203) , if we followed that law.
There is a considerable debate about the precise meaning of nonviolence. Some people believe that nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence. In other words, nonviolence is a method for resolving a conflict without the use of physical power nor enmity towards opponents. Instead, it emphasizes you to look beyond convictions and one’s urge for victory, it is the motto behind the saying “hate the sin and not the sinner”. For others it is a way of living and an essential part of their values and norms, for those people, nonviolence is the road which will lead them towards attaining inner piece and moral satisfaction. “Learn and teach nonviolence as a way of life; reflect it in attitude, speech and action” say’s Gerber in his article The Road to Nonviolence. Thus making nonviolence the ultimate behavior towards achieving truthful, spiritual, loving life. Mahatma Gandhi, the nonviolence guru, defines nonviolence as “a power which can be wielded equally by all-children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind”. (mkgandhi.org) Therefore we understand that nonviolence has some terms and conditions to be met; living faith in God, truthfulness, humility, tolerance, loving kindness, honesty and the willingness to sacrifice. ...
The role of violence in the liberation of peoples from systems of domination is necessarily entwined to the concept of freedom. Herbert Marcuse and Frantz Fanon argue that violence, in various forms, is the only reasonable rebuttal to the abhorrent system of subjugation, whether it is in shape of something as transparent as apartheid to thinly veiled laws that take away the rights of humans under the capitalist system. To even understand the relationship between freedom and violence it has to be established what it is even meant by the phrase “violence” while simultaneously attempting to understand what means are necessary to achieve this end. Furthermore, what does it mean to be “violent” and is it always acceptable to use violence as a device to achieve a certain objective, even if that goal is something as vital as human emancipation? Conversely, the argument against the use of violence, in all its forms, to achieve freedom needs to be explored. The contrary argument that will be explored is from various texts of Martin Luther King Jr. and while our fundamental argument is opposed to King’s his views must still be taken into account if, for nothing else, to add structure to the argument at hand. It must be remembered that while the role of violence and freedom are necessarily bonded to one another this does not mean that violence is the only means to achieve freedom but that violence is the “best” way to achieve the ultimate goal of freedom.
Ahimsa is a concept that was practiced by political and ideological leader Mohandas Gandhi; a concept that he used to promote the use of non-violent tactics and passive resistance against colonial rule in India. Mohandas Gandhi used Ahimsa as the means to an end and therefore, ultimately rejected Machiavelli's advice on the qualities a prince must possess to retain his title. Machiavelli advises that the leaders have military experience and, “In peace time he must train himself more than in times of war. This can be done in two ways: one by action, the other by the mind” (Jacobus 40). Ghandi does not have military experience and Ahimsa, loosely translated, means abstinence from violence either by thought, word, or deed. Ahimsa requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand (Maheshwari). The concept of Ahimsa and the actions of Mohandas Gandhi directly contradict the qualities and practices of a Machiavellian prince or leader.
The year was 1986 and the people of the Philippines were being oppressed by their elected president turned Dictator Ferdinand Marcos for twenty years. And a four-day series of non-violent mass demonstrations toppled Marcos dictatorship. It was a series of popular non violent revolutions and prayerful mass street demonstrations in the Philippines that occurred in 1986, which marked the restoration of the country's democracy. Non violent resistance is the best method to peacefully attain social change in times of political oppression. Non violent resistance is just one teaching of Mahatma Gandhi that was used by the people of Philippine in their times of political oppression and is evident throughout the Philippine revolution of 1986 which helped the country restore democracy.
Conflict and violence is around us throughout the world and the mass media has made a huge impact of what we think of violence and the relation to religion, especially in the last couple of years. In addition violence has been considered as being part of human nature and comes from our biological structure of aggression. It is an out let for us to relieve stress levels and some believe that it can be a device of vengeance and a positive mechanism to human survival. For example it is a system for the survival of the fittest and reproduction. Another way that we can look at it on a different spectrum is the way religious beliefs utilise non violent mechanisms that try to diminish the impacts of aggressive behaviour. When we think of religion and violence we do not think to situate them together. This is because “theologically, it can certainly be concluded that all religions have the goal of peace” . People who are outsider of a religious tradition can make many generalisations. In this essay it will discuss why some religious traditions in South East Asia oppose violence. In addition the rejections of violence have shaped and changed religious practices within Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. There have also been many generalisations about the above traditions. Moreover I will try and answer why non violence has become a generalisation and how it has impacted India as a whole.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi- 2 October 1869 - 30 January 194 was the pre-eminent political and spiritual leader of India during the Indian independence movement. He is also known as Mahatma which means “The Great Soul”. He was committed to pacifism, that there should be no violence.(1) He had three concepts to follow in his life for independence of India: Satyagraha, Ahimsa and Swaraj.