Gandhi and King: Nonviolent Resistance in a Violent World

Bryan McNamara

Theology 358
Dr. Sandra Keating
May 8, 2013

McNamara 2
Introduction
With the deepening social, political, and religious tensions growing across the globe,
violence, in forms of wars and revolutions, has developed as a response to the injustices of the
world since the beginning of the early twentieth century. From a sociopolitical standpoint,
violence has been used as a combative method against those of different racial, ethnic, and
religious groups. Yet, several leaders emerged, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther
King, Jr., who suppressed the use of violence as a solution. By seeing the pain and suffering of
their own countrymen, Gandhi and King developed methods of nonviolence and civil
disobedience in order to passively resist the inequalities of the world. Influenced heavily by his
own Hindu religious beliefs, Gandhi became a prominent figure in a new movement of
transformative social justice across the world. By adapting his method of nonviolent resistance,
King sought to prevent racial and religious discrimination in the United States. Although initially
founded upon Hindu principles, Gandhis philosophy of nonviolent resistance became an
effective tool for leaders around the world, regardless of religious differences.
Life of Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi, formally given the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was born
in Porbunder, India on October 2nd, 1869. His parents placed him in an arranged marriage at the
young age of 13 years old and two years later he had his first child, who survived only briefly.
From a young age, Gandhi did not show any sort of promise that would foreshadow the
sociopolitical activism he would later take part in. Rather, he oftentimes found himself getting
into trouble. For example, when he was a young boy, he was punished for eating meat, which to
some may be considered trivial, but eating meat goes against the Hindu religion. Around the
same age, he was also caught stealing gold from his brother. His schoolwork was mediocre and

McNamara 3
presented no indication of the future influence he would have on his home country of India. Yet,
at the age of 18, he matriculated at the University College of London to study law.
His mother and father played a vital role in developing and fostering the influential man
Gandhi was to become. His parents believed that he would become a barrister, in hopes of
achieving similar success of his father, Karamchand Gandhi, who was a key figure in their local
government. As the son of a dignified and well-respected government official, Gandhi received
his first glimpses of political life. On the contrary, Gandhis main religious influence came early
on in his life from his mother, Putlibai. Growing up around a mother who showed such a
particularly strong and deliberate devotion to her faith helped to develop Gandhi into the man he
later became. Yet, despite this heavy influence surrounding him, Gandhi was not initially drawn
toward a religious life as a child [some even referred to him as an atheist]. Under the influence of
his parents, he believed politics cannot be divorced from religion1 and therefore, later became
famous for his work fighting the social injustice that plagued both the Muslim and Hindu Indians
in South Africa, which combined his passion for both religion and politics. Following World War
I, he began his methods of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience, combatting the social
injustices of the South African people.
At the age of 23, Gandhi decided to leave his family and travel to South Africa. While traveling
throughout South Africa, he had his first personal experience of being a victim of racial
discrimination. Despite having a first-class ticket, Gandhi was asked by train officials to move to
the third-class passenger car. Gandhi stood in defiance against the train officials and was
eventually thrown off the train. After being somewhat quiet and unmotivated as a child, he was

1 Michael J. Nojeim, Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance (Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers, 2004), 93.

McNamara 4
suddenly called to act against discrimination. Instead of going back to his family in India, he
decided to continue fighting discrimination in South Africa.
Gandhis theory of nonviolence and use of Hindu virtues
Through the influence of his mother, two main Hindu principles began to play a vital role
in Gandhis work as a political activist: satyagraha and ahimsa. Satyagraha means the Force
which is born of Truth and Love2, or in other words, being completely devoted to the truth.
Gandhi was a major supporter of truth in the world. Although he often wavered on his own ideas
of truth, he only meant this as an attempt to come closer to the Truth, which is God. He believed
changing and shifting attitudes were a hallmark of one who is singularly devoted to uncovering
the truth and saw this as a sign of growth becausehumanity is not spiritually static in its quest
to know God.3 Therefore, God is the only one who knows the absolute truth, despite peoples
efforts to find it themselves. Accordingly, Gandhi believed that violence, through physically or
emotionally destructive means, had no place in the world. If no one except God could know the
absolute truth, there is no reason to use violence against those with different beliefs than ones
own. Satyagraha was an experimental inquiry into the form of non-violent exact conduct for
solving every conceivable problem of human relations, and satygraha thus constitutes a
sdhan of karma, a means of spiritual realization through political activity.4 Gandhi used this
method in his political activity not as a means to defeat his opponent, but rather to avoid any sort
of conflict. He sought true religious and racial integration among people by applying such a
spiritual method of transformative action. He believed not only does the satyagraha avoid the
violence associated with, say firearms, but also the violence associated with ill will. Such
2 Nojeim 94.
3 Ibid., 92-93.
4 William Borman, Gandhi and Non-violence (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1986), 22.

McNamara 5
violence only serves to drive conflicts deeper. Neither weapons nor ill will can perform the
healing function that satyagraha can.5 Therefore, satyagraha was not used as a means to assert
his political power, but rather to appease the opposing sides, in hopes of bringing peace among
the people of India. Satygraha, in a sense, focused more on the individual self-spiritualization
and transformation rather than triumph over ones opponent. This realization of truth led Gandhi
to employ a common Hindu principle: ahimsa.
Stemming from Sanskrit and having central value in Hinduism, as well as other Indian religions,
ahimsa is the practice of nonviolence. Yet, for Gandhi, ahimsa means something more. Rather,
ahimsa carries with it a positive, life-affirming connotation that calls for action based not just
on the refusal to do harm, but also on the notion of doing good, even to an evildoer.6 Ahimsa not
only avoids conflict and violence, but also promotes justice, peace, and love in the world.
Ahimsa was used as a means to overcome adversities and hatred by loving all, even ones
enemies. The object of ahimsa was not to seek a triumphant victory over the opponent, but
rather to use ahimsa to conquer the tyrants inner demons.7 Gandhi used ahimsa as a
transformative means of assisting his adversaries to overcome hatred and violence. Therefore,
one must also be willing to suffer in the face of discrimination. When confronted with negativity
and violence, one will be faced with suffering; yet, suffering injury to ones self is the essence
of ahimsa.8 While Gandhi condemned any methods that caused others to suffer, he believed that
self-suffering was acceptable because it was used as a means to an end. Gandhis main emphasis
was not the end goal but rather the methods of nonviolence and meaning obtained from the
process.
5 Nojeim, Gandhi and King, 95.
6 Ibid., 98.
7 Ibid., 99.
8 Ibid., 99.

McNamara 6
How Ghandi employed Hindu virtues in the practice of nonviolence
Gandhi employed these two Hindu virtues in order to incorporate them into his methods of nonviolence resistance, non-cooperation, and civil disobedience. He said, One who hooks his
fortunes to ahims, the law of love, daily lessens the circle of destruction, and to that extent
promotes life and love; he who swears by hims, the law of hate, daily widens the circle of
destruction, and to that extent promotes death and hate.9 The promotion of love played a vital
role in Gandhis political life because it created a world of harmony, among opposing religious
groups in India. On April 13th, 1919, British general Edward Dyer and his troops open-fired at a
group of Indian peace protesters who gathered in the public center of Jallianwala Bagh. The
result of the Amritsar Massacre resulted in over 1,000 Indian deaths and several hundred other
casualties. Although Gandhi was not present during the time of the massacre, he instantaneously
responded to such inhumane treatment by changing his views of the British government. After
seeing the power and destruction it can cause, Gandhi decided he wanted complete freedom and
independence and thus formed his first campaign against the oppressive British government.
By accepting methods of nonviolent resistance as a part of his life, Gandhi not only helped to
fight for the common good of all humanity but also transformed his own inner spiritual being.
Ultimately, Gandhi emerged as a leader who attained inner-development while selflessly
transforming the world around him. In his leadership, he uses the Hindu ideas of satyagraha and
ahimsa interchangeably in order to use methods of cooperation, rather than violence, which
promote peace and create a world in which all can be treated justly. Of the non-violent man,
Gandhi says he can speak from experience his innermost conviction that he is not this body but
Atman (soul) and that he may use the body only with a view to expressing Atman, only with a
view to self-realization. And from that experience he evolves the ethics of subduing desires,
9 Borman, Gandhi and Non-violence 186.

McNamara 7
anger, ignorance, malice, and other passions.10 Ahimsa and satyagraha both center around the
idea of love; with love, rather than violence, Gandhi believes all people can be led to a greater
truth. With these two Hindu virtues as guidelines, Gandhi hopes to utilize nonviolent methods as
a means of political and social activism, in order to relieve the Indians of such discrimination.
Similarly, Martin Luther King, Jr. later inherits a similar philosophy of non-violence and
noncooperation during the American Civil Rights Movement, beginning in the mid-1950s in the
United States.
Life of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was born on January 15th, 1929 and grew up in Atlanta, Georgia. He was
brought up in a Baptist family, in which both his grandfather and father were Baptist preachers.
Apart from being raised in the Baptist church, King was also influenced as a social activist by his
education at Morehouse College and Crozier Theological Seminary. In 1954, following in the
footsteps of many of his family members, King became a pastor at the Dexter Avenue Baptist
Church in Montgomery, Alabama. He later became the first president of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, an African-American civil rights organization that was formed after the
Rosa Parks bus boycott during the American Civil Rights Movement. His role in the bus
boycotts became a fundamental turning point in his career, as he became a national symbol for
fighting racial segregation and discrimination in the United States.
Kings Christian influence on his philosophy of nonviolence
Although his original concern for social justice arose from his ethical and theological
Baptist roots, King also was deeply inspired by his reading of Gandhis works. After listening to
a man speak about the life and teachings of Gandhi at a meeting at Crozier, King became further
10 Ibid., 8.

McNamara 8
interested in learning more about Gandhi and his concepts of satygraha and ahimsa. Kings
grace, like Gandhis, grows out of a complicated relation not to oppression but to ancient
scourges of man to pain, to suffering, to death. Men who conquer the fear of these things in
themselves acquire extraordinary power over themselves and over others.11 Similar to Gandhi,
King looked at the pain of his people and sought to help them. By adapting a series of points,
King was able to create a program to properly deal with issues involving nonviolence. First, he
said, nonviolence was not for cowards12 because the possibility of the resistance the black
protestors would face by white gangs or police officers would be dangerous. Secondly, King
believed that nonviolence was not to be used to defeat or humiliate opponents but rather to win
their friendship and understanding.13 Similarly, he argued that nonviolence should be used to
fight evil and not the person caught up in those evil forces.14 He believed that violence was not
the answer to racial discrimination and segregation in the South because violence would only
lead to more violence. Rather, King believed that he, as well as other activists, should fight the
evil embedded in the system rather than the people whom are enforcing it. In Where Do We Go
From Here?, King wrote, Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate
cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. The beauty of nonviolence is that, in its own way
and in its own time, it seeks to break the chain reaction of evil.15 By basing his methods on these
certain elements, King was able to use nonviolence as a means of achieving justice.
As a historical figure prominently known for his work in diminishing racial segregation, King
also emphasized the concept of integration, in hopes of forming a beloved community.
11 Hick, John, and Lamont C. Hempel, Gandhi's Significance for Today (New York: St. Martin''s
Press, 1989), 236.
12 Nojeim, Gandhi and King, 192.
13 Ibid., 193.
14 Ibid., 193.
15 King, Martin Luther, Jr., Where do we go from here: Chaos or community? (New York:
Harper and Row, 1967) 62-63.

McNamara 9
Integration became a more powerful force than desegregation because segregation is an evil
system that is diametrically opposed to the human personality because it substitutes an I-it
relationship between people for an I-thou one.16 Although desegregation becomes a vital step
toward equality among all people, it is not complete; desegregation ends racial hatred but does
not lead to anything new. King believes the only way to form such a beloved community,
centered on integration and equality of all parts, is through means of nonviolence. On August 28,
1963, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., King addressed hundreds of
thousands people in his I Have a Dream speech, which gave hope to a future of equality and an
end to discrimination. He says, Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy. Now is
the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial
justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock
of brotherhood.17 As embedded in the American Dream of all individuals, including blacks and
whites, America is supposed to be a land of democracy and equality for all. Yet, the nation was
sinking into quicksands of racial injustice because there was no system of integration to hold
black and white people together. In his work, King applied the principle of agape as a method of
integration through the realization and recognition that all peoples lives are fully intertwined
with one another as part of Gods way and as part of a single process binding all of humanity.18
In other words, God placed everyone in His creation not only to love Him but also to love each
other fully and equally. Recognition of this fact would allow for the formation of a beloved
community.
Similar to how King believed desegregation did not imply integration, he also believed that order
and justice were not directly correlated. He believed that the government cared more about
16 Nojeim, Gandhi and King, 194.
17 I Have a Dream
18 Nojeim, Gandhi and King, 198.

McNamara 10
maintaining order within the United States rather than achieving justice. As leader of the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference King used Birmingham, Alabama as the site of his
direct action campaign. After King, along with several other members of the Birmingham
Campaign, refused to stop marching and protesting, they were arrested. While incarcerated, King
then wrote Letter from Birmingham Jail as a response to eight white clergymen who criticized
the timing of his demonstrations. He wrote, Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.
Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.19 Rather than trying to conceal the injustices
from the public, King believed in bringing such a topic to the forefront of conversation. Injustice
was not something that could be taken lightly; a direct, immediate response was necessary in
order to bring equality to a discriminated race. King called for extreme measures because he
likened his extremism to that of Christ and said, like Christ, he resisted from a position of
nonviolence and love, which placed him on solid moral ground.20 As a Baptist Christian, King
emphasized the morality of the situation at hand and was called to action by his own interior
desire to do good in the world. Therefore, promoting justice through nonviolent means enabled
further integration among whites and blacks.

How Gandhis philosophy of nonviolence influenced King

While Gandhi used his nonviolence as a means of attempting to end British rule, King took a less
extreme approach. Rather than seeking to get rid of his opponents, Gandhi sought to use
nonviolence as a way for black people to be treated equally under the American law and in
19 Letter from Birmingham Jail
20 Nojeim, Gandhi and King, 201.

McNamara 11
practice. Although Gandhi and King differ in their methods of political and social defiance, their
overall philosophy is the same. Simply, they both believed that there is a moral obligation to
resist evil.21 As men who are devout in their separate faiths, resisting evil had always been a part
of their character. The way in which they best decided to resist evil was not only through
nonviolent thoughts, but rather nonviolent action. King believes that nonviolence is not passive
resistance to evil; it is active nonviolent resistance to evil.22 Both believed that without direct
action, no progress would be made in achieving the common good. All humanity, regardless of
race, religion, ethnicity, or gender, should be allowed the unalienable right to freedom and
equality.
As previously stated, both were heavily influenced by their religious upbringings toward a life of
promotion of and action for the common good. Gandhi and King were not politicians trying to
be holy men but rather holy men trying to be politicians.23 Although Gandhi was Hindu and
King was Baptist, their religious differences did not matter as both sought to serve something
beyond their distinct religious beliefs: the common good. Yet, placing God at the center of their
missions was of vital importance in keeping them grounded when faced with adversity or hatred.
Ultimately, despite their religious differences, they were able to come together in order to
promote some of the same important values and virtues that can shape humanity in a better place:
peace, love, equality, and nonviolence. They both concluded that the important thing about
nonviolence was that it could be used on a large scale to redirect society towards a more
humane course, with a minimum loss of life and property, and thus make reform lasting.24

21 Hick, Gandhis Significance, 239.

22 Nojeim, Gandhi and King, 193.
23 Ibid., 269.
24 Hick, Gandhis Significance, 7.

McNamara 12
Through their various campaigns and protests, Gandhi and King were able to not only make a
difference in their eras, but also make changes that would last for future generations.
Conclusion
Despite religious differences, Gandhi and King used similar methodologies in order to respond to
the social injustices of their time. These leaders demonstrated the use of nonviolence as a means
to eliminate human suffering in the world. For both Gandhi and King, self-suffering became a
vital element in their teachings and diverse, yet similar, ways of life. Self-suffering created a
greater interior motive for both leaders, giving them something greater than themselves to strive
toward: the common good of all humanity. By witnessing the suffering and hatred faced by their
fellow countrymen, they felt called to duty as promoters of peace and love rather than violent
political extremists. With the integrity and self-determination of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin
Luther King, Jr., the world has taken a closer step toward achieving a sustainable level of
equality among all of humanity.

Bibliography
Borman, William. Gandhi and Non-violence. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986.
Gallagher, Charles R. "The Catholic Church, Martin Luther King Jr., and the March in St.

McNamara 13
Augustine." The Florida Historical Quarterly. Vol. 83. No. 2 (2004): pp. 149-172.
http://0-www.jstor.org.helin.uri.edu/stable/30149556 (accessed February 14, 2013).
Galtung, Johan. "On the Meaning of Nonviolence." Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 2.
No. 3 (1965): pp. 228-257. http://0-www.jstor.org.helin.uri.edu/stable/422940 (accessed
February 14, 2013).
Hick, John, and Lamont C. Hempel. Gandhi's Significance for Today. New York: St.
Martin''s Press, 1989.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. I Have a Dream. March on Washington. Lincoln Memorial:
Washington. 28 August 1963. Address.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. Letter from Birmingham Jail. Letter. 16 April 1963.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. Where do we go from here: Chaos or community?. New York: Harper
and Row, 1967.
Nojeim, Michael J. Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers, 2004.
Tauran, Jean-Louis Cardinal. Message of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue to the Hindus on the Feast of Diwali 2008. 2008.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interel
g_doc_20081028_diwali_en.html