Site Map

Contents by Questions

Contents by Areas

Damocles

________

What made them choose nonviolence?

Comparing the Cases of Gandhi, King, and Mandela:

Radhika Rao, May, 2004

In the midst of the 2003-4 Iraq War crises and debates surrounding whether or not George W. Bush should or should not have sent U.S troops to Iraq, I found myself asking this question: Why is it that there were no anti-war protests in the U.S comparable to the scale that was seen in the late 60s and 70s when the U.S went into Vietnam? Is it because the war as it was fought at that time is not the same kind of war that is being fought today? Or is it because people do not believe in non-violence and cannot see an alternative to war? Or is it because there are no leaders of the stature of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. who can lead the people to protest against the war? Whether people support the war in Iraq or not, not many have a solution that they can offer as an alternative to dealing with the Al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. How would Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. have responded to Bush’s ‘war against terror’? Would they have been able to bring their convictions with them and transfer them to these times? How viable is nonviolence for today’s world? Though it is not the intent of this essay to directly answer these questions, it is important to state that they inform and inspire the analysis presented below.

Nonviolence is not a term that can be easily defined. To some people it suggests a cowardly and parasitic way of life, an inability to confront the oppressor; to some it is an idealistic dream that is impractical and foolish; and to some it is the highest form of heroism and the most intense form of moral courage. Nonviolence has been used to mean or refer to all of the following practices: civil disobedience, boycotts, strikes, sit-downs and sit-ins of all kinds, protest marches and rallies, the practice of conscientious objections to war, burning draft cards, etc.[1] While the word nonviolence seems to indicate not doing something, “the proponents of nonviolence seem to have understood it in a more active, positive way; as a way of life, a method for effecting social change, a political strategy to influence public opinion, moral imperative, a commandment of God, a philosophy of life, democracy in action.”[2] But most importantly, the understanding of the word nonviolence has been linked to the names and lives of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and more recently to Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. While Gandhi and King were probably able to use it the most effectively, to gain independence for India from Britain, and gain Civil Rights for Black Americans in the United States, respectively, Nelson Mandela used it to transition from a pre- to a post-Apartheid South Africa without much bloodshed. The Dalai Lama has not yet been able to secure the freedom of Tibet from China, though his philosophy of non-violence has gained the respect and following of many people around the world.

As an Indian who grew up studying the example of Gandhi as one that was primarily responsible for the independence of my home country, India, I am interested in why a movement such as that lead by Gandhi or even Martin Luther King, Jr. has not been replicated. Does non-violence need an extraordinary individual to lead human beings who might naturally tend to choose violence over nonviolence in dealing with injustice? And if this is true, what goes into the making of a leader who chooses nonviolence? What would have happened if a person such as Gandhi or King were the President of the United States at the time of the September 11th attacks? Towards understanding complex questions such as these, let us look at three leaders who used nonviolence: Gandhi, King and Mandela, and ask the following questions: What were the early influences in the lives of Gandhi and King, and Mandela that may have led them to choose nonviolence? Is there something common in their backgrounds? Is this common factor especially unique?

Different Views Of Nonviolence

Before looking at the experiences of these three leaders, it will be useful to look at their beliefs about nonviolence. For Gandhi and King, nonviolence was not just an ideal or an ethical vision. They believed it was linked with practical action. However, it is important to note that neither believed in nonviolence merely as a tactic. For both of them, nonviolence was linked with a sense of morality and value system based on love for all human beings and belief in their essential humanity. It is important to note that both were highly religious and linked their beliefs in nonviolence to their religious beliefs (which we will explore later on in the article). For both of them, justice could not be secured by violent means, and both strived conscientiously throughout their lives to fight for justice through nonviolent means alone.

However, the case of Nelson Mandela proves to be quite different. Mandela clearly did not use nonviolence throughout his leadership of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. He is said to be more influenced by the pragmatism of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and considered nonviolence more of a strategy that was useful in securing the goals of the movement that he was leading. But after years of protest and organizing through the African National Congress (ANC), Nelson Mandela grew increasingly frustrated with the government’s unresponsiveness to end apartheid, and he formed a militant branch of the ANC called Umkhoto we Sizwe or MK (Spear of the Nation), which was designed to organize and execute acts of violence that would be more harmful to government practices.[3] Thus the aims of this organization in the fight for justice were very different from that of the ANC, which espoused nonviolence. According to Mandela, nonviolence should be used only if it is effective. It was only during the years of his imprisonment, that Mandela says he realized the importance of talks and negotiations with the oppressors and other third parties. It was during this time that he says he overcame his feelings of anger and developed the generosity of spirit that is characteristic of a practitioner of non-violence.[4]

Roots

It is quite easy for me to think of a God of love mainly because I grew up in a family where love was central and lovely relationships were ever present. It is quite easy for me to think of the universe as a basically friendly mainly because of my uplifting hereditary and environmental circumstances. It is quite easy for me to lean toward optimism than pessimism about human nature mainly because of my childhood experiences. [5]

---- Martin Luther King, Jr.

King’s early years were shaped by the realities of economic depression and Jim Crow segregation, yet he was born (1929) into a family of relative power and prestige in Atlanta, a city that flourished in the twentieth century as a financial, commercial, and transportation hub of the Southeastern United States. His family’s name was legendary in Atlanta, as his mother’s father was born the year the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery, and had worked his whole life to end injustices against Atlanta’s black citizens.[6] When the NAACP was founded in 1909, he became the president of The Atlanta Chapter, and organized a boycott against a newspaper that called NAACP members, “dirty and ignorant,” and six thousand black subscribers canceled in one day, causing the newspaper to go bankrupt. King’s father too was a, fearless fighter for equal rights,” for black citizens and despite segregation. He strove along with his mother to make sure young M. L’s life was secure and happy.[7]

Gandhi too was born (1869) into and grew up in a privileged setting -- in the populous city of Porbandar, in Northwestern India. He spent his childhood in a three story ancestral house shared by his father with his five brothers and their families. Six generations of Gandhis were home ministers or prime ministers on the Kathiawar peninsula, which counted an abundance of princely states, some larger than a fairly large estate, some smaller.[8] Erik Erikson, in his biography of Gandhi, says that there was thus a certain regional, feudal and professional pride in the family that would be of, “great importance to Gandhi’s original world-image.”[9]

Nelson Mandela too, though born (1918) in one of the poorest regions of South Africa (Transkei, 600 miles short of Johannesburg), was part of royalty. His father was a hereditary chief, though he was later deposed from the chieftainship by the white local government, losing most of his cattle and income. However his family pulled together with little difficulty and his royal identity would always be a part of who he was and became.

All three individuals grew up in loving families with fathers who were proud of their heritage, and mothers who served as models of strength and compassion. Gandhi’s mother, whom he described as giving him many of his first lessons in nonviolence, is always described as an ideal housewife, “the first one to rise and the last to go to bed,” eating only when she could manage it. She never made any distinctions between her own children and other children, and the children were often forced to share more than what they could have afforded emotionally. Thus Gandhi learned early to live for and in mankind.[10] Martin Luther King’s mother, Alberta, was also a woman of education, courage and compassion, who taught him to believe in his own potential. One day when young MLK Jr. ran to his mother, upset that two white boys had refused to play with him because he was black, she soothed her son’s hurt with reassurance, “You are as good as anyone, and don’t you ever forget it.”[11] Nelson Mandela’s father had no sense of inferiority toward whites and inhabited a self-contained rural world with its own customs and rituals. He had four wives, and Mandela was the son of the third wife. Thus Mandela grew up with strong women as his caretakers, loved as a son by his four mothers who gave him a secure childhood, which he shared with his extended family of cousins, half-brothers and sisters. Throughout his life, he would feel most at ease with women -- particularly with strong women who provided lasting friendships. Thus one might say that the combination of strength and compassion in the mothers of these three individuals helped unite the masculine and feminine in them, and was a factor behind their adoption of nonviolence as a tool, rather than violence.

Early Experiences of Injustice

All three individuals experienced incidents of discrimination against them, which proved to be crucial in the development of their ideas, giving them the mission to fight for their community’s rights.

The most famous incident in Gandhi’s case is that of him getting thrown out of a first class compartment, for which he had bought a ticket, when a white man entered and refused to spend the night with a colored man. It was during that wintry night, when he stood in an outdoor train station without an overcoat, that he resolved to stay in South Africa, to root out the disease of color prejudice, even if it meant enduring hardships.[12]

Martin Luther King, Jr. too experienced many incidents of discrimination. He mentioned one incident in particular that made him the angriest that he had been in his life- when he was asked to give his seat up in the bus for a white passenger who boarded the bus. “That night will never leave my memory,” said King, recounting the episode later. Appropriately, the first nonviolent campaign that he led was the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955-56, where Black Americans boycotted segregated buses throughout Montgomery, following the incident where the now famous Rosa Parks refused to give her seat up for a white person.[13]

Needless to say, Nelson Mandela too experienced much discrimination during the times of apartheid in South Africa. Notably, Mandela recounts his first day as an employee of a so-called liberal law firm in Johannesburg, where the secretary indicated that two new tea-cups had been bought for Mandela and his African co-worker, and, though they could join the white employees for tea, they had to drink from their own tea-cups. Mandela, not wanting to offend the secretaries or alienate his new colleague, declined tea altogether and from then on took his tea in solitude. “I saw the middle path as the best and most reasonable one,” he explains. Thus here too, Mandela’s pacifism reeks of pragmatism, and Graybill[14] writes that Mandela clearly knew that there were times to compromise and times when this would not be possible.

All three leaders, though coming from privileged and educated backgrounds experienced early indignations due to their marginalized position in society -- experiences that motivated and fueled them to take the lead, to overcome these circumstances.

Erik Erikson writes in his biography of Gandhi that it was Gandhi’s belief that he was the only person equipped by fate to reform a situation such as this, which gave him the conviction to embark upon and sustain this long nonviolent battle against injustice.[15] Did all three individuals experience a sense of mission that only they could save their community / country / people from oppression? Where did this come from? Was it from religion?

Religion

Nonviolence is 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. When nonviolence is accepted as the law of life it must pervade the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts.[16]

---- Mahatma Gandhi

Both Gandhi and King grew up in very religious households.

Gandhi’s mother was extremely religious, vegetarian (as per the norms of Hinduism as practiced by her community), and painstakingly observed religious austerities such as fasting. On the other hand, she was an, “utterly un-dogmatic religious person of a kind who wished to pursue only what made her feel right and clean.”[17] She imbued her son with a tolerance for any religion as long as it cultivated a deep sense of communion with the unseen and silent. Gandhi’s belief in ahimsa or nonviolence and his method of Satyagraha or struggle for the truth can be directly connected to his religious beliefs.

King too grew up in a religious family. His father and grandfather had been ministers in churches, and King decided after college to preach at the Ebenezer church and joined the Crozer Theological Seminary. Though Christianity cannot be directly linked with pacifism, King drew from Christianity to reinforce his belief in nonviolence, which he first learnt about in college. In fact it was at Crozer that he heard Abraham Muste, a well known pacifist (called the “American Gandhi”) and Presbyterian minister, speak about peace and civil rights, and then later Dr. Mordecai Johnson speak about Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent campaign against British domination. Martin Luther King thus drew from the concept of universal love in Christianity, saying that nonviolent action was not only against racial injustice but all injustice that must be overcome by the force of love and compassion, not hatred and violence.

Both King and Gandhi would turn to prayers at critical moments. Each would invoke God when he felt weak or helpless. Both found strength in prayer to sustain their struggle for freedom and justice. Thus their religion was not only a source of their belief in nonviolence but also a force that sustained them, giving them much needed courage at critical moments.

Nelson Mandela offers a different case. Mandela has admitted that he is, “not particularly religious or spiritual,” although he admires what the faith community did to oppose apartheid. For him, it was not religion but rather the strength of his commitment to a nonracial democracy that sustained him. And of course, Mandela did not completely disavow armed struggle either. As noted, he attributes his transition from violence to non-violence to his experience in prison, where he learned to control his anger. He explains:

It was during those long and lonely years that my hunger for the freedom of my own people became a hunger for the freedom of all people, white and black. I knew as I knew anything that the oppressor must be liberated as surely as the oppressed, for all had been robbed of humanity. When I walked out of prison, that was my mission, to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both.[18]

Thus even though Mandela claims he is not religious, his transformation seems to be deeply spiritual, a change that gave him the conviction to lead his country to a miraculously peaceful transformative period from the pre- to post-apartheid period. However one must not be led to believe that this transformation was like an inner calling that led Mandela to choose nonviolent means to lead his people to freedom. For Mandela, it was a pragmatic decision - a choice he realized he must make. He explains:

“We have got to learn to live together, to transcend prejudices, to resolve our differences amicably, to respect one another and together reach toward co-operation and attainable common goals. Those are some of the things that I learned in prison.”[19]

Education and Travel

All three leaders, Gandhi, King, and Mandela, were very well-educated; each left their home environments, traveling far to gain new experiences. Each read about intellectuals who espoused nonviolence or met individuals who would inspire them to use nonviolence.

Gandhi left his country at the young age of 19, and sailed for England and then South Africa, places where he continued his experiments with nonviolence, vegetarianism, gaining more and more in confidence. He also read extensively, referring to Leo Tolstoi and Rousseau as the mentors who inspired him to take up the path of non-violence and use the method of civil disobedience respectively.

 Martin Luther King, Jr. was highly educated. He too traveled to Boston to complete his doctoral studies in Theology, besides traveling to Ghana and then India where he had a chance to visit many places where Gandhi and many followers of Gandhi who had influenced him deeply had worked. He was introduced to Gandhi’s philosophy by Dr. Modercai Johnson, when Johnson came to deliver a lecture at King’s college. Johnson had been a student at the college and King was greatly impressed by what Johnson had to say about Gandhian ideals and practice. Ultimately, King used many of Gandhi’s strategies, developing them to fit the needs of the civil rights movement in the United States.[20]

Mandela too was highly educated, mostly at missionary institutions for Africans-- Clarkebury Institute, Healdtown, and Fort Hare, where he came into contact with African teachers and fellow students who served as role models. Some of his new acquaintances refused to behave in a servile manner around the white man and did not accept uncritically their assigned place in society. At the age of 23, he left for Johannesburg, looking for work and new opportunities. It was there, he says, that his life was steered in the direction of the struggle for freedom of the African people in South Africa. It was there that he met Albert Luthuli, who inspired him to use non-violence. At the same time, he found friends such as Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu, with whom he formed a Youth league within the ANC to push for militant action. Mandela too read and heard about Gandhi, and was especially inspired by his work in South Africa and also by his success in gaining independence for India. However he admits that he was more inspired by the pragmatism of Nehru rather than the conscientious and moral practice of nonviolence by Gandhi. He continued to believe that nonviolence was not a moral principle, but a strategy, that should not be used if it is ineffective.

Mandela’s exposure to Johannesburg pushed and pulled him toward and away from non-violence. His education continued after his imprisonment (he was convicted of high treason for his involvement with the ANC in 1965), where his commitment to nonracialism was tested. However instead of feeing helpless, he took advantage of this time to educate not only fellow prisoners but also the white warders, to whom he always tried to be decent. The ANC had trained him to educate everyone, and believe that everyone, white and black, is capable of change, and that he should make his best effort to sway everyone away from apartheid practices. This is similar to Gandhi, Nehru and King, who used their imprisonment for further growth and self-education.

Thus all three leaders were highly educated, and not just formally: they also continued to educate themselves throughout their lives, learning and developing their ideas. Gandhi, in particular, placed great emphasis on learning from failures. Thus one is tempted to ask the question: Does the practice of non-violence require a more educated mind? Can a mind that is not exposed to intellectuals such as Tolstoi or Rousseau or the works of Gandhi, gain conviction enough to use and sustain the use of nonviolence?

Implications and Directions for the Future:

These then are just some of the early influences and experiences that shaped the lives of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela. Certain of these factors do not seem to be extraordinary or unique. Leaders such as Gandhi demonstrated early signs of using non-violence in a conscientious manner, but there is no such sign from the early life of Nelson Mandela, who seems to have gained conviction concerning nonviolence as his life progressed. While Gandhi was more of the ascetic, King, and Mandela did not have the same qualities. Thus even though all three used nonviolence, their styles and personalities were very different. Accordingly, it is difficult to say that a particular person or a certain family background is more likely to lead to the development of a leader who uses non-violence. However other factors explored above- loving families, compassionate and strong female influences, strong family pride, privileged, educated background, and religiosity/spirituality may give us some ideas about the same. It would be interesting to compare their childhood and youth experiences with that of leaders such as Hitler or Milosevic, who used violence, and see whether there are any points of comparison.

Having stated this, there is a need to acknowledge limitations to the above analysis. It assumes that one can find a source for the belief in and use of nonviolence in childhood or youth experiences. For instance, Erik Erikson in his biography of Gandhi attempts to explore what it may have been in Gandhi’s nature and in his background, “in his childhood and in his youth, that fashioned him in such a way that he grew to be one who would make history,”[21] However this method of analysis excludes an individual’s adult experiences, and, from Mandela’s case at least, it seems clear that nonviolence is a strategy that may be adopted later on in life, after careful reflection that may happen in moments of isolation or space[22] where the individual has an opportunity away from the immediate site of struggle to think about his/her strategies toward securing the desired goal of justice for his/her people. The lives of Gandhi, King and Mandela might seem more useful to us (rather than looking at them simply as exceptional individuals, who appear only once in history) if we can extrapolate those moments in their lives that were crucial to their belief and use of nonviolence and see whether we can foster an environment where such reflective spaces may be generated for individuals-- both children and adults.

In the case of Gandhi, King and Mandela—each had that space to develop their ideas, whether it was in university or in their stay abroad or in jail. For Gandhi, nonviolence was an idea that he seemed always to believe in—something that could be attributed to his upbringing and religious beliefs and furthermore that was validated by his reading of the works of stalwarts like Tolstoi and Rousseau. King’s ideas about nonviolence were inspired by Gandhi, who became mentor-like for him, and he then found further support for his beliefs in Christianity and its emphasis on love and forgiveness. Mandela’s conviction concerning nonviolence developed in prison, as his anger subsided and he began to see the strategic use of nonviolence in helping his people transition peacefully from an apartheid- to a post-apartheid society. Thus this space that each leader had helped them to build their belief in nonviolence and work on their plan of action.

This space becomes important when we begin to look at the effectiveness of peace education programs which seek to educate or re-educate people so that they develop tolerance, mutual respect and are able to see the perspective of the other with empathy. It becomes important if we begin to think of ways in which we can make peace education successful with those who do not aspire to heroism[23] or have heroic qualities like Gandhi, Mandela and King. Many academics studying and writing about peace education agree that space is important.[24] Such space could be a personal space that an individual has or an interpersonal space where the two parties meet, spend time with each other and learn to see the other’s perspective and respect the other and move away from negative stereotypes of the other. This space could be a physical space generated by bringing the parties together, or giving each party time and space to move beyond anger and gather information that would dilute the negative stereotype of the other. On the other hand, this space could be a non-physical space- a space that is filled by peace education, where the parties get an opportunity to gain knowledge about multiple perspectives, read about philosophies of nonviolence and successful application of nonviolent strategies, and get training to being to apply those nonviolent behaviors in different spheres of their lives. From Gandhi’s, King’s and Mandela’s examples, we can see that nonviolence was a habit of the mind that each of them strove to develop. Even though, for Gandhi, nonviolence was a habit that seemed more natural than for Mandela, it was nonetheless a habit that they all struggled to incorporate in their lives. Of course, it is unrealistic to expect every individual to be born with intellectual, emotional and spiritual mettle like that of Gandhi, King and Mandela, and to train themselves in nonviolence. However there may be hope in peace education- the success of which may depend on who leads the initiative and the efficiency of the initiative.

Also it is important to move beyond the example of Gandhi, King and Mandela and to look at other less known examples of non-violent initiatives and more recent examples of the same to be able to see if nonviolence is indeed a viable option for today’s day and age.[25] As opposed to looking at nonviolence as an all-encompassing strategy, it may be useful to look at its application in more limited, narrower cases,[26] especially those that have been undertaken by non-government organizations and individuals. This might offer more concrete solutions for modern day application of nonviolence in conflict-ridden areas.

The reader might have noticed that peace education has crept into the analysis as it moved from the past to the present relevance of nonviolence- a phrase that was absent in the beginning of the analysis. Though the words are not the same, it can be argued that the principles driving both are similar- respect of the other, tolerance, belief in a peaceful resolution etc. In fact any discussion of peace education must include a basic familiarity with the lives and work of Gandhi, King and Mandela. It may useful then to think of ways in which we can integrate the vocabulary used by Gandhi, King and Mandela and translate it for modern audiences so that it can be accommodated in current peace education curricula and discourses. This may help make the lives of Gandhi, King and Mandela more relevant to our present-day situation.

Gandhi, King and Mandela were all products of different times in history. Mandela, in fact represents a living example of a leader who uses nonviolence. It would be interesting to compare the different historical periods when they lived and practiced their nonviolent strategies, to the present day and see whether there is something we can learn from their examples- their upbringing, education and personalities.

There may be merit in looking at the lives and sources of inspiration for Gandhi, King and Mandela, but it is important not to stop there, but to use that knowledge to take a critical look at our own assumptions about present-day conflicts and struggles for justice, with regards to the viability of nonviolence as a strategy. It might be useful to develop curricula and hold workshops and small-group discussions where an analysis of Gandhi, King and Mandela is followed by questions such as these:

Is nonviolence a strategy specific only for certain times in history and not for others? Are these the times for nonviolence?

How would Gandhi, King, and Mandela have handled the Iraq crisis? Given their early influences, would they have decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan if they were leading the United States today?

These questions may be hypothetical, but there may be great potential in hypothetical reflection as a way to solve problems. It may be the link between the past and the present needed to make history relevant to those who live today.

In conclusion I would like to briefly revisit the questions posed at the beginning of this analysis. From the understanding gained from this preliminary look at the Gandhi, King, and Mandela’s lives, it appears that nonviolence demands strength of character, resilience, self-awareness and education, rather than a particular historical time frame. All three leaders chose nonviolence at a time when their people were being oppressed. Of course they were extraordinary people, capable of generating a powerful narrative that would lead their people to accept nonviolence as an option[27]. However one can argue that these qualities are learnt behaviors and that students who go through an education where nonviolence is valued and peace education, a part of their curriculum, may develop the same sensibilities as these leaders, or at least be less likely to choose violent methods than they would without such a curriculum. From our analysis, it appears that education is an important factor in the choice of nonviolence, and that any attempt to foster a less violent society cannot be undertaken without taking education into account. Nelson Mandela writes, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” [28] Let us hope that inspired by the lives of Gandhi, King and Mandela, peace education lives up to its promise.

References

Erikson, E. H. (1970). Gandhi’s Truth: On the origins of militant nonviolence (pp). W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Gardner, H. (1997). Influencer: The case of Gandhi, Extraordinary minds; portraits of exceptional individuals and an examinations of our extraordinariness (1st ed., pp. 104-23). New York: Basic Books.

Graybill, L.S. (2002). Nelson Mandela: Pragmatic Reconciler, Truth and reconciliation in South Africa: miracle or model? (pp. 11-22). Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Hanigan, James P. (1984). Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Foundations of Nonviolence (pp). University Press of America, Inc.

Moses, G. (1997). Revolution of Conscience: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Philosophy of Nonviolence (pp), The Guilford Press.

Perkins, D.N. (2004). From Hitler to Gandhi: how leaders wield the forces that lead to war or peace, Sketch of forthcoming book- Peace, war and human nature (pp. 77-81). Cambridge, MA

Sampson, A. (1999). Mandela. (pp), Alfred A. Knopf, Inc

Patterson, L. (1989). Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Freedom Movement, Facts on File, Inc. New York.

Internet Links

www.anc.org.za/people/Mandela.html

www.mkgandhi.org   

Endnotes