1

Comparative Analysis: Non-Violent Resistance – Gandhi and the Civil Rights

Movement

Sol Milagros Brito Sarmiento

Eliana Keila Araceli Cala

Profesorado de Inglés
Historia de las Sociedades Anglófonas

Silvia Salinas
November 14th, 2024
 2

Introduction

The non- violent resistance was a movement opposed to British extreme rule led by

Mahatma Gandhi that took place between the late 1910s and the mid-1940s, resulting in the

independence of India in 1947. In parallel, Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violent resistance

movement in the United States occurred primarily during the 1950s and 1960s, accomplishing

significant advancements in civil rights legislation and social change. Non-violence was based

on the idea of avoiding violence in every sphere of living. This principle, rooted in the Sanskrit

concept of ahimsa, emphasizes the importance of non-violent action and the belief that violence

will never be necessary to reach social or global goals.

This unusual practice of nonviolent resistance was first practiced in the early 20th

century by Mahatma Gandhi, an Indian lawyer who earned a degree in law from England in

1891 and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. He introduced the

concept of satyagraha to designate a determined but nonviolent resistance. This was a major

tool in the Indian struggle against British imperialism and has since been adopted by protest

groups in other countries.

Another relevant figure who practiced non-violent resistance was Martin Luther King Jr,

a Baptist minister known most prominently for his role as a leader in the Civil Rights Movement.

He showed great courage over his lifetime by challenging the authority with his numerous

protests and marches against racial segregation and discrimination. In this written work will

develop an analysis of the role of non-violence resistance by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin

Luther king Jr, comparing their historical contexts, philosophical foundations, strategies, and the

lasting impacts of their movements.

“Non -violence is an active force of the highest order. It is soul force of the power of Godhead

within us.” Mahatma Ghandi, 12 November 1935

 3

During the 20th century, India was under the rule of Britain imperialism characterized by

oppressive policies that exploited Indian resources and suppressed local populations. India was

struggling for independence through a long and arduous journey, marked by British colonial rule

that imposed significant economic and social burdens on the Indian people. We can analyze

undeniable key factors contributing to the rise of the non-violent resistance movement economic

exploitation, where the British colonial administration exploited India’s resources, leading to

widespread poverty. Such as heavy taxes that exceed Indian citizens’ incomes as well as Britain

policies favoring British industries and introduced the Zamindari system, where land ownership

was concentrated in the hands of a few landlords, leading to exploitation of peasants and small

farmers. While in the United States of America Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting against racial

segregation and discrimination, rooted in the kidnapping and slavery of Africans to work

primarily in plantation crops of the US South, eventually expanded to the whole country in the

next following years. African - Americans for many decades were denied equal rights. Racist

state laws called Black Codes during the Reconstruction Era and Jim Crow Laws subsequently,

deny most black people the right to vote and confine them to racially segregated transportation,

theaters, schools and restaurants throughout most of the former states. Despite imperialism and

discrimination, both leaders were truly believers in the power of non-violence that led to a huge

social change.

According to their philosophical foundations, Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha

emphasized truth force, non-violence, and self-sacrifice. He believed that through non-violent

action, individuals could awaken the conscience of the oppressor and ultimately bring about

social change. King was truly influenced by Gandhi and Christian teachings, advocating for love,

justice, and non-violent direct action. His philosophy was rooted in the belief that through non-

violent means, humanity could create a beloved community and overcome hatred and injustice.

The first strategy implemented was the civil disobedience movement by Gandhi in the

freedom struggle was Champaran Satyagraha in 1917. Persuaded by Rajkumar Shukla, an

 4

indigo cultivator, Gandhi went to Champaran in Bihar, in eastern India, to investigate the

conditions of the farmers there. The farmers were suffering under heavy taxes and an

exploitative system called tinkathia, which consisted in farmers setting aside a third of their land

for indigo cultivation, which was sold to European planters at unfair prices. Gandhi arrived in

Champaran to investigate the matter but was not permitted by the British authorities to do so.

Even though he was asked to leave the place, he refused. Gandhi was able to gather support

from the farmers and masses and when he appeared in court in response to a summons,

almost 2000 locals accompanied him. The case against him was dropped and he was allowed

to conduct the inquiry. After peaceful protests against the planters and landlords led by Gandhi,

the government agreed to abolish the exploitative tinkathia system.

On the other hand, Martin Luther King was leading a major movement in the

Montgomery bus boycott in 1955. It began after Rosa Parks, an african american woman,

refused to give up her seat to a white person on a segregated bus. Montgomery's black

community staged an extremely successful bus boycott that lasted for over a year; they refused

to use the bus system, which impacted the city’s transportation revenues. After 13 months of

mass protest, the U.S. The Supreme Court declared the segregation on public buses as

unconstitutional. King played a pivotal leadership role in organizing the protest. He highlighted

Rosas Park’s attitude in his memoir “Mrs. Parks was ideal for the role assigned to her by

history,” and because “her character was impeccable and her dedication deep-rooted” she was

“one of the most respected people in the Negro community” (1958).

Diverse strategies and tactics but same objective, fighting against discrimination and

inequality. Gandhi's strategies were based on civil disobedience, boycotts, and fasting unto

death. For instance, the Salt March was a symbolic act for dissent against British salt taxes. The

Quit India Movement, was also a social civil disobedience movement that was one of the most

prominent during the fight against segregation. King followed Ghandi’s ideals of civil

disobedience, sit-ins, and marches to challenge segregation and discrimination. The

 5

Montgomery Bus Boycott and the March on Washington were remarkable examples of their

implemented tactics in order to lead the Civil Rights Movement.

Ultimately, the profound consequences of non-violent resistance in both contexts were

radical. Gandhi's actions for an equal society and free nation were decisive in India's struggle

for independence from British imperialism, this non-violent movement was an inspiration for

millions around the world. The truth and non- violence were the foundations of satyaghraha’s

philosophy that persuaded multiple communities throughout the country, this led to the

unification and the emergence of nationalism. As a consequence, Gandhi’s movement defiance

the ruling British system and spread a sense of community in the India population.

In the same way, the leadership of Martin Luther King during the American civil rights movement

resulted in significant improvements regarding civil rights legislation, including the Civil rights

Act of 1964 and the Voting rights act of 1965. His approach of non-violence was a tool that

inspired African Americans to show the injustices they faced. Implementing peaceful protests,

marches, and well performed speeches, King established his vision of equality and justice,

firmly demonstrated with the American public. His famous “I Have a Dream” speech was and is

still a powerful symbol of the struggle for civil rights.

Nowadays, the effects and teachings of non-violence and civil disobedience that Ghandi

and King followed in the beginning of their fighting against oppression, injustice and inequality

were inspiration for current social movements around the world. The power of pursuing peace

as a resistance action was a pivotal tool for a radical social change that Ghandi and King were

truly advocating to achieve, As Martin Luther King expressed in his iconic speech “we will be

able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and

Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old

spiritual, “Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.” (1963)
 6

Conclusion

These both figures of non-violent resistance undoubtedly represent what it means to

fight for the good life and for others. King and Gandhi both share the same philosophies on their

approach to non-violence and directly opposing injustice. They believed in the equality of all

men and women and welcomed people from all backgrounds into their peaceful movements.

However, even though their philosophies are similar, they have distinct methods to fight

injustice. Gandhi led his movement, inspired for political independence, in a period in which

India was under British rule, while King’s main struggle was racial equality and civil rights.

Although the approach of non-violent means was the basis of these pacific leaders, for

King there was a place for self-defense while not primarily provoking damage. On the other

hand, Gandhi, who rejected any kind of violence, did not respond equally to hurting methods

against him.

This inspiring movement and resistance impacted in moments in which society faced

injustice, violence and discrimination; however, some of those extreme practices may have

negative results in people's safety in the while-fighting. For instance, the strategy of hunger

strikes, where people refuse to eat in order to capture attention, is a dangerous procedure that

directly affects people’s physical condition. Even though this approach is considered as a last

option, if people are damaged then there is not a real result of the fight, on the contrary, they are

injured by the cause.

In conclusion, non-violent resistance is a good choice to peaceably fight for an ideal, for

societal problems or injustices. It is not assured that the opponents will not respond with violent

methods, that is why it is primordial to preserve safety, not concluding in extreme or dangerous

practices and to bear in mind that is not only important the cause of the movement but also the

ones who fight for it.

 7

References

Byju’s. Rise of Gandhi in the Indian freedom struggle. BYJU’s. Retrieved November 14, 2024

https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/ncert-notes-rise-of-gandhi-in-indian-freedom-struggle/

#:~:text=Champaran%20Satyagraha%20(1917),taxes%20and%20an%20exploitative

%20system.

Britannica. (2023, August 24). The Montgomery bus boycott. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved

November 14, 2024 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Martin-Luther-King-Jr/The-

Montgomery-bus-boycott

Vajiram & Ravi. Mahatma Gandhi’s movements. Vajiram & Ravi. Retrieved November 14, 2024

https://vajiramandravi.com/quest-upsc-notes/mahatma-gandhi-movements/

The US Civil Rights Movements. Retrieved November 14, 2024.

https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-civil-rights-movement-1942-1968/#:~:text=The

%20movement%20helped%20spawn%20a,in%20housing%2C%20education%20and

%20employment.

Montgomery Bus Boycott. Stanford University. Retrieved November 14,2024

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/montgomery-bus-boycott

Salinas, S. (2020, August 7). APA STYLE. (´PowerPoint slides)