Gandhi And Fanon: A Comparative Analysis

Improved Essays
Colonialism is a big theme in the 20th century. Both Gandhi and Fanon have written on colonialism and violence during that era. One if them is a guru of India, leading people to peace and unionship; the other is a psychiatrist working in Algeria, seeing the condition of Algerian people under the French control. Having experienced authentic colonialism during their years of service in an developing or underdeveloped country, they both have feelings to express regarding the oppression enforced by a European country onto a country in Asia or Africa. Thus came along the work of Mohandas K. Gandhi: Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule (1909) and The Wretched of the Earth. This paper aims to look at both texts, both authors, and to find the differences …show more content…
Gandhi emphasizes a passive way to regain authority of a country. The individual selves should devote their humanity and ethics to the create better world. However, Fanon took a different angle. He believed that decolonization is bound to be a chaotic duty that we take on, because only violence can take apart the status quo of the ordering of the world. It seems from the text that both authors agree on the fact that Western colonizers use brute force to gain control over underdeveloped countries as colonies; however, they differ significantly on the solution to colonial violence. According to Gandhi, means and ends do not necessarily justify each other. Since Gandhi disapproves of brute force as a means to take over a country, he does not agree with using brute force as a way to fight back. Otherwise, the Indian people would get exactly what the British people get, which is against humanity and not at all desirable. However, Fanon takes on the idea of “a tooth for a tooth”, and claimed that since the colonizers establish their superiority through violence, we will regain our equality through the same mechanism.

The two opposing ideas of Gandhi and Fanon are not reconcilable. Elements of violence are inevitable, especially for a modern state. However, governments should put into efforts into creating a defensive mechanism, which acts non-coercively to subside the violence. The state should not be playing the role of cooperating with the societal violence. To achieve that, which is not totally impossible, we would need our government officials to empathetic in order for our state to be so. The officials should show commitment to the value of non-casualty as well as that of compassion and

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Such emphasis on importance of practicing empathy matches with liberalists’ view that empathy is required in international cooperation. Failure to be empathetic, however, can cause the strong to lose and evidences that supports McNamara’s claim can be found in Record’s article. Record first introduces Andrew Mack’s argument. Mack argued “will to fight and prevail” is the ultimate determinant of which side is likely to win. According to Mack, “ for insurgents ‘war’ is total, while for the external power it is necessarily ‘limited’, meaning that weaker side has its country and independence to lose in a war so it fights with everything it has.…

    • 1211 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Fanon could only justify using violence to force the French out of Algeria, because he had witnessed the French take Algeria through violent methods. Whereby Fanon advocated for violent means, Gandhi proclaimed that by using violence as the Europeans did, one would in essence become the corrupted European, which should not have been considered desirable by the Indian person (Gandhi 81). Gandhi preferred a movement of peaceful resistance, as he believed the British arrived in India on peaceful terms, and only because the Indians allowed them to stay on their land (39). Although the philosophies of Gandhi and Fanon share the same structure, it is clear to see how each man’s experiences shaped their perspectives on colonialism and what the best method of decolonization would…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So if a monarch, or other authority infringes upon any of these rights they have cast away their own entitlement to said rights. It is in these instances, where a ruling body decides without input from the persons mentioned; that Locke believes war is justified. However, Locke does not believe that war is something that should be practiced often, and he also believes that there are other ways to ensure the rights of each individual. This is the true reasoning behind society and governments, and by extension the definitive guideline to how a ruling body should be formed. Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Cultural relativism says all one has to do is check if their action is in agreement with their societal code to determine if their action is right or wrong. But what if their societal codes are wrong? “Cultural Relativism not only forbids us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it also stops us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 34). Rachels final argument against cultural relativism is that it destroys the idea of moral progress and social change. We could not say that Martin Luther King, Jr. changed society for the better as that would be judging the social standards of another time.…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hobbes Vs Pippin The Short

    • 1150 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Anyone who would have contested their rule would have been killed. Hobbes writes "that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it" (Hobbes 80). He felt that peace was achieved under a sovereign that removed individuals from their need for self-preservation. Charlemagne, however, did not undertake peace, and instead he used his power to fight religious wars against barbarians in Europe. Hobbes writes that "successful wickedness hath obtained the name of virtue, and some that in all other things have disallowed the violation of faith, yet have allowed it when it is for the getting of a kingdom" (Hobbes 90).…

    • 1150 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    The writings of Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes Although the ideal societies of Machiavelli and Hobbes may have been plausible solutions to political violence in their respective eras, neither man’s ideas translate particularly well to a creating a peaceful society in the present day. In The Leviathan, Hobbes outlines his rationale for creating a society that is ruled by a sovereign (or “Leviathan”) who is given complete power by the people. According to Hobbes, the existence of this all-powerful sovereign prevents sinful human nature from running rampant and destroying peaceful society. Humans naturally find themselves inclined to take action in their own self-interest, regardless of the effects on humanity as a whole. These types of…

    • 1758 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    How inappropriate it is to erase some countries history and path because developed nations are set up as example and only what they do is correct. At the same time, the authors emphasize how important it is to respect each country’s autonomy and focus on their assets, their culture their success in order to achieve development. Agencies should stop focusing in the problem and how all is wrong and shift this attention to what their strengths are and how they see the world. Every underdeveloped nations deserves to right their own success story through their own fights and improvements instead of being guided towards an utopia that will never be achieved because it is not based on their culture, necessities and…

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Fanon advocated for violence in the decolonization struggle over nonviolence because he believed that the use of non-violence was unacceptable because colonized intellectuals formed relationships with the colonized in order to enrich themselves and allow the colonist to once again exploit the new independent country. Fanon also believed that during the Cold War the U.S. and Soviet Union supported countries in decolonization because they wanted to practise neo-colonialism whereby they exploited the independent country, which made former colonized countries dependent on either the communist Soviet Union or the capitalist United States for economic aid. However, ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ does not take into account the negative effects that violence had on the colonized person’s mental state or the social structures in societies that resorted to violence as a means of governing in the new independent nation. Fanon also does not take into account the major role that women had during the violent decolonization process or how they were systematically targeted by sexual violence, which was a negative aspect of violence in decolonization…

    • 1643 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Burma Case Study

    • 1855 Words
    • 8 Pages

    In Burma this means that since sanctions are already lifted, the next action to pursue is avid diplomacy. The international community cannot let political progress cloud the view of persisting human rights violations in Burma. Thus, since the reimposition of sanctions will not benefit the Rohingya minority and other minorities in the country, the international community should focus on diplomacy. A dialogue with the Burmese government should be pursued as long as there are no new worsening developments in the human rights situation. Negotiation and dialogue between the government of Burma and the international community about the Rohingya people could be plausible with Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition party in power.…

    • 1855 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This means that if an action is taken in good faith, and the desired outcome positive and beneficial to society, it must be taken, even if that means that a member of that society is harmed in doing so. If it will serve the greater good, then any action is permissible. Kant, however believes that never, under any circumstances, must one go against what is morally right. Even if an action such as lying or causing an individual harm is taken for the benefit of society, it is not okay. Bentham's utilitarian views on punishment better serve society as government…

    • 1044 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays