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
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