Phillips

William Eric PhillipsHY 104-07Dr. Molly Johnson

Non-Violent Resistance: Dr. King’s walk in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi

While the civil rights movement in the United States brought incredible change from the

status quo, it did not develop inside a vacuum. This is not to say that the changes brought about

are any less remarkable, but rather that the changes developed not spontaneously, but from a

doctrine that was taking hold in many nations around the world: the doctrine of non-violent

resistance developed and honed largely by Gandhi. While the ideas developed by Gandhi were

undoubtedly effective as utilized in India against the colonial power of Great Britain, because of

the large differences in culture and practice standing between the majority of Indians and the

majority of Black-Americans, many leaders of the early civil rights found it necessary to “re-

package” the methods in a more Christian ethos. Through the influence of Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr. and his predecessors, the idea and method of non-violent resistance was filtered into the

US in such a way as it could be effectively employed by western (especially Christian) culture.

While Gandhi employed and largely developed the methods of passive resistance in an attempt to

bring India out of British control and to hopefully bring an end to the caste system, Dr. King

employed them in search of racial equality. While Dr. King was not able to meet Gandhi

personally, through various methods of transnational diffusion, Gandhi inspired him.

Neither Dr. King, nor Gandhi had early life goals of extreme resistance; they weren’t

raised by public revolutionaries, nor did their lives seem to be aimed in that direction. For

Gandhi, he was serving as an English-trained barrister in South Africa when he first began his

push towards change after having been forcibly removed from a train after refusing to relinquish

his first-class seat to a European passenger. (Nojeim 28) After experiencing a host of injustices,

1

Phillips

and after having witnessed the same injustices perpetrated against others, Gandhi began to press

back; however, because of his deeply held Hindu beliefs, he opted for methods of non-violent

resistance. While Gandhi was not the first to practice non-violent means of resistance, he did

practically codify it, impose a strict organizational structure, and make it into an actual method

as opposed to only a philosophy. (Chabot 205) Gandhi would continue to hone and sharpen this

methodology throughout much of his time in South Africa into what he would eventually term

satyagraha, or “truthforce” (Nojeim 25). During this time in South Africa (roughly 1893-1914),

he pushed for Indian rights. Conflict on a large scale eventually erupted following the 1906 Act

compelling Indians in South Africa to register on lists, provide fingerprints, and face deportation

if they did not consent to registration, or if they were unable to meet the deadline imposed by the

government. As part of his developing satyagraha stance, jail-going was common, which

involves “willingly accepting the punishment…in order to draw attention to the injustice”

(Nojeim 25). Upon his return to India in 1915, he was almost immediately asked to join the

Indian National Congress, of which he assumed leadership in 1920. Gandhi tirelessly pushed for

Indian welfare and pushed against the oppressive weight of colonial rule. To this end, he

developed a three part social welfare system involving the making of homespun cloth, the

increase of Hindu and Muslim unity, and finally the ending of so-called “untouchability”

(Nojeim 27). The resistance to colonial oppression eventually fomented into an outright

declaration of Independence in 1930, which wasn’t fully met until 1947; however, from

beginning to end, Mahatma Gandhi and his satyagraha was the driving force behind the

movement. It was this success that led many academics and early civil rights leaders from around

the world to meet with Gandhi, study his methods, and spread his pedagogy.

2

Phillips

Throughout the 1930s, the ideas of Gandhi spread beyond India and South Africa,

primarily through transnational visitations. Some Black-American leaders in America had heard

of Gandhi’s successes, but often found themselves questioning whether such methods could be

implemented in America to a Christian audience. This doubt can be summed in two phrases:

“over-likeness” and “hyper-difference” (Chabot 207). Many leaders felt that the Gandhian

repertoire could not be applied in America, because Gandhi himself largely grounded his

concepts in Hindu theology and philosophy. This is further complicated by Gandhi’s image of

“otherness,” enhanced by his simple national clothing, usage of Hindu metaphor, and myth in his

teachings. (Rudolph 92) Others felt that the self-sacrificing Gandhi had become an almost Christ

like figure, and that western culture was already inundated with enough of this and that it could

such a figure could not serve to ignite political direction. (Chabot 206-7) Despite the difficulties

created by transnational diffusion, visitations between countries began in 1929 when several of

Gandhi’s closest allies came to America to tour and hopefully “eradicate stereotypes about

Gandhi and India” (Chabot 207). This tour encouraged further study and perusal of Gandhi and

his ideas. In 1930, two students of Howard University, Martin Cotton and Vivian Coombs,

refused to give up their seats on a bus from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. Chabot points out

that these acts of “personal civil disobedience” occurred only a few days following Gandhi’s

“Salt March” in India. By the end of the 1930s, several Black-American leaders decided to visit

India to gain first hand experience, among these, Howard Thurman and Benjamin Mays: the

dean of Howard University Chapel, and Dean of the Howard University School of Religion,

respectively, and the eventual mentors of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Upon their return from

India, Howard University became a testing ground for the methods learned in India, and the

Gandhian repertoire moved firmly into the sphere of American Civil Rights. From here, the

3

Phillips

method of nonviolent resistance spread rapidly amongst intellectual spheres, and was parceled

out to multitudes of people through educational institutions, and even such places as labor

unions. In 1942, A. Philip Randolph, a Black-American labor leader, implemented the

techniques of Gandhi, by uniting them in purpose with the sit-in strikes. (Chabot 210) He

developed a system of practices, and outlined how the nonviolent resistance techniques should be

utilized. He set forth a plan of action to take the Gandhian repertoire from the realm of academia

into practice.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was raised in a highly religious household, and despite initial

misgivings about religious practice, eventually became a highly spiritual man. In 1944, King was

admitted to Morehouse College where he encountered the aforementioned Benjamin Mays.

Throughout King’s college career, and then following for the remainder of his life, Mays served

as a mentor, friend, and confidant. In 1955, his studies led him to Boston University to pursue a

PhD in systematic theology. There, he came under the mentorship of the aforementioned Howard

Thurman. From his first introductions to the Gandhian repertoire, King immediately sought out

more information, (Randolph 110) and under the tutelage of Mays, Thurman, and a host of other

figures, King rapidly grew in knowledge of Gandhi, his methods, and how they were already

being implemented in resistance efforts in the United States. Of Gandhi’s influence, Dr. King has

said, “Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method” (Stride

Toward Freedom, King 84-85). Dr. King rapidly came to see the benefits of the methods and

how they might be effective when faced with a recalcitrant majority, and further, began

implementing them. From this implementation, like Gandhi, Dr. King became accustomed to the

punitive system, but saw these imprisonments as catalysts for change. A sense of social

responsibility emerges as a product of “ingroup” communication that develops against an unjust

4

Phillips

punitive system. (Morselli 309-10) Systemic racism is often difficult to directly observe,

especially when one is attempting to observe as part of the system, and therefore, peaceful

acquiescence to punitive measures can actually serve to highlight the systems own preferential

biases. (Morselli 308) Dr. King continued to develop his own techniques of nonviolent resistance

and began to see the actions of retaliatory violence, typified by such radical figures such as

Malcolm X, as unacceptable. (Randolph 112) King spread his ideas through his ministry, and

utilized Christian language to communicate the ideas of Gandhi to his followers; however, the

first major test to these methods came on 1st of December, 1955 with the arrest of Rosa Parks in

Montgomery, AL.

Following the arrest of Ms. Parks, the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), led

by Dr. King, instituted a boycott of the bus system. To stand in protest against an imprisonment,

which in modern terms would be considered deplorable, but at the time deemed acceptable, was

difficult to say the least. Rosa Parks was imprisoned for refusing to give her seat to a white

passenger, as she was already seated. When she refused, she was jailed, but as has been

previously noted, the harsh punishments of the punitive system can serve as incredible catalysts

against a hostile hegemonic racism, against which active violent protest would be even more

difficult, if not impossible. Dr. King, relatively new to Montgomery, was asked to chair the

newly formed MIA and quickly set about developing a resistance. By the 5th of December, the

organization had staged a boycott during which the majority of Montgomery’s black citizens

refused to ride the bus system. Later that evening, it was decided that the boycott would

continue, and it did so, despite retaliation from white Montgomery leaders, a bombing of Dr.

King’s home, and a number of other injustices. The movement gained national notoriety and

publicity, largely because of the nonviolent methods utilized by the participants. News agencies

5

Phillips

across the nation were able to tell about the brutality utilized against the peaceful protestors. A

number of lawsuits emerged from the continued boycotts, but the most significant two arose in

June and November of 1956. Browder v. Gayle was the definitive turning point for the

community when it was decided that bus segregation was unconstitutional: at the federal circuit

level in June, and with SCOTUS in November.

According to Dr. King, “In the summer of 1957, the name of Mahatma Gandhi was well

known in Montgomery” (STF, King 51). He had successfully implemented and disseminated the

Gandhian repertoire to people that helped to win a momentous victory, and while it can certainly

be said that he made the techniques his own, Dr. King himself notes his indebtedness and that of

the movement to the ideas of Gandhi. Therefore, in the winter of 1959, he left for India to visit

the country that had assisted so greatly in the ideas from which he and so many others had

benefitted. When talking of his trip he called the Montgomery Bus Boycott an “experiment with

the non-violent resistance technique” (My Trip, King 88). He credited Gandhi with its

development and saw himself as helping to run trials to benefit the more universal movement

towards freedom. So while Gandhi never visited the United States, his ideas, nevertheless, made

an incredible impact on US history. Many critics of the Gandhian technique said that it was too

passive, and that it was weak, comparable to surrender and non-resistance, but to this, Dr. King

says, “true non-violent resistance is not an unrealistic submission to evil power. It is rather a

courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the

recipient of violence than the inflictor of it” (King 88).

6

Phillips

Works Cited

Chabot, Sean. “Transnational Diffusion and The African American Reinvention of Gandhian Repertoire” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 5.2 (Fall 2000): 201-216. Mobilization Metapress. Web. 28 Feb 2015.

King, Martin Luther. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., Volume V: Threshold of a New Decade, January 1959-December 1960. Ed. Clayborne Carson. Berkeley: U of California, 2005. 231-238. Print.

King, Martin Luther. Stride toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. Ed. Clayborne Carson. Boston: Beacon, 2010. Print.

Morselli, Davide; Passini, Stefano. “Avoiding Crimes of Obedience: A Comparative Study of the Autobiographies of M. K. Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr.” Peace and Conflict. 16 (2010): 295-319. Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group. Web. 20 March 2015.

Nojeim, Michael J. “Gandhi and King: A Comparison” International Third World Studies Journal and Review 16 (2005): 25-35. University of Omaha at Nebraska. Web. 1 March 2015.

Rudolph, Lloyd I., and Susanne H. Rudolph. Postmodern Gandhi and Other Essays: Gandhi in the World and at Home. Chicago: U Of Chicago, 2006. Print.

7