Violence And Non-Violence By Mohandas Gandhi And Frantz Fanon

Mohandas Gandhi and Frantz Fanon were influential persons of the twentieth century, notable for their work in post-colonialist theory and activism. Though they shared the same vision of a decolonised world, they differed in their perspectives of colonisation, decolonisation and their approach towards the latter. The paper will examine the distinction through the framework of violence and non-violence, and begin with the complete examination of Fanon’s perspective before analysing Gandhi’s with Fanon as a case for comparison.

As a psychiatrist by profession, Fanon was working in French Algeria when the Algerian War of Independence took place, and he observed the violence from the conflict that led to Algeria’s eventual independence(UNCFSU,
The centrality of violence and physical domination in the colonisation and decolonisation of Algeria —where he based his theories on due to his proximity to the situation— plays an important role in Fanon’s focus on violence in decolonisation.

Fanon opened the chapter “Concerning Violence” in his book “The Wretched of the Earth” with a proclaiming statement that “decolonisation is always a violent phenomenon”(Fanon, 1963). To understand this claim, we have to first look at what colonisation and decolonisation means, and why it is “always” violent. To Fanon, colonisation begins with physical violence in the form of “a great array of bayonets and cannons”(36) by the colonisers. He believes that the act of colonisation creates a sharp distinction between the dominating colonisers and the oppressed natives, which he defines as two different “species” living in a “world cut in two”(38,40). This can be seen manifested in the physical reality as he describes, likely inspired by his time in Algeria, the contrasting living environments of the
There was also a similar recognition of the violent nature of colonisation and the colonisers. (Gandhi, 1909) However, instead of focusing on violence in his work, as Fanon did, he turned to the complete antithesis of it: ahimsa, or non-violence. This may have been in part due to Gandhi’s pacifist religious upbringing, which had a strong influence in his later life.(history.co.uk, 2013.). Another possible factor was in the colonial paradigm in India, where Gandhi was recognised for his life’s work in decolonizing her. British involvement in India began with the intent of commerce through the East India Company. It became so lucrative to the British Empire that the revenue from trade, and subsequently taxation, was “approaching that of Britain itself”(Marshall, 1996). Therefore, it can be argued that the primary reason for the colonisation of India was to secure Britain’s economic interests. This was recognised by Gandhi, who wrote to the Viceroy of India that “If the British commerce with India is purified of greed, you will have no difficulty in recognising our independence”(Khipple, 1947). Thus, it may have appeared to Gandhi that if India stopped becoming profitable for the British, which was possible through non-violent civil disobedience, they may be