Non-violence as a Way of Life

How do we deal with extreme violence without using force in return? When someone is facing brutality, whether it’s a child facing a bully in the playground or whether it's a country like Ukraine, facing a military force attacking their country, what is the most effective thing to do? Should we fight back and use force, should we just give in, is it even logical to try and rid the world of violence by using violence as a tool, or are there alternative methods that can be effective? 

In this post, we will focus on three key figures in the world of nonviolent resistance: Leo Tolstoy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi. We will consider their ideas on civil resistance, where unarmed civilians use tactics such as protests, boycotts and demonstrations and lots of other forms of mass non-cooperation, in order to seek change. Key to this idea of nonviolent protest is that the participant does not want to make their opponent suffer; rather they are showing that they are willing to suffer in order to bring about change.

Martin Luther King Jr

King was incarcerated well over a dozen times for his stance on black rights and freedom. He was prepared to use any means necessary, apart from violence, to effect change. He marched, petitioned, lobbied, lectured, preached and was arrested in the name of freedom. King was willing to face down detractors, both black and white, in order to explain his views.

Sparked by the arrest of Rosa Parks on the 1st December 1955, the Montgomery bus boycott was a 13-month mass protest that ended with The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that segregation on public buses is unconstitutional. The Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) coordinated the boycott, and its president, Martin Luther King Jr., became a prominent civil rights leader as international attention focused on Montgomery. The bus boycott demonstrated the potential for nonviolent mass protest to successfully challenge racial segregation and served as an example for other southern campaigns that followed. In Stride Toward Freedom, King’s 1958 memoir of the boycott, he declared the real meaning of the Montgomery bus boycott to be the power of a growing self-respect to animate the struggle for civil rights.

King established a set of nonviolence principles in this book. Below is a short summary of his ideas:

Non-Violence Is Not for the Faint of Heart

Practicing non-violence takes strength and resolve. It is not a pathway for those who seek to avoid conflict, as there is nothing passive about it. Rather this is an active stance, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. Those who practice are always looking for ways to persuade their opponents and looking for methods to effect change. They are in community with those suffering, building bridges of influence to those in power, and seeking to build support for their cause.

Non-Violence Seeks to Defeat Injustice, Not People

Is it not true that those who commit evil are also victims of its power? King knew that the true battle for justice lies between good and evil, darkness and light. He saw those who would oppress him as also being victims of systemic injustice. Seeing one’s enemies in this light helps us to view them sympathetically and focus on the root cause of the problem. King again echoed the Bible when he said that our struggle is ultimately not against particular people but systems - the principalities and powers.

The Goal of Non-Violence is Reconciliation

A wise person knows that you do not change a person by mocking or humiliating them. On this topic, King wrote:

“Nonviolence does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent but to win friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through non-cooperation or boycotts, but he realises that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness."

Redemptive Suffering Holds Transformational Power

Perhaps the most important principle under the theory of non-violence is the power of undeserved suffering. The nonviolent resister is willing to accept violence if necessary, but not to inflict it, knowing that the suffering they endure has great power to change hearts and minds.

King paraphrased Gandhi when he wrote:

“We will match your capacity to inflict suffering with our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws. Do to us what you will and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children; send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities and drag us out on some wayside road, beating us and leaving us half dead, and we will still love you. But we will soon wear you down by our capacity to suffer. And in winning our freedom we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process.”

Think of the Civil Rights movement. The pictures of young men and women being spit on for sitting at lunch counters, burned with cigarettes, kicked in the head by police. These images woke white America up and spurred outrage and outcry against segregation. Had these young people burned the lunch counters or thrown a punch, we would understand it in hindsight. But it would have backfired on their cause, played into racist segregationists’ hands, and allowed them to be painted as criminals. Instead, their ability to endure unjust suffering was redeemed in the overthrow of Jim Crow.

Non-Violence Pertains to Physical Acts and Internal Thoughts

The nonviolent resister refuses to physically harm his opponent, but they also refuse to hate them. At the base of a nonviolent philosophy is the principle of love. For King, love (specifically the agape kind of love discussed by Plato) is proof of the power of God working within us, enabling us to care for those who would seek to harm us. Nonviolent love is in a way a weapon, it disarms your opponent and shields you from becoming them.

The Universe Is on the Side of Justice

King was an eternal optimist. And to do this work consistently, optimism is an essential outlook. The believer in nonviolence has deep faith in the future. King wrote. He knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship. There is a creative force in this universe that works to bring the disconnected aspects of reality into a harmonious whole.

Famous Quotes by King on Non-violence:

“In spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace.”

“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. It is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding, and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals”.

“Nonviolence is absolute commitment to the way of love. Love is not emotional bash; it is not empty sentimentalism. It is the active outpouring of one’s whole being into the being of another.”

Mahatma Gandhi

A massive influence on Martin Luther King was Mahatma Gandhi. With Gandhi, the notion of nonviolence attained a special status. He not only theorised on it, he adopted nonviolence as a philosophy and an ideal way of life. He made us understand that the philosophy of nonviolence is not a weapon of the weak; it is a weapon, which can be tried by all.

Although nonviolence was not Gandhi;s invention, he is often referred to as the father of nonviolence because according to Journalist Mark Shepard, He raised nonviolent action to a level never before achieved. Indian Author and Freedom Fighter, Krishna Kripalani adds: Gandhi was the first in Human history to extend the principle of nonviolence from the individual to the social and political plane. While scholars were talking about an idea without a name or a movement, Gandhi is the person who came up with the name and brought together different related ideas under one concept: Satyagraha. Meaning ‘Truth Force’.

The real significance of the Indian freedom movement in Gandhi’s eyes was that it was waged non-violently. He would have had no interest in it if the Indian National Congress had not adopted Satyagraha and subscribed to non-violence. He objected to violence not only because unarmed people had little chance of success in an armed rebellion, but because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved, and left a trail of hatred and  bitterness in which genuine reconciliation was almost impossible.

However, Gandhi did not think that his non-violent approach was a tool for people who were scared to take up arms and fight for their country, which was an accusation that was sometimes made against his ideology. Gandhi said:  

“My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach non-violence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes.”

As this quote alludes to, as a very last resort, Gandhi did permit violence but believed that non-violence was infinitely superior to violence. When Gandhi was brutally assaulted in 1908, his son asked him what he should have done if he had been there. In this instance, Gandhi permitted that it would have been better to defend his father, even if by violent means, than to run away as a coward. However, to defend his father non-violently would have been the ultimate aim.

The Salt March Protest as an illustration of non-violent protest

At this time, the British Empire had a stranglehold on salt in India and heavily taxed it, which made it difficult for Indians, particularly poor Indians, to buy salt. Indians could even go to jail for making their own salt. For Gandhi this issue encapsulated the evil tyranny of colonialism and was something Gandhi wanted to take action on. Next to air and water, salt is perhaps the greatest necessity of life, as Gandhi put it. He decided to arrange a mass protest over these salt laws that would hopefully help to invigorate the Indian cause of independence from the British Empire. Other activists in India, however, thought the idea was laughable and protesting against salt laws was not powerful enough. The British Authorities appeared not to be concerned either with the Viceroy of India writing At present the prospect of a salt campaign does not keep me awake at night.

But for Gandhi, this was a crucial matter, demanding non-violent resistance. And, while non-violence was always at the heart of Gandhi’s philosophy, he clearly regarded the planned salt march as a kind of military campaign. We are entering upon a life and death struggle, a holy war, he said.

After Gandhi and his followers marched from his ashram in Ahmedabad on 12 March 1930, they reached their destination of the coastal town Dandi, which was over 240 miles away. Here, Gandhi committed the decisive and momentous act. He calmly and deliberately broke the salt laws by evaporating sea water to make his own salt. Raising a handful of salty mud in his hand, he declared: With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.

The success of the march inspired mass disobedience across the land, with millions of people following Gandhi’s example by breaking the salt laws. It’s estimated that around 60,000 people were eventually arrested by the British, and Gandhi himself was hauled away while preparing for a non-violent raid on the Dharasana Salt Works in Gujarat.

The raid carried on without him, with the protestors staying true to Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence, even as they were attacked by the police. Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows, journalist Webb Miller reported. They went down like ten-pins. From where I stood I heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls.

The salt satyagraha—or campaign of nonviolent resistance that began with Gandhi’s march—is a defining example of using escalating, militant, and unarmed confrontation to rally public support and effect change.

Famous Gandhi Quotes on Non-violence:

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall... think of it, always.”

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

“There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for.”

Leo Tolstoy - Christian Anarchism

A big influence on both Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi was Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy started his career as a cadet in the Russian Army and took active part in the Crimean campaign. However, after witnessing the horrors of war and the huge and meaningless loss of human life in the most ruthless manner, he emerged as the greatest champion of non-violence. Non-violence became the ethical basis for his doctrine of Truth Force which was later developed by Mahatma Gandhi in his Satyagraha Philosophy and Martin Luther King in his concept of Soul-Force. Tolstoy was a thorn in the side of organised religion and, even more so, a vigorous opponent of the state, as he believed that both institutions were in conflict with the teachings of Christ. As a way of life, Tolstoy believed that Christ’s Sermon on the Mount could not be improved upon. Not only are Christians called to love their enemies, but even more challengingly, to resist no evil. He believed that the concept of non-violence was a core message of the Gospels. Tolstoy promoted the idea that to be a Christian is to be a fool and a social outcast, and that anyone who desires to follow Christ has to be prepared to die as an enemy of the state, and to be spiritually nailed to the cross.

Through this interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, Tolstoy argued that Christianity inherently conflicts with governments, since they innately judge, imprison, kill, and retaliate —actions which oppose the commandments of Christ. This is why Tolstoy’s philosophy is sometimes referred to as ‘Christian anarchism.’ Both historically and theoretically, anarchism has generally seen religion as an oppressive force, alongside the government and multinational corporate capitalism. Tolstoy, on the other hand, represents a rich tradition of spiritual anarchism. For him, anarchism and spirituality are profoundly interconnected and self-reinforcing. Tolstoy offers his spiritual positions as primary, and his social-political positions as following naturally and straightforwardly from them.

In 1879, Tolstoy wrote his autobiography called  ‘A Confession’, wherein he described the detail of the gradual shift in his ideas, and his thorny journey from Orthodox Christianity to a new type of belief whose ultimate destination was non-violence and non-resistance to evil or Christian Anarchism. The following is a brief account of the horrors and hypocrisy he witnessed in the so called Church, which he believed to be in complete contrast to the message of Christ:

“As I turned my attention to what is done in the name of religion I was horrified and very nearly repudiated Orthodoxy…I witnessed members of the Church, her teachers, monks, and ascetics condoning the killing of helpless, lost youths. As I turned my attention to all that is done by people who profess Christianity, I was horrified.”

It was in 1878 at the age of 50, when Tolstoy was experiencing a kind of religious awakening during which he frequently attended the village Church wanting to absorb the spirituality of the people. However, in the year before the Russo-Turkish war began and this year the Tzar commanded all of the churches to pray for the troops. However, part of the prayer, apparently, contained references to the Turks being destroyed by sword and exploding shell. This was too much hypocrisy for Tolstoy. How can the priest proclaim the Gospel of Christ and at the same time pray for the death of enemies? He rejected the Church because of its hypocrisy, because of his moral outrage that the same body that proclaimed the message of Jesus also promoted class distinctions, oppression of the poor and weak, and violence in many forms (particularly wars, pogroms, and capital punishment). Tolstoy condemned this law of violence. He revealed the law of love, benevolence and conscience, and he appealed to the morality of his readers. In his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, he wrote:

"Who will deny that it is repulsive and painful to human nature, not only to torture or kill a man, but even to torture a dog, or to kill a chicken or a calf? I know men living by agricultural labour, who have stopped eating meat only because they had themselves to kill their animals."

"Not one judge would have the courage to strangle the man whom he has sentenced according to his law. Not one chief would have the courage to take a peasant away from a weeping family and lock him up in prison. Not one general or soldier would, without discipline, oath, or war, kill a hundred Turks or Germans, and lay waste their villages; he would not even have the courage to wound a single man. All this is done only thanks to that complicated political and social machine, whose problem it is to scatter the responsibility of the atrocities which are perpetrated so that no man may feel the unnaturalness of these acts. Some write laws; others apply them; others again muster men, educating in them the habit of discipline, that is, of senseless and irresponsible obedience; others again - these same mustered men - commit every kind of violence, even killing men, without knowing why and for what purpose."

Famous Tolstoy Quotes on Non-Violence:

"All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do."

"In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful."

“War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves.”

What are the Facts?

Is this non-violent approach just well-intentioned but dangerously naive? Well, there are plenty of examples that suggest that nonviolence can affect positive change. Two examples are the nonviolent revolution in Serbia that brought down an oppressive regime under Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000. And in the Philippines, where The People Power Movement ousted Ferdinand Marcos in 1986.

The data shows that since 1900 nonviolent campaigns worldwide were twice as likely to succeed outright compared to violent insurgencies. Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth’s study of the comparative success rates of violent and nonviolent resistance state that:

"Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns. There are two reasons for this success. Firstly, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Secondly, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime."

They state that Our findings challenge the conventional wisdom that violent resistance against conventionally superior adversaries is the most effective way for resistance groups to achieve policy goals. Additionally, they found that since the mid-1900s nonviolent resistance has become more common and more successful, whereas violent insurgencies are becoming increasingly rare and unsuccessful. This also seems to be true even in those cases where there are brutal dictators involved.

So why is civil resistance so much more effective than taking up arms and starting a violent struggle? The answer really seems to lie in people power itself. Research has shown that if as little as 3.5% of the population were to rise up against its government that government could not survive. Civil resistance also allows for people of all levels of physical ability to participate. Whether you are elderly or disabled you can offer non-violent resistance to evil.

In Serbia, when it became obvious that hundreds of thousands of Serbs were descending on Belgrade to demand that Milosevic leave office, police started to disobey orders to shoot at demonstrators. When one of the officers was asked why he refused to shoot, he simply said I knew my kids would be in the crowd.

Countries in which people wage nonviolent struggles are more likely to emerge from the struggle with democratic institutions. Those countries who carry out nonviolent struggles were also 15% less likely to relapse into civil war.

In a society that celebrates battlefield heroes on national holidays it can be natural to grow up thinking that violence and courage go hand in hand, and that true victories and freedom cannot come without bloodshed but the evidence shows that people who are serious about real change do have realistic alternative nonviolent means for making change.

Ukraine and Non-violent Resistance to Invasion

Consider the current situation in Ukraine. It seems like the natural option to fight back against an invading army and this is often portrayed as the noble thing to do. But is this the only option? What would have happened if Ukraine had sought non-violent options to fight against the Russian army? The violent resistance of Ukraine has certainly helped to slow down the progress of the Russian invasion and they have even managed to push back Russian troops in certain areas, but at what cost? The reports suggest that over 4000 civilians have already died, with many more injured, infrastructure severely damaged and over a million refugees created as a result. Would that have been the case if Ukraine had sought non-violent actions to resist Russian occupation? These are big and difficult considerations. So, are there any examples where countries have successfully used nonviolent means to fight an invasion? 

Nonviolent resistance, in Czechoslovakia in 1968, in Poland subsequently, and eventually in the successful overthrow of control by the USSR from 1989 during glasnost, was the best method people could use with the highest chance of success. Some people thought that Russian control of Eastern Europe was a permanent feature of geopolitical life; it wasn’t and was overthrown by largely nonviolent action and organisation. Some people thought that the apartheid system in South Africa could only be overthrown by violence; it wasn’t and it was largely nonviolent action and organisation, at home and abroad, which made the transformation to democratic rule. In Johansen and Martin’s book on social defence they established some important principles in regards to Czechoslovakia resisting a Russian invasion in 1968 when Russia was trying to keep control of this part of their eastern European empire. They concluded that:

1. Remaining nonviolent is crucial
2. Resistance organised by the people is stronger than resistance directed by the government
3. Fraternisation is a powerful technique
4. Resilient communication systems providing accurate information are vital
5. Maintaining unity of the resistance is vital
6. Leaders need to understand the dynamics of nonviolent resistance

And in the context of the Cold war the well-known British Christian minister and peace activist Donald Soper said:

“Russians who appear to be impervious to threats and the Cold War may well be susceptible and responsive to friendliness and the warm heart."

Conclusion

It suits those who believe in militarism to speak of those who reject the ways of violence as people who simply want to roll over and accept whatever injustice is meted out, and they may also use a term like ‘simplistic’ for those supporting such a nonviolent option. It can be argued that it is those who slavishly think that violent resistance is the only possible methodology in difficult circumstances are the ones who are really being simplistic. Nonviolent resistance and social defence, as this article attests, can be a highly sophisticated form of social and political action which has the greatest chance of success. But it also bears the seeds of breaking into circles and cycles of violence to build a more peaceful world and avoid visiting another cycle of violence on our children, grandchildren and successive generations.

Quotes on Non-violence:

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” (John F Kennedy)

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” Jesus Christ

“Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.” (Thomas A. Edison)

“We do not need guns and bombs to bring peace, we need love and compassion.” (Mother Teresa)

“The conscientious objector is a revolutionary. On deciding to disobey the law he sacrifices his personal interests to the most important cause of working for the betterment of society.” (Albert Einstein)

“Compassion is the signature of Higher Consciousness. Non-violence is the tool to evolve into the Higher Consciousness.” (Amit Ray)

“I would not look upon anger as something foreign to me that I have to fight... I have to deal with my anger with care, with love, with tenderness, with nonviolence.” (Thich Nhat Hanh)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” (Jesus Christ)