Tag: #philosophy

Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr

The starkest commonality between Gandhi and King is undoubtedly their pursuit of a non-violent culture of peace. Non-violence for them, wasn’t a strategy of inaction but rather one of action. Their nonviolent methodology and idea of freedom brought about change not just in external laws and systems of governance, but also affected the minds of fellow humankind at large. So much so that their death wasn’t the end of the legacy but rather their ideas drew strength from it.

In a war-torn century, they stood as firm preachers of the non-violent ideology. This ideology served for their goals as a means to an end, which in the case of the two leaders was varying but the ideology also served as a means itself. While for Gandhi it was for the cause primarily India’s independence from colonial rule. He also focused on the structural violence within the community such as caste system. On the other hand, as for King Jr was concerned with the cause of civil rights movements and used non-violent measures as a form of mobilization for legal purposes. The two leaders developed theories that linked to a system that surpassed governmental laws. Logical reasoning attempted to help justify their approaches towards unjust laws. Gandhi focused a lot of his analysis on defining the true meaning of ‘civilization’ whereas King concerned himself with ceasing injustice. Both Gandhi and King discussed reasons regarding the use of non-violent actions to fight for their rights.

But even as their aims, so to say, were a bit different their legacy often tends to meet at a point. The credit for this goes not just to their non-violent strategy but at the same time, to how they chose to approach this. Gandhi attempted to include egalitarian traditions in Hindu religious thought in his fight against the caste system. Similarly, King summoned traditions of resistance in the African-American Protestant Church, with the idea of freedom at the core of it. Both these iconic leaders had come to recognize that the inner and outer divide, the religious realm, the political, are also related which proved crucial in their understanding of the existence of a fundamental link between personal and social transformations.

Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, have been criticised by many for their lackluster understanding of the society as a whole, more specifically for having near blind faith in their ideologies. However, credit is indeed given where it’s due. There is a moderate consensus that the relevance of the two has carried forward the ages. A reason we can attribute to this is their basic thinking and vision were universal in nature. Perhaps that is the reason why in parts of the world we are able to still witness non-violence amidst of violence, attempt to seek equality amidst ever rising inequalities.

Born 59 years apart, yet united by ideology. The two great leaders, born, brought up, into different local contexts, may have meant different ways to seek problems, it may have meant difference in the analysis of their successes or failures but it did not mean disassociation between the two. The belief that nonviolent resistance is one of the most formidable weapons available to the oppressed sections were commonly shared by the two. The very fact that their ideologies managed to become synonymous with the idea of ‘people’s movements’ seen in many countries is testimony to the fact that their relevance is by no means over yet. It has stood its ground in the face of adversities. Its success or failure is always open to scrutiny and interpretation. Whether or not it survives the passages of time remains to be seen but it can be said that the bond that holds the legacies of the two stalwarts, lives on amongst us even today.

Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli was the first thinker to take an unequivocal stand in regard to the relationship between religion, morality and virtue on the one hand, and politics, on the other. A brief introduction is necessary to acquaint us with this highly debated person in all of political thinking.

Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1468 in a family that was traditionally seen as belonging to middle aristocracy. Machiavelli’s life became more relevant after the year 1498, when he, although barely 29, managed to secure an important job of chief of the second chancellery. He was one of the top policy-makers of the state. His famous work- The Prince was published in 1532. It explored the causes of the rise and fall of states and the factors for political success. It became a constant reference point and inspired different avenues in political research.

To comprehend the full importance of Machiavelli’s writings and their context, it is important to understand the series of political, social, cultural changes that began in the fourteenth century called the Renaissance. It signified a rebirth of the human spirit in the attainment of liberty, self-confidence and optimism. At the centre of the Renaissance was the emergence of the new human who was ambitious and relentless, he motivated by self-interest, and his aim was to seek glory and fame. Alongside the development of the modern individual was also the beginning of the modern state.

Machiavelli saw stable political authority and order as a basic criterion for social cohesion and moral regeneration. It was for this reason that he stressed the need for a unified polity. According to him, the individual was wicked, selfish and egoistic. He was fundamentally weak, ungrateful, fake, anxious to avoid danger and always greedy for gains. Thus, since the individual was lacking in honesty and justice, he was ready to act in a manner that was detrimental to the community.

Machiavelli’s state was a secular entity, with no relation to the church. It was independent and isolated, with no obligation to anything outside itself. A state was necessary, as it existed to fulfil the desire for security of person and property. His ideal was a republic.

Machiavelli’s attitude towards religion was thoroughly utilitarian. It was seen as a social force and did not have any spiritual connotation. As a social force, it played a pivotal role by inducing a kind of behaviour and conduct that was deemed necessary for the well-being of a society. Religion determined the social and ethical norms and values that governed human conduct and actions.

Machiavelli did not condone the use of immoral ways. To him, the end was important, which could be attained by any means. He contended that a ruler need not always adhere to conventional morality.  He was convinced that the use of violence although could be controlled, it cannot not be altogether eliminated. However, he recommended the cautious and judicious exercise of such violence, because otherwise it would create widespread distrust and hostility towards the government, which would result in instability.

Reference- A HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT: PLATO TO MARX. By SUBRATA MUKHERJEE & SUSHILA RAMASWAMY