http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2014/5/eng127-130.

pdf
Gandhi and Fanon: A Comparative Study
By Abhinav Kumar and Isha Dhoble
(Abhinav Kumar, 2014)
The present world has evolved through history with many factors influencing its
course of development. Imperialism forms one of the most important factors that
shaped the world to what it is today. Over the years, various countries around
the world have been ruled and controlled by the higher race, which exploited
the regions, known as their colonies, in the name of civilization and
development. Even today, we are not free from the clutches of those ideas and
thus revisiting the past becomes necessary in order to understand the present
scenarios. Two of the wellknown contemporaries of those times, Mahatma Gandhi
and Franz Fanon, who lived in different eras, witnessed different situations and
thought differently; form the basis of discussion of this article.
As has been discussed by many writers, both Gandhi and Fanon had different
views on the ways to counter imperialism and the struggle for national freedom.
For some, the two could not be compared, while others consider them to be
contradictory. Their views are ambiguous to commentators all over the world or
one could say that their views have been interpreted differently by different
observers, but the base of these views and ideas can be called similar - both
condemned imperialism and wanted to free the nations from its clutches.
Gandhi was one of the leaders of the Indian struggle of independence and his
ideas and methods were based on his opinion about culture and human
practices. He was a spiritual man who despite being born as a Jain practiced
Hinduism. He has described himself as a follower of Hinduism saying it entirely
satisfies my soul, and fills my whole being" (YI, 1925, p274). He respected all
religions, not just his own and welcomed contact with other religions, especially
Christianity.
Gandhi was one of the leaders of the Indian struggle of independence and his
ideas and methods were based on his opinion about culture and human
practices. He was a spiritual man who despite being born as a Jain practiced
Hinduism. He has described himself as a follower of Hinduism saying it entirely
satisfies my soul, and fills my whole being" (YI, 1925, p274). He respected all
religions, not just his own and welcomed contact with other religions, especially
Christianity.
Despite these views, he felt that assimilation of values in one's character and
their expression in conduct is required to avoid conflict and this, in turn, is
possible through the awakening of "conscience" at personal, social, national and
global levels. On the cultural aspects of a nation, Gandhi believed that Indians,
instead of following and adapting the European culture, which is foreign to us,
should go back to our own Indian culture. He felt that there was a need to revive
it and improve it. He always emphasized that one culture should remain intact

from other cultures. He was a promoter of multi-ethnic and secular country.

Gandhis ideas about religion and culture received mixed reactions from various
Indian contemporaries of his time. For K. Sawar Hasan, his political ideas and
actions were based on Hindu doctrines which alienated the Muslims of India. On
the other hand, the Hindu nationalist V. D. Savarkar, thought that his methods
contradicted the religious outlook of Hinduism and jeopardized Hindu political
interests as well. In addition to this, B.R. Ambedkar contended that Gandhi was a
proponent of the Caste System and an antagonist towards progress that would
have benefited all of India, especially the depressed classes.
In contrast, Fanon stressed that after the settlers annexed the territories, they
turned the native history into something that can be called barbaric and savage.
They implied that if the settlers were to leave, the nation would be pushed back
to their barbarian ways. Thus, he felt it necessary for the national struggle to
assimilate the revival of the historical culture; which would not be just the
natural culture of the nation, but of the entire continent, which on revival would
form the African culture.
Let us decide not to imitate Europe; let us combine our muscles and our brains
in a new direction. Let us try to create the whole man, whom Europe has been
incapable of bringing to triumphant birth. Two centuries ago, a former European
colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United
States of America became a monster, in which the taints, the sickness and the
inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions ... It is a question of
the Third World starting a new history of Man" (The Wretched of Earth, 252).
Fanon condemned the native intellectuals for following and adapting the
European culture saying, the native intellectual has thrown himself greedily
upon Western culture. Like adopted child who only stop investigating the new
family framework at the moment (The Wretched of Earth, 177). According to
him, as the liberation movement would start mobilizing, these intellectuals would
feel like strangers in their own land and would try to get away from the White
culture. These were the bourgeoisies who, despite the low numbers, were a part
of the colonialist economy and benefited from the colonialists policies, without
ever caring about their own countrymen, rather exploiting them when given a
chance. These national bourgeoisies were more interested in partnership with
the colonialist than in protesting against them; the colonialists knew about this
psychology of the natives [3]. Fanon believed the national consciousness and
national culture to be interlinked and interdependent. For him, the claims to a
national culture in the past rehabilitated the nation and also acted as a
justification for the hope of a future national culture. It was also responsible for
the changes in the native. Thus, the national struggle for liberation could
ultimately change the culture in some way or the other. He also pointed out that
despite claiming the culture to be African, in reality, the culture varied, based on
religion and regional aspects; The birth of national consciousness in Africa has a
strictly contemporaneous connexion with the African consciousness (The
Wretched of the Earth, 199). He criticized the division of African culture on the
basis of color the Arabs and Negros. Fanon and Gandhi, both stressed on the

importance of a national culture along with condemning the influences from

foreign cultures, but at the same time had different views on imperialism. This
can be partially explained by the fact that the colonial paradigm was different in
both Algeria and India. In India, the English came looking for a market to expand
their trade and earn more revenue, whereas, the French went to Algeria looking
for land to extend their territories. They aimed at establishing their own rule in
Algeria by replacing the natives by their own people. Thus, difference in
situations in the colonies shaped the views of both.
In Gandhis opinion, the English could enter and stay in India because the Indians
allowed them to establish trade in the nation. The Indians saw only the sparkling
trade and technologies that the English were bringing, without noticing the
actual plan they had in their mind. Also, the British maintained their own army to
protect their goods and warehouses, which were made use of by the Indian
princes. Thus, the Indian dependence on the British increased; in return, the
British expanded their armies and obtained a stronger footing in the nation.
Thus, it was the Indians who opened gates for the British entry into the nation,
the Indians who made sure they remained here and the Indians who made their
holding on the nation stronger. It followed according to Gandhis reasoning, that,
only if the Indians stopped allowing the British stay in the nation, the British
could no longer rein the nation. Thus, noncooperation to English trade and
policies was required to ensure freedom from the foreigners.
Gandhis ideas about liberation were rooted in the religion he followed. Hinduism
preached the importance of love over hatred; similarly, Gandhi chose to follow
the path of ahimsa over violence. For Gandhi, ahimsa was the expression of
deepest love, even for the enemies. He was a believer of soul force and as
Thomas Merton puts it, In Gandhis mind, non-violence was not simply a political
tactic which was supremely useful and efficacious in liberating his people from
foreign rule. [. . .] On the contrary, the spirit of nonviolence sprang from an inner
realization of spiritual unity in himself [4] Thus, for him, soul force was
greater than brute force and, in order to fight the British, violence was not
required (YI, 1-12-1920, p.3). If the British had used violence against us, it did not
mean that the Indians had to employ similar methods to fight back. Using
violence would just yield greater violence. Even if we achieve freedom using
violence, it would only replace the existing brutal colonialist with a new colonial
power made up of elite Indians, who were as brutal as English policy maker and
had similar interests in economy and capital storage. He supported his
arguments by saying that, The fact that there are so many men still alive in the
world shows that it is not based on the force of arms but on the force of truth or
love. Therefore, the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of the success of
this force is to be found in the fact that, in spite of the wars in the world, it still
lives on.(Hind Swaraj, p49)
Thus, Gandhi advocated the use of non-violence and non-cooperation to fight the
British. According to him, Satyagraha, which was a practical extension to his
ideas of ahimsa, was the only way to deal with colonialism. Satyagraha took the
form of non-cooperation and civil disobedience against the British. This included

banishing the British as well as their products, including the elite transportation
system, education, healthcare and judiciary. Gandhi urged people to stop using
British goods and instead follow the Swadeshi movement. He encouraged small
cottage and farming industries rather than the big British factories. He believed
that complete non-cooperation with the English alone could lead to liberation and
a free nation. Non-cooperation was analogous to passive resistance, which was
just the opposite of the resistance by arms (YI, 25-8-1920, p. 322). According to
Gandhi, if one did not like a law passed by the British, he should not oppose it,
but simply stop following it. Thus, one did not submit to the law, but suffer
individually. It concentrated more on the self and the sacrifices made on the
individual level rather than an outwardly revolt. Also, self-sacrifice and suffering
was a weapon of the weak and less-fortunate, unlike violence that required arms
and training; thus, it could mobilize the enter nation. Gandhi emphasized on the
need to train the body for passive resistance, and for this every individual had to
observe chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth and cultivate fearlessness. This was
necessary because, only after facing hardships and training oneself, would the
body as well as soul be ready to make the sacrifices that the nation expects of it.
Gandhis aim was not just to oust the British, but to establish a self-rule or
Swaraj, which was much more than just the foreigners leaving the nation. As
Gandhi has stated, Swaraj for me means freedom for the meanest of our
countrymen... I am not interested in freeing India merely from the English yoke. I
am bent upon freeing India from any yoke whatsoever. I have no desire to
exchange king log for king stork (YI, 12-6- 1924, p. 195).
For Fanon, the French colonists gained control over Algeria using the force of
violence and were able to retain it using violence. Thus, in order to gain
independence and get rid of the settlers, the natives had to take up violence.
Since the first encounter between the natives and the settles was marked by
violence, it had to be an integral part of the process of decolonization. What was
done by violence could be undone by violence alone. He argued that colonized
people had no other choice but to meet colonists physical and emotional acts of
violence with violence of the same magnitude, until the last become first (The
Wretched of the Earth,10). He pointed out that for the settlers, the natives were
nothing more than animals. They were barbaric and needed to be civilized. In
response to this, Fanon felt that if the poor colonized could not be considered
equal to other races, they should not, by force, be bound by the principles of
humanity. If the natives were considered as animals, then these animals should
not be obliged to behave as humans and should have the right to show their
animalistic nature. The colonizers used laws to oppress and abuse the natives.
Thus, for Fanon, there was no need to legitimize the violence by the laws that
allowed violence against the natives. He rated colonialism above hegemony and
labelled it as an act of pure violence which could only be confronted by
revolutionary and spontaneous violence, and not by a non-violent resistance.
Fanon, who worked as a psychiatrist, saw many patients suffering from neurotic
problems which were a result of colonialism. The natives went through extreme
levels of inferiority complex whereby all they wanted was to be like the whites.

They wanted to marry the whites and were dissatisfied with their present
situations. In order to treat them, Fanon never found it ethical to convince them
to be happy with their situation; because this would mean showing them their
place and making them accept it just like the colonizers did. Instead, Fanon
believed that they should be motivated to stand for their rights and revolt
against the wrongs. Accordingly, he advocated the importance of a violent
struggle to overthrown the foreign rule and establish an independent rule.
At the individual level, violence is cleansing force. It rids the colonized of their
inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing attitude. It emboldens them
and restores their self-confidence (The Wretched of the Earth, 51). For Fanon,
violence was the best mean for liberation. Since, the settler gave greater
importance to the economy, factories, institutions, buildings, police stations, he
asked the natives to act and break their backbone by destroying their buildings
and creations. The peasants, according to Fanon, are a revolutionary class ready
to embrace the revolutionary system and capable of retaining a communal spirit
while upholding pre-colonial creed and legacy [3]. For him, the peasants living
in the villages and country side were the people who had national consciousness
and understood the importance of liberation and were ready to sacrifice for the
same [3]. Thus, these should be the people who would lead the national struggle
and revolt against the settlers. Unlike city dwellers, the peasants were not
subjected to westernization and unlike national bourgeoisie, they had no feelings
of inferiority. The intellectual middle class or the bourgeoisie shared similar
interests as the settlers and were the ones who benefitted the most from
imperialism. Postindependence, these would be the people with economic
stability and would rule the nation in lieu of the settlers. They would be more
interested in business and economy rather than national development. For
Fanon, using blind violence was a legitimate means to achieve independence,
but he did realize that using mere violence created a void between the intellects
and natives. This would result in a derailed nationalism and when added with
improper economic programme, in a derailed liberated nation. Thus, despite
favoring violence as the tool, he was aware of its consequences postindependence. After exploring the thinking of both Gandhi and Fanon, we find
that their thoughts were coherent when it came to their impression of the
imperialist power. They both condemned the adaptation of foreign culture by the
natives and wanted the nation to have its own national culture that should
remain intact. They both opposed the foreign policies and their institutions of
education, medicine and laws; and working against them was the only possible
way of defeating the colonists. Despite these similarities in thinking, it was their
methods that varied. Fanon advocated violence; while for Gandhi, non-violence
and passive resistance were the only way for liberation. Fanon understood that
since the foreigners had annexed the lands by violence, a violent struggle was
necessary to get rid of them. This was in complete contrast to the non-violent
revolution Gandhi preached. For Gandhi, the British rule could be undone by the
practice of non-cooperation. If the Indians stopped cooperating, the rule would
soon crumble and the British would have no choice but leave. He could not see
the Indians stoop down to the same level of the British by using violence. Despite

their similar theories and feeling, Fanon was more concerned with the result and
wanted liberation at all costs, whereas Gandhi was more concerned with the
means. Both were similar and yet very different.