I know that Gandhi was involved in the civil rights movement in South Africa during he beginning of the 20th century, but was there a specific person, or group, that he learned how to protest through non-violent means?

  • You may find this article relevant.
    – user833
    May 14 '12 at 16:06
  • Jesus Christ? history.stackexchange.com/questions/9974/…
    – Tom Au
    Nov 12 '13 at 21:56
  • 1
    The correct answer: From the culture, 'Sanathana Dharma'(Hinduism) which taught "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" and originated long ago before any other culture or religion. Nov 29 '13 at 6:04

Largely from Hinduism and Jainism. Adding onto this was his exposure to Buddhist and Theosophical thought while he was a student in London. His eventual philosophy of Satyagraha came to fruition from his experiences in South Africa.

  • 1
    I'd never heard the Jainisim angle (although it makes sense). What I had heard was that it was the influence of Thoreau and Tolstoy. So I went looking for some references. If you read through en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi#Influences , it turns out both are right.
    – T.E.D.
    May 14 '12 at 6:06
  • 2
    Gandhi was born Hindu. Not Jain. His family religion is Hinduism.
    – moonstar
    Aug 28 '13 at 10:51
  • 3
    Totally misleading answer, and another example for twisting the facts based only on opinions in HISTORY.se. This is very dangerous to the whole community.. Nov 29 '13 at 6:06
  • 2
    As others have pointed out, this overstates the facts; Ghandi was raised Hindu, with Jain influences. See influences
    – MCW
    Dec 2 '13 at 12:33
  • 1
    @Lennart Regebro: Correcting wrong answers is good, but there are better answers than this giving right information. Dec 8 '14 at 7:49

From Hinduism into which he was born. He was influenced by Jainism later. Jainism borrowed the concept of "ahimsa" or non-violence from Hinduism. Jains adopted and followed it with much greater rigor.

  • 1
    How do we know that Jainism borrowed the concept of non violence from Hinduism?
    – Apoorv
    Jul 23 '13 at 13:50
  • 1
    The founder of Jainism was born a Hindu and borrowed several Hindu doctrines and attempted to reform them. One of the tenets of Hinduism is "ahimsO paramO dharmaha" meaning "Non-violence is the supreme moral rectitude (to be adopted by all)". Also see wiki.answers.com/Q/Impact_of_jainism
    – moonstar
    Jul 23 '13 at 14:32
  • Very interesting. I know that the doctrines of karma influenced Buddhism and Jainism and the temple architecture did definitely influence Jain templates but did not know that ahimsa was also a borrowed concept. Do you have any evidence that will prove that "ahimsa paramo dharmaha" is actually a Vedic concept (I believe the term Hindu was not used back then)?
    – Apoorv
    Jul 24 '13 at 0:07
  • 1
    @monster truck:"Do you have any evidence that will prove that "ahimsa paramo dharmaha" is actually a Vedic concept (I believe the term Hindu was not used back then)?" : It doesn't require a proof actually, when you can read the same in Vedas, what is the need of proof?. And the vedic culture is known as "Sanathana Dharma", which is the real name of Hinduism, You can see discussion on the proposal :Hinduism , discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/11021/… Nov 29 '13 at 5:54

While Indian traditions have certainly influenced Gandhi very much, one mustn't neglect the large influence that Western (broadly construed) thought had on him. For instance, he was very influenced by Tolstoy.

I am quoting the review of a new book that compares Gandhi to the Stoics:

Sorabji explains that Gandhi's biggest direct inspirations were John Ruskin's Unto this Last (1862), Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1894), Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and Plato's Apology of Socrates which portrays Socrates as a soldier of truth fearlessly accepting death.

  • How is Tolstoy a Western thinker?
    – Dvij D.C.
    Mar 14 '19 at 23:15

Gandhi was a student in London from 1888 to 1891. Parnell, the Irish leader, died in 1891. His tragic career suggested to Indian intellectuals that

1) Secret Societies and Assassinations were bound to strengthen the hand of the Imperial Police and provoke savage reprisals

2) The politics of 'boycott' could easily get out of hand and take a Communal (i.e. Sectarian) dimension while also setting the 'Classes' against the 'Masses'.

3) Westminster needed to have confidence that an avowal of Non-Violence was indeed genuine. Later, Gokhale, the Moderates, efforts in London were undermined by, his old class-mate, Tilak's Radical grass-roots activism.

4) Just as Parnell was undone by a sex-scandal, so too would any Mass Movement fall into disrepute if the charge of immorality could be levelled against its organizers or grass-roots workers

It was not just Ireland which provided this lesson. The 'Physical Force' Chartists had been crushed by Gen. Napier who pointed out that the Govt. not only had the physical force but the ruthlessness to use it. Still, the working class did get increasingly enfranchised as a result of intra-elite competition. Similarly, the 'Revolutionary' Socialists of the Hyndman type had failed to achieve anything while the 'Slowly-slowly' Fabians were impacting policy. Similar points might be made about the Trade Union, and later on, the Suffragette movements. Radicalism backed by Violence failed. So did hunger strikes and civil disobedience. However, Gandhi did not let anyone fast to death thus there was no need for an Indian version of the 'Cat and Mouse' act whereby a Suffragette would be released if her weight fell too much and rearrested later on. Forced feeding too was not needed in India.

In South Africa, the Chinese protested the Pass Law in the same manner as the Indians. However, the Chinese miners were deported so that Smuts and Botha could play the 'yellow peril' card while showing the Mine owners who was boss. When the Indian working class went on strike (against the poll tax which they genuinely couldn't afford), Smuts couldn't deport them because 1) unlike the Chinese they were British subjects- Britain would have had to resettle them 2) White workers also went on strike thus turning the problem from a 'Racial' to a 'Class' issue.

Gandhi's nephew coined the term satyagraha at a time when Gandhi was shrilly denouncing anyone who didn't go to jail and stay in jail to protest the Pass law. However, as soon as Gandhi himself went to Jail he did a deal with Smuts and came out within a few weeks. He now made an extraordinary claim0- viz that the Pass Law was a good thing. Indians should voluntarily carry a Pass and pay a discriminatory tax and so on because these are inherently good things. His only quarrel with Smuts, Gandhi said, was that Smuts had made the thing compulsory as if Asians were too stupid or vicious to see that being treated like a dog or a slave is actually a good thing. Gandhi was very badly beaten once he came out of prison because people suspected he'd taken money to betray his own people. This wasn't true. At this time 'satyagraha' became very important for Gandhi. He knew in his heart that he hadn't meant to betray his own people. Yet, clearly, his belief in his own genius could not be demonstrated in logical language. Thus 'satyagraha' became Gandhi's vehicle to feeling good about himself after he'd screwed up big time.

Again and again, Gandhi would jump feet first into any topical issue by declaring that everybody else who had done anything useful in the field was corrupt, stupid, evil and cowardly whereas he himself had the solution. He'd then recycle some simplistic nonsense and make great claims for it and link it to his magical idea of 'satyagraha' or 'swadesi' or 'swaraj' because he had shit-for-brains. A lot of money would then be collected and wasted in the most foolish possible manner. Still it provided good 'copy' as well as a Gesture Political Credential of a wholly corrupt kind.

I may mention that that the Jain/Hindu/Irish practice of going on hunger strike as a means of emotional blackmail was only used by Gandhi against Hindus or 'Low Caste' people. It had nothing to do with Non Cooperation or Civil Disobedience which, in any case, had a wholly Indian origin and tradition pre-dating Gandhi;s return to India by a decade. Thoreau may be mentioned in the context of not paying taxes- but that failed immediately and Gandhi didn't actually read much Thoreau. Ruskin has nothing to do with Civil Disobedience. Gandhi liked his stupid essay saying that you can pay your workers less if you pretend to love them in a Christ like way. Tolstoy/Chertkov's views on sex may have been important for Gandhi & Kallenbach but clearly neither engaged in mass political activity.

In conclusion- Gandhi's techniques were the same as that of other Moderate Indian lawyer politicians. He collected money, published a Journal, did a lot of networking, and trained a cadre of agitators who could 'fill up the jails' on demand. What set Gandhi apart was that he had a proven track record of 1) being ultra-loyal to the Brits and totally non-violent 2) being an utterly worthless negotiator adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 3) getting a lot of money from wealthy Hindu industrialists

How did he achieve this? The answer is that he never stood for election. He believed Parliamentary Democracy to be Satanic and the moral equivalent of Prostitution. If for nothing else, Gandhi should get a statue in Westminster for this belief of his.

  • Both your answers on Gandhi take contrarian views. That's great actually. But what would make your case is reference to documents, letters, books etc. Otherwise, the non-conventional POV is looked upon with suspicion. I'll vote up once you give references.
    – Rajib
    Dec 6 '14 at 2:52
  • 1
    And do tone down the language to be appropriate for a moderated forum. There really is no need for abuse.
    – Rajib
    Dec 6 '14 at 5:54
  • The Howard Spodek document linked to by user833 is well researched but prima facie silly. He mentions
    – Vivek Iyer
    Dec 6 '14 at 7:40
  • I tried to edit this but timed out. I give up.
    – Vivek Iyer
    Dec 6 '14 at 7:47
  • Do you mind if I edit? Dec 6 '14 at 9:50

From understanding Gundhi learned his protest techniques by the Parihaka in New Zealand who did nonviolent protests before him.

  • 2
    Can you offer any evidence/citations/research to support this assertion?
    – MCW
    Jul 2 '14 at 10:52
  • From that webpage: "In 2003 the Parihaka leaders were recognised post-humously by an international delegation of representatives of Martin Luther King Jnr, Mahatma Gandhi and Daisaku Ikeda for their foundational work and sacrifice as fathers of non-violent action." Something does not sound right there.
    – Rajib
    Jul 2 '14 at 18:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.