Non Violence

Upon engaging the text of Martin Luther King, Jr. ‘s anti-war speech “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” one recognizes an undeniable continuity between King’s thinking and that of his contemporary Thich Nhat Hanh. It is important to note, however, that King’s reflections in this discourse are not entirely beholden to his Buddhist counterpart. The overarching concepts of “interbeing” and interrelation which drive the speech were evident in King’s work and philosophy well before his correspondence with Nhat Hahn.

The similarities regarding each man’s approach to these notions should be expected given their respective spiritual vocations. Therefore, although King’s reflections in this address – which encompass the broader considerations of nonviolence and exhibit a direct rebuke of the war effort – mirror almost identically those made in writings by Nhat Hanh, it is unclear how directly the latter may have influenced the former. Regardless, this speech does reflect elements of Nhat Hanh’s nonviolent vision and does so specifically through considering the concept of mutuality in relation to addressing the roots of war, its effects and how to end it.

In his address, King makes clear that humanity’s failures and the origins of violence stem from the propagation of illusions and artificial perceptions. In particular, King asserts that “the war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit… ,” whereby Americans suffer from false “comfort, complacency [and] a morbid fear of communism… ” (King). This assertion is clearly reflective of Nhat Hanh’s observation that “thinking is at the base of everything [and that]…. ur thoughts can be misleading and create confusion, despair, anger or hatred,” and that “a civilization in which we kill and exploit others for our own aggrandizement is sick” (Nhat Hanh 68; 120). The societal illness both men perceive is rooted in a proliferation of fear and ignorance, or as King so forcefully asserts, “legions of half-truths, prejudices, and false facts” (King 14). The influence of these fallacies manifests itself most directly through manufactured notions about our enemies.

By reducing our enemies to concepts that we can thoughtlessly abhor, we take no serious deliberation concerning our inherent reciprocity to them, and thus fail to realize the true extent our similarities. Though King had expressed similar sentiments previous to this speech, such as in his sermon “Loving your Enemies,” one cannot ignore the presence of a comparable position advocated by Nhat Hanh in his 1965 letter to King entitled “In Search of the Enemy of Man. “

In that letter, Nhat Hanh professes that “[our] enemies are not man… hey are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and [the]discrimination which lie in the heart of man” (Nhat Hanh). Nevertheless, it is clear that King recognizes this point, going so far as to declare: “We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation… we must not engage in negative anti-communism [but]… with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism [as social strife] grows and develops” (King).

As a result of this revelation, part of King’s speech calls for peace through an attempt to understand the enemy and the effects war has had on the Vietnamese people. This call for mindfulness clearly resonates with Nhat Hanh’s belief that “[a]ny nonviolent action requires a thorough understanding of the situation and the psychology of the people,” enemy and self alike (Nhat Hanh 40). King exhibits this understanding when stating that the Vietnamese “must see Americans as strange liberators” and begins a chronological account of the effects an American presence has had in Vietnam since 1945 (King).

Speaking of the National Liberation Front, or what he deems in an ironic manner as “that strangely anonymous group we call VC or Communists… ,” King asks “[w]hat must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group [in the first place]… ” (King). In essence, King is imploring Americans to put their view of “the enemy” into context, noting that U. S. actions have done little but imbed a “deep but understandable mistrust” in its enemies (King). Again, almost all of these deliberations are present in Nhat Hanh’s work.

Nhat Hanh’s statement that “[e]very escalation of the war, every new contingent of U. S. troops… wins new recruits to the Vietcong” reflects each man’s belief that the U. S. is undermining is own efforts in Vietnam because it has implanted soldiers there that “[know] and [care] little about [Vietnamese] customs and practices and [who are] involved in destroying Vietnamese people and property” (Nhat Hanh 50-51). Moreover, King’s optimistic position that the United States has the capability to transcend its obtuseness, reorganize its priorities and lead the cause for a peaceful end to war is a sentiment most certainly shared by Nhat Hanh.

To this end, each man’s suggestions for ending the war are strikingly similar. In Love in Action Nhat Hanh offers five components that he deems necessary toward a U. S. solution to the war: 1) A cessation of bombing in the north and south. 2) A limitation of all military operations by the U. S and South Vietnamese. 3) A clear demonstration of U. S. intent to withdraw from the country. 4) A declaration of American neutrality and support of a popular government. 5) Extensive aid in the reconstruction effort. (Nhat Hanh 55).

Likewise, King calls for an end to all bombing, unilateral ceasefire, curtailing military buildup, an acceptance of the NLF’s role in a future Vietnamese government, and a definitive U. S. withdrawal date. The proposals in King’s address are almost identical as both men call for material support as well as ideological understanding by America toward its enemies. In addition to these provisions, King demands that the American public take into account the effects war has had on our own soldiers and that they take active steps toward ending it.

King calls for a movement away from a ” ‘thing oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society” where the “business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people, of sending men home… physically and psychologically deranged… ” is deemed unacceptable and impermissible (King). This too echoes portions of Nhat Hanh’s nonviolent vision, such as evidenced by his observation during the first Gulf War that “[s]oldiers live in hell day and night, even before they go into the battlefield, and even after they return home” (Nhat Hanh 75).

Hoping that the American public can grasp these realities, King demands that “we must all protest” in order to awaken others to the fact that “the American course in Vietnam is an dishonorable and unjust one” (King). Again, although King’s attitudes here are not surprising given his own previous writings in nonviolence, when referencing the afore mentioned letter from Nhat Hanh to King, one cannot help but wonder whether the former’s description of a fellow monk’s self-immolation aimed at “[calling] the attention of the world [to]…. he suffering caused by this unnecessary war” in turn caused King to declare – in reference to anti-war protest – that “these are the times for real choices and not false ones” (Nhat Hanh; King). On the whole, though it is clear that King’s “Riverside Address” reflects both the large and small aspects of Thich Nhat Hanh’s nonviolent vision, whether these parallels were intentional or not is unclear. By their very nature, philosophies of nonviolence concern themselves with discipline and awareness of the self, as well as with understanding and empathy for the other.

As a result, it is not surprising that King and Nhat Hahn, two practitioners of such philosophies, would both express their concerns about Vietnam around the same theme of humanity’s interrelated nature. Therefore, it is not so much important whether one’s work or ideas may have influenced the other’s as it is that both recognize a common bond between human beings and the supreme need to eliminate the conditions which threaten that inherent relationship.

Martin Luther King preferred to achieve Civil Rights for African Americans through non-violent actions. He believed violence would only lead to more problems and conflicts as whites would want to find a way to get revenge for the problems caused by African Americans. Martin Luther King displays success through his non-violent action with the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is a prime example of a non-violent boycott. Rosa Parks, a member of the NAACP, decides to not give up her seat to a white man when the bus runs out of seats.

After violating the bus rules, Parks was arrested. As a result, the Montgomery Bus Boycott began. African Americans across Montgomery, Alabama, stopped using bus services in order to damage the business financially. According to the Article “Martin Luther King Jr. , Remembers the Montgomery Boycott,” Martin Luther King believed if the protest was done “courageously, and yet with dignity,” the “walls of segregation [would] finally [be] battered by the forces of justice. By boycotting the bus, the company lost a tremendous amount of money because it lost many of its customers. Eventually, as a result, the bus company had to desegregate the buses and begin seating in a “first-come, first-served” basis. This economic win by Martin Luther King showed that violence is not always needed to solve problems. Even in the Deep South, the “Cradle of Confederacy” can be transformed into “Montgomery, the cradle of freedom and justice” through nonviolent actions.

Martin Luther King made an Economic change by sparking a boycott in Montgomery, Alabama. He began a change in the way Civil Rights were going to be achieved for African Americans. Instead of getting their equality through violence and possibly another civil war, African Americans damaged segregated businesses through boycotts making non-violent action more effective.

In Martin Luther King Junior’s essay “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and Aung San Suu Kyi’s essay “Freedom from Fear”, they discuss the importance of non-violent action in order to end political conflicts. In the speech “A Just and Lasting Peace” Barack Obama explains the effects of war and the ways in which non-violence can create a just and lasting peace. According to King, in order to create opportunities for negotiating about unjust laws, non-violent action may be necessary. Violence is never the long term solution to any problem.

This is why non-violent action is so powerful. Suu Kyi discusses why society must be able to liberate their minds from apathy and fear in order to overcome a corrupt government. Fear causes corruption in government and corruption in society. In order to restore a corrupt government and society, the citizens must find courage, because courage is the only way to overcome corruption. According to Barack Obama, in order to create a just and lasting peace we must find alternatives to violence. War promises human tragedy. In most cases the cost of war outweighs the benefits.

Non-violent direct action, freedom from fear, and alternatives to violence will fix corrupt governments and will create lasting peace by forcing a national awareness of injustices; without political pressure there cannot be a lasting peace. Non-violent direct action will create opportunities for negotiating unjust laws. During the civil rights movement, racial discrimination impacted the lives of many African Americans. Racial segregation laws became the main target for civil rights activists like Martin Luther King, Jr.

According to King, “in any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: (1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; (2) negotiation; (3) self-purification; and (4) direct action” (King 576). In the first step you must be able to identify an issue which requires non-violent action. After you identify an issue you must negotiate with a political leader in order to solve this problem. If this does not create a solution to the problem direct action may be necessary.

The purpose of non-violent direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will open the door to negotiation. King believes that violence will only prolong the issues in society and the only effective way to create lasting change is to pressure political leaders through non-violent action. According to King, there are two types of laws: a just law and an unjust law. “An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. A just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself” (King 580).

Unjust laws create corruption among societies. In order to overcome these unjust laws one must be willing to break them. By disobeying unjust laws, and accepting the penalties which come with it, in reality you are “expressing the very highest respect for law” (King 580). This act of civil disobedience will put significant pressure on politics in order to force a change. Many peaceful protests were used in order to bring awareness to level of police brutality during the civil rights movement.

After witnessing countless African Americans being attacked by malicious police officers while peacefully protesting, a national awareness pressured segregation laws out of existence. In order to build a civilized society which provides basic human rights, citizens must be fearless of their government. According to Aung San Suu Kyi, there are four kinds of corruption: “corruption induced by desire”, “revenge”, “ignorance”, and “fear” (Suu Kyi 682). Fear, unlike the rest, is the root of all evil. Power doesn’t lead to corruption, fear does.

The fear of “losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it” (Suu Kyi 682). In order to overcome fear in a corrupt government, each and everyone must make sacrifices in order to possess courage. In a society where fear is an integral part of everyday existence, it is not easy to remain uncorrupt. It is the obligation of the people to stay strong and uphold principles of justice. Without fear one can overcome any obstacle, but the second fear returns it is difficult to reach your goals.

In order for these ordinary people to create a society which promotes “the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled”, they must discover that “freedom from fear stands out as both a means and an end” (Suu Kyi 684). When a society is able to stand together and liberate their minds from apathy and fear, they will truly achieve freedom. They will have the courage to challenge their corrupt government and create a government where the people possess the power. The non-violent way of overcoming a corrupt government is to overcome fear.

In a world filled with war, genocide, and dangerous weapons, we must explore alternatives to violence which will help create just and lasting peace. According to Barack Obama “there is nothing weak—nothing passive—nothing naive—in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King” (Obama 644). Despite this, Obama believes that war has a role in preserving the peace, but in no way is it the solution to all problems. No matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. Innocent citizens will die along with foreign and U. S soldiers.

Wars between nations will give way to wars within nations. Looking back at the past we can see completely different views on war. For most of history “the capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible” (Obama 643). The views on war have significantly evolved over the years due to many evolutionary changes including the addition of the Marshal Plan and the United Nations. Both of these additions have prevented a third world war. By restricting the use of war and weapons, the U. S has improved the balance between .

According to Obama, there are three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace. We must develop “alternatives to violence”, “human rights”, and “economic security” (Obama 648). Alternatives to violence will help the United States build peaceful relationships between foreign countries which will prevent future wars. Human rights are essential for maintaining a peace among the U. S citizens. Economic security will improve the standard of living in the United States and it will unite the peoples trust in the government. By achieving these goals, the U.

S can achieve a non-violent means to a lasting peace. Non-violent direct action, freedom from fear, and alternatives to violence are key solutions to overcoming a corrupt government and creating lasting peace. Non-violent direct action may seem like an ineffective way to solve problems in a corrupt government, but according to Martin Luther King, Jr. , it is the only way to fix a corrupt government. Non-violent direct action was a key tactic used during the civil rights movement which ended racial segregation in America. Martin Luther King, Jr. nd other civil rights activists demonstrated non-violent sit-ins and protests which pressured political leaders into negotiating deals which would limit segregation laws. By doing this, the U. S people were able to see the level of police brutality during the civil rights movement. The U. S citizens were able to see how segregation was morally wrong. Non-violent direct action was an effective method used to end racial segregation. Freedom from fear is what Aung San Suu Kyi describes as being a key method to fix a corrupt government. Any society which is controlled by fear often possesses some level of corruption within its government.

In order to overcome a corrupt government, you must liberate your minds of apathy and fear. When a whole society is able to come together and build a sense of courage among the people, that society will have what is needed to overcome a corrupt government. Barack Obama describes the importance of finding alternatives to violence. In order to create a lasting peace, you must first have peace. As a nation, the United States is striving towards peace whether it’s on foreign or domestic land. Many wars have been fought in order to create peace, but as long as there is war there will never be lasting peace.

The solution to this problem is complex, but it starts with us finding alternatives to violence. War will not solve any issues. It simply prolongs and complicates foreign conflicts. When the U. S government creates peace treaties instead of wars, then and only then will we see a glimpse of lasting peace. Works Cited King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail. ” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. , 12 Apr. 1963. Print. Obama, Barack. “A Just and Lasting Peace. ” The Nobel Foundation, n. d. Print. 2009. Suu Kyi, Aung San. “Freedom from Fear. ” Micheal Aris, 1995. Print.

All through history governments and empires have been overthrown or defeated primarily by the violence of those who oppose them. This violence was usually successful however, there have been several situations, when violence failed, that protesters have had to turn to other methods. Non-violent protesting never seemed to be the right course of action until the ideology of Mohandas Gandhi spread and influenced successful protests across the world. Non-violent methods were successfully used, most notably, by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

Mohandas Gandhi’s methods not only led to India’s independence from Britain but also had victories over racial discrimination in South Africa. Gandhi saw, upon his return to India from South Africa, that Britain had run India’s people into poverty and subordination. Indians were not allowed to manufacture or own their own salt. This affected the poor population most because of how often they used salt. Gandhi began by writing to the English Governor in India describing his plan to “convert the British people through nonviolence and [to] make them see the wrong they have done to India” (Document 1).

He felt that the “British rule [was] a curse”. Even though Gandhi spent a total of 2.338 days in prison, he “did not feel the slightest hesitation in entering the prisoner’s box” (Doc. 7). People followed Gandhi in his protests and many followed him into jail feeling “firm in [their] resolution of passing [their] terms in jail in perfect happiness and peace” (Doc. 7). While he was in jail, Mme. Naidu, an Indian poetess, filled in his position in leading protests. She encouraged the protesters by reiterating that “[they] must not use any violence… [they would] be beaten but [they] must not resist…not even raise a hand to ward off blows” (Doc. 4). The author felt that “the western mind finds it difficult to grasp the idea of nonresistance”, but this was not the case.

Just 25 years later Martin Luther King, Jr. found his own kind of victory using Gandhi’s techniques. King began his career of peaceful protests as a follower, not a leader. In 1960, he “toke part in the lunch counter sit-ins” in order to “bring the whole issue of racial injustice under the scrutiny of the conscience of Atlanta” (Doc 2). King hoped to help not just the African-American population but the white population as well. By 1963, King had been chosen as head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which sought to aid in the efforts to put an end to segregation. He accepted “volunteers to serve in [their] non-violent army” knowing that they would have to “accept and endure violence without retaliating” (Doc. 5).

Their will to fight was from “the conviction that [they] were right”. King’s followers were so empowered that, for their participation in the Montgomery bus boycott, “people had rushed down to get arrested… [they] were now proud to be arrested for the cause of freedom” (Doc. 8). King got white and blacks to work together for the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom” (Doc. 11). He wanted them to ‘b able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood”.

Nelson Mandela used the same “Gandhian principles of nonviolence…that seeks to conquer through conversion” (Doc. 3). He lived under the strict laws of apartheid that separated the white Dutchmen from the native African population. In similar circumstances as M.L. King, Mandela supported the same acts of nonviolence in order to gain rights for South Africans. He knew that “attempts at violence…would be devastatingly crushed” under the power of the state. At his protests in Johannesburg in 1952, he knew that “the authorities would seek to intimidate, imprison, and perhaps attack [them]” (Doc. 6) however, like Gandhi, he encouraged the volunteers not to retaliate.

Mandela spent 26 years and 8 months in jail as punishment for his protesting however, he felt that “no sacrifice was too great in the struggle for freedom” (Doc. 9). He spent time in jail with other protesters that all felt that “whatever sentences [they] received, even the death sentence… [their] deaths would not be in vain” (Doc. 9). Freedom for the South African people from apartheid finally came in 1993. To Mandela this was not just the freedom of his people but “the freedom of all people, black and white” (Doc. 12). “South Africa’s New Democracy” rose after years of continuous nonviolence from the populace.

Gandhi, King, and Mandela each fought for their causes with a method that was very rarely used but even less rarely successful. Their efforts at peaceful protest without retaliation to attacks were successful in overthrowing trans-continental rule and ending segregation of races. Gandhi transformed the idea of non-violence into a way to fight for freedom and justice which would ultimately end in success and peace.

Non-violence, in essence, is the use of peaceful means to bring about a positive and lasting social or political change. Use of non-violence as a solution is tantamount to giving aid to the injured, water to the thirsty and food to the hungry. One can legitimately ask: why should non-violence be used when violence offers more tangible and faster solutions? Firstly, it is important to realize that the use of violence to solve a social or political problem creates a host of other problems in its wake.No matter how pure and sublime one’s aim is, use of violence to achieve it can never be justified. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “Violence breeds violence.

.. Pure goals can never justify impure or violent action… They say the means are after all just means. I would say means are after all everything.

As the means, so the end…. If we take care of the means we are bound to reach the end sooner or later. ” Secondly, non-violence is a “tool” that is available to all. One doesn’t need either time or resources to acquire this tool.

Every single person in this world can practice non-violence right from this moment, if one realizes its importance. Thirdly, and most importantly, non-violent approach breaks the cycle of violence and counter-violence, which is usually triggered by the use of violence as a solution. If one group attacks another one violently, the attacked group is naturally instigated to retaliate with violence. This, in turn, provokes the first group to counter-attack with fiercer violence. This chain reaction continues until the government agencies effectively quell it or one of the groups is completely wiped out i. e. until a group has “won”.

How can we term this outcome as a “win” when there’s no one to celebrate the “win” because this disastrous cycle results into nothing but massive bloodshed and deaths? Ethnic cleansing and communal riots are the obvious examples in which there is widespread bloodshed resulting in the death of countless innocent people. Non-violence, on the other hand, doesn’t have such disastrous repercussions. It provides an effective method of conflict resolution that does not discriminate one group against another and ensures the welfare of all in society. Unfortunately, our country has had to bear the brunt of one communal riot after another.And each one of them leave a trail of destruction and loss of lives. Non-violence adopts a fair and rational approach and rationality says that followers of each religion have their right to worship the Almighty in their own way. No religion justifies the use of violence unless for self-defence against an aggressor.

When we turn the pages of history one thing becomes clear: wars or military action does not bring about permanent peace. It only replaces one crisis with another. Therefore, in today’s world of increasing international conflict, racial hatred, and political turmoil, non-violence is indeed the very need of the hour.