Chau 1
Vinson Chau
Prof. Gomez
English 1A
16 September 2010
Great Minds
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world”. Two men strongly
believed in this concept of change. Those two men would be none other than Martin
Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. With their legacy left behind, Martin Luther King
and Gandhi proved to be great leaders, although having some differences; the two
peacemakers showed numerous underlying similarities.
After reading King’s letter and multiple pamphlets by Gandhi in the book Cultural
Conversations by Stephen Dilks, I was startled because their arguments were different,
but also similar. The purposes of Gandhi’s pamphlets were to give people an idea of his
way of life, whereas King’s letter was to defend his actions. With that in mind, the two
men were also of different religions and background. It would seem doubtful for these
people to have similar ideas, but beneath their argument lies many.
An idea that King and Gandhi shared was nonviolence. Both men fought for their
cause with this concept of nonviolence. Gandhi called it passive resistance and King
called his direct action; different name, but same idea. Both men also strongly believed
that their method was not for the weak, with King stating, “We are not unmindful of the
difficulties involved” (474). Gandhi believed that the act of nonviolence is a tough one
stating, “It is totally untrue to say that it is a force to be used only by the weak so long as
Chau 2
they are not capable of meeting violence with violence” (446). Therefore the idea of
nonviolence is not cowardly, but more heroic in a sense according to Gandhi and King.
In the case of heroics, one does what is right. Gandhi came up with an idea called
Satyagraha. According to Gandhi, “this is the literal meaning of Satyagraha – insistence
on truth, and force derivable from such insistence” (447). In other words what motivates
a person’s action should be out of true good intentions for the action to be just or pure of
evil. Through out King’s letter he later talks about just and unjust laws. I found small
essences of Satyagraha in King’s definition of just and unjust laws. In King’s words “A
just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust
law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (477). So an unjust law would
be out of ill will and just laws are free of impurities. King continues to denote the law of
segregation to be an unjust law, because “Any law that degrades human personality is
unjust” (477). So according to these two men just because something is created legally or
right doesn’t mean it is right because the intention behind may be corrupt.
It is safe to say that both men would break an unjust law, although Gandhi has
more exceptions than King. In the case of defending oneself, King would in no way
retaliate with violence. Gandhi on the other would use violence if there was no other
choice. Gandhi proposes in his pamphlet, “I do believe that where there is only a choice
between cowardice and violence I would advise violence” (454). It is not certain if King
would say the same.
Chau 3
Speaking of cowardice, King and Gandhi show great disdain towards cowardice.
King spends a lot of time disregarding the church for doing nothing. He calls the church a
“tail light” and merely sitting on the sidelines while King and his men fight for change. It
is obvious King is calling the church cowardly. King states, “Things are different now.
The contemporary church is often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound”
(483). King is definitely calling out the churches laxity towards everything. In the same
sense Gandhi states, “It is better that India should arm itself and take the risk than that it
should refuse to take up arms out of fear” (458). Gandhi is pointing out that it would any
day be better to use violence than to cower in fear and do nothing.
In order to accomplish something a persons must make the effort to sacrifice
something; may it be time or blood. Gandhi and King believed that sacrifice is needed in
order to reach your goal. Gandhi asks, “Will India rise out of her slavery without
fulfilling this eternal law of purification through suffer?” (451). Gandhi calls it an eternal
law meaning the law of suffering is always existent and an inevitable one. King also
stated during his act of nonviolence his men were aware of the sacrifice needed for their
“direct action” stating, “So we decided to go through a process of self-purification”
(474). The two statements compliment each other, because the act of “self-purification” is
indeed coherent in the act of nonviolence; going back to King’s feelings toward the
church, “It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were
deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed in” (484). As stated before, instead of the
church making the needed sacrifice; the church decided to cower in fear.
Chau 4
From the idea of nonviolence to sacrifice, these two men have done a great deal in
history with a similar mind set; in order to defeat a tyrannical entity, one must provoke
the injustice with a just method and make the required sacrifice with all their full consent.
One might say “great minds think alike”, but one thing’s for sure Gandhi and King might
have fought for different things, lived in different times, followed different religions, but
their ideas were distinctly intertwined.
Chau 5
Work Cited
Dilks, Stephen, Regina Hansen, and Matthew Parfitt. Cultural Conversations: the
Presence of the past. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. Print.