{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038461538461538464, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033444816053511705, 'mean_word_length': 5.2020725388601035, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Violence of Nonviolence: Contextualizing the Movements of King and Gandhi

King and Gandhi: two names that have come to be synonymous with nonviolence. And yet, the movements they led responded to and, in some cases with, significant violence. In a recent paper (2016), August H. Nimtz analyzes the role of violence in the movement of Dr. King, concluding that violence played a significant role in the success of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Using Nimtz’s work as a starting point, this paper analyzes King’s movement and views, comparing definitions of “principled nonviolence” versus “pragmatic nonviolence.” From there, this paper analyzes the role of violence in the struggle for Indian independence from British colonialism and Gandhi’s own views on when, if ever, violence is appropriate. This paper concludes that, indeed, violence—that of sanctioned, state-sponsored violence and that of non-sanctioned actors—has had significant roles in both of these movements. In what way, then, could these movements be said to be nonviolent? Finally, this paper asks why there remains such an impetus to identify these movements, and their leaders, with “principled nonviolence.”