Applying Gandhi and Fanon to Thucydides

 After reading Thucydides’ “The Melian Dialogues” from The History of the Peloponnesian War, I discovered that the Melian’s reaction to the Athenian’s attempt at subjugation reflected the mindsets of two philosophers I had discussed in another class: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Frantz Fanon. Gandhi and Fanon present ways to combat oppression and colonialism that oppose each other. However, they assist in explaining the mindset of the Melians and why they did not surrender right away. After reflecting on both methods and looking at the outcome of the war between the Melians and the Athenians, it is apparent that having more of Gandhi’s passivity and level-headedness would have assisted the Athenians with the best outcome, despite it being majorly unfavorable for the Melians. 

    The Melians are struck with disbelief when the Athenians refuse to accept their extension of neutrality and friendliness because it would make them seem weak. The Melian’s state, “So you would not agree to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side?” (Thucydides 2), with which the Athenians respond, “No, because it is not so much your hostility that injures us; it is rather the case that, if we were on friendly terms with you, our subjects would regard that as a sign of weakness in us, whereas your hatred is evidence of our power” (Thucydides 2). The Melians were practicing a form of non-violence that Gandhi strictly advocated for in his fight for India’s independence circa 1909. In Hind Swaraj by Gandhi, he states that “There is harm in the exercise of brute force, never in that of pity” (Gandhi 84). He goes on to discuss his policy of “passive resistance,” which essentially is “a non-violent, mutual accommodation between Indians and Britons” (Gandhi 87). This agreement is what the Melians were hoping to achieve with the Athenians before they dismissed their attempt. Applying Gandhi’s beliefs, the Melian’s believed that they could save themselves from war and possible slavery if they could reach an amicable agreement of neutrality with their enemy. Using pity and persuasion instead of guns and violence would inevitably save both sides numerous lives, supplies, and wealth. 

Despite the Melian’s attempt to save themselves from submission, the Athenians were adamant that they needed to surrender entirely or be in a war. Realizing that their attempt at negotiation, or soft power, had failed, they rationalized the fact that a war was the only option. For them, surrendering was not a possibility. As a justification for their adamant desire for war instead of acquiescing, the Melians stated, “And if we surrender, then all our hope is lost at once, whereas, so long as we remain in action, there is still a hope that we may yet stand upright” (Thucydides 3). The idea that violence is the only eventual answer to oppression and the only way to achieve independence is shared by philosopher Frantz Fanon. He advocated strongly for using violence to acquire independence from colonizing power in his book The Wretched of the Earth, published in 1961. Fanon even recognizes that some may attempt Gandhi’s idea of non-violence first, pointing out, “Non-violence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around the negotiating table before the irreparable is done, before any bloodshed or regrettable act is committed” (Fanon 23). Although this is what the Melians first attempted to do, they realized that resulting in violence is the only answer, which Fanon agrees with. He claims, “To destroy the colonial world means nothing less than demolishing the colonist’s sector, burying it deep within the earth or banishing it from the territory” (Fanon 6). He continues, stating, “To blow the colonial world to smithereens is henceforth a clear image within the grasp and imagination of every colonized subject” (Fanon 6). As the colonizing force, the Athenians threaten the Melians ’ lifestyle and security. The Melians understand that as a last effort to prevent Athenian control, they must force them out of their territory through a violent revolt. 

After a devastating and brutal war, “the Melians surrendered unconditionally to the Athenians, who put to death all the men of military age whom they took, and sold the women and children as slaves” (Thucydides 5). This outcome was great for the Athenians, but it was not the best. The best would have been an immediate surrender by the Melians because multiple different expenses could have been saved. However, the Athenians did not possess enough soft power, or in other terms, Gandhi’s proclivity for passive resistance and non-violence, to persuade the Melians into immediate surrender. 

Overall, the Melian’s journey throughout their negotiations and eventual war with the Athenians acts as examples of each philosopher’s personal beliefs regarding fighting a war. Their negotiating at the beginning is an example of Gandhi’s idea of passive resistance and non-violence. Their turn to absolute violence showcases Fanon’s idea that violence is the only correct option. Since the Athenians won the war, but their win could have been reached easier, it credences to Gandhi’s sentiment of non-violence over Fanon’s support for immediate violence. 

Works Cited

Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Pref. by Jean-Paul Sartre. Grove Press, 1968. 

Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. Hind Swaraj. International Printing Press, 1909. 

Thucydides, et al. History of the Peloponnesian War. Penguin Books, 1972.