Pacifism and nonviolence are often considered synonymous, but they are conceptually and politically distinct. The nonviolent method was conceived by Gandhi as a means of struggling against oppression and injustice, not as a solution to the problem of war. Some pure pacifists rejected the Gandhian method because it used “pressure methods to force the government's hands.” Most of those who have participated in nonviolent action campaigns over recent decades do not consider themselves pacifist. They support nonviolent resistance in the manner of Nehru, who wrote in his autobiography, we “accepted that method … not only as the right method but as the most effective one for our purpose.” The Gandhian method offers a pragmatic alternative to absolute pacifism, a way of overcoming injustice and realizing political objectives while remaining true to moral principles.

The distinctions between pacifism and nonviolence illuminate the limitations of pacifism. Withdrawing from the struggle against oppression is not a moral position, Walzer wrote. The weakness of the lamb, Nietzsche argued, is an invitation to slaughter. Gandhi rejected passivity and developed his method as an active form of struggle. In so doing he helped to bridge the gap between pure pacifism and resistance to evil by turning religious principles into methods of social change. As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, “Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale.”