"Violence", he maintained, "never leads to a lasting or stable solution to conflict, and using violence tends to generate further violence and* brutalizes both sides" (Bondurant 88). He feels that there is nothing to gain through acts of violence, and if there were gains, they would only be temporary. Gandhi strongly felt that peace could not be secured with weapons, nor did he advocate retaliation by physical attack. His campain for justice was known as Satyagraha or "Soul Force", and taught the individual to resist brutality through non-violent means.
Gandhi subjected to violence not only because and unarmed people had littlie chance of success in an armed rebellion, but because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved, and left a trail of hatred and bitterness, in which reconciliation was impossible. .
Aside from ghandi's concept of non-violence, his personality and power were different than those qualities Machaivelli stated a prince should posess. Ganndi ruled his people with a gentle loving hand, he was very wise when he spoke, and made decisions for the benefit of his people, and for the good of the world. Machiavelli felt a "it is not necessary for a prince to have all the good qualities but it is necessary to seem to have them. I would even say this: to have them and to use them all the time is dangerous, but seeming to have them is useful"(Machiavelli 27). Machiavelli defines good qualities as "faithful, humane, honest, and religious"(Machaivelli p.27). Machiavelli used deceptiveness to get and maintain his power. Eventhough Gandhi and Machiavelli's Prince were both powerful leaders, their ways of handling and maintaining their power were very different. Gandhi was, to put it briefly, a leader that changed the rules of the game. Unlike Machiavelli, he refused to endorse the idead that "the end justifies the means". Gandhi felt "the means can be compared to a seed and the end to a tree.