2
   

Civil Disobedience under Mahatma Gandhi

 
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 11:59 pm
@Quinn phil,
For those owners of idiotic expressions here are some messages/tributes of some idiots writing on a humble idiot.

Tributes to Gandhi

If after reading all the lines, some idiots do not get an idea, than please forgive this idiot too.

ps: After a bit of idiotic thinking, i thought of sharing an idiotic observation. Forgiveness can be anything else but cannot be idiotic. But if the case is so. Than Jesus Christ was the greatest idiot.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 04:10 am
@prothero,
prothero;127755 wrote:
Well there is something to be said for showing a little respect for people who manage to accomplish great things IMHO. I do not believe in perfect people but I do respect those willing to engage and who try to change the world (the participants as opposed to the spectators, the man in the arena). Gandhi was willing to die for his principles, few others are.


Yes, I agree. Attila the Hun, and Adolf Hitler spring immediately to mind. Lenin and Stalin too.
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 10:55 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127806 wrote:
Yes, I agree. Attila the Hun, and Adolf Hitler spring immediately to mind. Lenin and Stalin too.


You think the Hollocaust was a great accomplishment? You never seemed like much of a Nazi to me...
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 12:50 am
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;127189 wrote:
For those of you who don't know who Mahatma Ghandi was, then look at this.

WELCOME TO MAHATMA GANDHI ONE SPOT COMPLETE INFORMATION WEBSITE

Gandhi never truely broke the law, however, he was imprisoned many times for acts of civil disobedience. His philosophy was to never use violence, but use his wit and wisdom. He made the British look like jerks, especially through the "Amritar Massacre" event. Children were murdered, men and women beaten. They didn't fight back. In fact, they lined up to get beat down in some instances.

Do you think Gandhi's ways of Civil disobedience leave no room for dignity? How about pride? Were they effective? Discuss.


What I wanted to share here was Gandhi's version of civil disobedience is inextricably connected to Indian nationalism and Muslim/Indian unity. It is very much removed from the American/African American conception of civil disobedience. It is not for further rights that the Indians were after, but rather complete and unified autonomy from British rule. Ghandi's ideal form resistance is based on two (although there are a few more) distinct ideological notions, satyagraha and swadeshi.

Interestingly enough, civil disobedience is mentioned by Ghandi in his letters to the Indian National Congress, specifically in reference to satyagraha. This comes directly from his letter;

Gandhi Essential Writings, pg11-12 wrote:


Satyagraha is "passive resistance." But encapsulated within that statement is a frame of mind that, without it, makes the efforts of passive resistance meaningless. Satyagraha accorinf to Gandhi demands that the bearer have "... a special regard for the truth." A "satyagrahi" (or one who follows satyagraha) in those respects cares not for his body or his physical form, only the ideal of truth. A satyagrahi must also be indifferent to wealth, removed from family attachments, true faith in religion (which Gandhi refers to as the "true nature of satyagraha") and a commitment to nonviolence. Satyagraha is almost like a religious vow made to stay true to the cause, which was direly needed during the confrontation of the British empire. Indeed, this is the nature of the second component of the passive resistance, which is swadeshi (swaraj). It is a commitment to each other to stay the course and to do good to others, and not harm, all in the furthermost of a nationalistic (and dharmic) cause.

That you would say that Gandhi never truly broke the law, I am inclined to agree with you. Gandhi never broke the law because in the nationalistic commitment, it was not Indian Law but British law. To verify literal rebellion from an oppressor requires an adherence to a different type of law than that which would label you a criminal but actually a patriot. This is in fact a subtle element in all rebellions such as the American war of Independence. The first thing you do is verify your rebellion with your own law and rationale for breaking the social pact with your mother country. Gandhi knew and did this.

As to the Amritsar massacre, that and the beatings you refer to may be different instances. The Amritsar incident was a pure bloodbath. The beatings were a different story before the massacre from when I believe Ghandi proposed a nonimportation/nonconsumption of British goods by showing everyone how to make their own salt. Interestingly enough, this is also a point taken right out of American revolutionary history (which Gandhi even refers to from time to time).

Did Gandhi's passive resistance leave no room for dignity? I think not only did it leave room for dignity, but it actually attempted to restore what little the Indians had left. Gandhi spearheaded a campaign which essentially said "we don't need the British anymore, we are India" by encouraging Indians to make their own clothes, salt, food, dwellings, etc. A removal from the British subsystem. Keep in mind that Gandhi was fully aware of the perverse nature of the British and their way of colonizing with a smile. Gandhi was a lawyer in south Africa before his involvement with the Indian national congress and so on and knew full well the methods and limits of the colonizer and the effects on the colonized. He also mentions in his letters the plights of other repressed by the British in the past (and the current) such as the Chinese, the South Africans, and the Irish. Also, satyagraha and swadeshi were methods of instilling pride in the colonized, of infusing the people with Indian nationalism.

Was all of this effective? Yes and no. Yes, India became a free country, but no in the respect that one of Gandhi's main goals, a united India, fell short with the alienation of the Muslim population and the establishment of Pakistan.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 01:19 am
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;128059 wrote:
You think the Hollocaust was a great accomplishment? You never seemed like much of a Nazi to me...


Hitler managed to accomplish great things. He defeated France in six weeks, and he nearly conquered the Soviet Union in less than a year. He made Germany the greatest military power on earth, and it took the combined forces of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and The United States, to conquer him. And they nearly failed.

I could also cite Napoleon the first, who equally accomplished great things.

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 02:21 AM ----------

VideCorSpoon;128087 wrote:
What I wanted to share here was Gandhi's version of civil disobedience is inextricably connected to Indian nationalism and Muslim/Indian unity. It is very much removed from the American/African American conception of civil disobedience. It is not for further rights that the Indians were after, but rather complete and unified autonomy from British rule. Ghandi's ideal form resistance is based on two (although there are a few more) distinct ideological notions, satyagraha and swadeshi.

Interestingly enough, civil disobedience is mentioned by Ghandi in his letters to the Indian National Congress, specifically in reference to satyagraha. This comes directly from his letter;



Satyagraha is "passive resistance." But encapsulated within that statement is a frame of mind that, without it, makes the efforts of passive resistance meaningless. Satyagraha accorinf to Gandhi demands that the bearer have "... a special regard for the truth." A "satyagrahi" (or one who follows satyagraha) in those respects cares not for his body or his physical form, only the ideal of truth. A satyagrahi must also be indifferent to wealth, removed from family attachments, true faith in religion (which Gandhi refers to as the "true nature of satyagraha") and a commitment to nonviolence. Satyagraha is almost like a religious vow made to stay true to the cause, which was direly needed during the confrontation of the British empire. Indeed, this is the nature of the second component of the passive resistance, which is swadeshi (swaraj). It is a commitment to each other to stay the course and to do good to others, and not harm, all in the furthermost of a nationalistic (and dharmic) cause.

That you would say that Gandhi never truly broke the law, I am inclined to agree with you. Gandhi never broke the law because in the nationalistic commitment, it was not Indian Law but British law. To verify literal rebellion from an oppressor requires an adherence to a different type of law than that which would label you a criminal but actually a patriot. This is in fact a subtle element in all rebellions such as the American war of Independence. The first thing you do is verify your rebellion with your own law and rationale for breaking the social pact with your mother country. Gandhi knew and did this.

As to the Amritsar massacre, that and the beatings you refer to may be different instances. The Amritsar incident was a pure bloodbath. The beatings were a different story before the massacre from when I believe Ghandi proposed a nonimportation/nonconsumption of British goods by showing everyone how to make their own salt. Interestingly enough, this is also a point taken right out of American revolutionary history (which Gandhi even refers to from time to time).

Did Gandhi's passive resistance leave no room for dignity? I think not only did it leave room for dignity, but it actually attempted to restore what little the Indians had left. Gandhi spearheaded a campaign which essentially said "we don't need the British anymore, we are India" by encouraging Indians to make their own clothes, salt, food, dwellings, etc. A removal from the British subsystem. Keep in mind that Gandhi was fully aware of the perverse nature of the British and their way of colonizing with a smile. Gandhi was a lawyer in south Africa before his involvement with the Indian national congress and so on and knew full well the methods and limits of the colonizer and the effects on the colonized. He also mentions in his letters the plights of other repressed by the British in the past (and the current) such as the Chinese, the South Africans, and the Irish. Also, satyagraha and swadeshi were methods of instilling pride in the colonized, of infusing the people with Indian nationalism.

Was all of this effective? Yes and no. Yes, India became a free country, but no in the respect that one of Gandhi's main goals, a united India, fell short with the alienation of the Muslim population and the establishment of Pakistan.


Eh, what has all this to do with Gandhi's idiotic advice to the British and the Jews.
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 06:57 am
@Quinn phil,
The Mahatma (Great Soul) was a person who never compromised like some philosophers do, and some who can be found in this forum too. A compromised saint is no saint. An ideal has to remain an ideal. Not a compromised ideal.

The question of Gandhi's advice to the Jews and British has to be seen in the facts, and not on some opinionated versions of some western philosophers, teachers and professors and English educational system.

Only idiots in the subject of history will overlook context and disregard facts. These people cannot be philosophers. They should join a political forum and discuss endless politics over tea drinking and mouse clicking.

These are the facts. The Mahatma never directly adviced the Jews in German/Austria. The relevent issue (and am writing out of memory) when Louis Fischer, an acclaimed journalist (who also wrote a biography on MKG) asked him of the German situation as against the persecution of jews, and not the extermination, in 1938. The world war II started in 1939 summer and the the gas chamber projects started after that.

It was on the prompt of a question in which Fischer very cleverly asked whether he would advice his kind of passive resistance (movement)to the Jews. He just answered 'YES'.......... Was it an idiotic yes. May be, for some idiots of history.

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 07:14 PM ----------

prothero;127708 wrote:
.

In my view Gandhi was clearly not (an idiot) . His advice to the Jews and the British in their situation I would judge as misguided although well intentioned.


I agree with much of what you said in this post, but your judgment on his being misguided is not entirely correct. My contention to that is that of an possible error in judgment.

One reason for such a judgement could be the vantage of hindsight. Whether there is an advantage or a disadvantage we can decide later.

A person guided by his conscience cannot be driven by popular sentiments, or pretend to understand the historical complexity of culture and way of living, or by practical and pragmatic politics.

The 'misguided' view is due to misconceptions of moral principles, its application and the general misunderstandings that follow whenever a new idea or revolution is proposed. This is not an individuals fault, or for that matter the fault (if so agreed) of any world or society or culture or geography.

And idea takes its time for acceptance. Just believe what would have been the case, if Jesus had compromised on his unnatural death, if Mohammed had compromised by idol worshippers, cheaters and tyrants, if Mother Teresa had compromised while attending to the needs of the unwanted, old and the dying when faced with bankruptcy.

The world produces many greats but only a few of the greats become saints without backing of institutions. It happens only due their conviction and committment to their ideal, ideology and goals for humanity.


ps: I disclaim that i am a saint, or believes in sainthood, neither am i an idealist.
0 Replies
 
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 10:06 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;128104 wrote:

Eh, what has all this to do with Gandhi's idiotic advice to the British and the Jews.
0 Replies
 
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 01:19 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;128087 wrote:
What I wanted to share here was Gandhi's version of civil disobedience is inextricably connected to Indian nationalism and Muslim/Indian unity. It is very much removed from the American/African American conception of civil disobedience. It is not for further rights that the Indians were after, but rather complete and unified autonomy from British rule. Ghandi's ideal form resistance is based on two (although there are a few more) distinct ideological notions, satyagraha and swadeshi.

Interestingly enough, civil disobedience is mentioned by Ghandi in his letters to the Indian National Congress, specifically in reference to satyagraha. This comes directly from his letter;



Satyagraha is "passive resistance." But encapsulated within that statement is a frame of mind that, without it, makes the efforts of passive resistance meaningless. Satyagraha accorinf to Gandhi demands that the bearer have "... a special regard for the truth." A "satyagrahi" (or one who follows satyagraha) in those respects cares not for his body or his physical form, only the ideal of truth. A satyagrahi must also be indifferent to wealth, removed from family attachments, true faith in religion (which Gandhi refers to as the "true nature of satyagraha") and a commitment to nonviolence. Satyagraha is almost like a religious vow made to stay true to the cause, which was direly needed during the confrontation of the British empire. Indeed, this is the nature of the second component of the passive resistance, which is swadeshi (swaraj). It is a commitment to each other to stay the course and to do good to others, and not harm, all in the furthermost of a nationalistic (and dharmic) cause.

That you would say that Gandhi never truly broke the law, I am inclined to agree with you. Gandhi never broke the law because in the nationalistic commitment, it was not Indian Law but British law. To verify literal rebellion from an oppressor requires an adherence to a different type of law than that which would label you a criminal but actually a patriot. This is in fact a subtle element in all rebellions such as the American war of Independence. The first thing you do is verify your rebellion with your own law and rationale for breaking the social pact with your mother country. Gandhi knew and did this.

As to the Amritsar massacre, that and the beatings you refer to may be different instances. The Amritsar incident was a pure bloodbath. The beatings were a different story before the massacre from when I believe Ghandi proposed a nonimportation/nonconsumption of British goods by showing everyone how to make their own salt. Interestingly enough, this is also a point taken right out of American revolutionary history (which Gandhi even refers to from time to time).

Did Gandhi's passive resistance leave no room for dignity? I think not only did it leave room for dignity, but it actually attempted to restore what little the Indians had left. Gandhi spearheaded a campaign which essentially said "we don't need the British anymore, we are India" by encouraging Indians to make their own clothes, salt, food, dwellings, etc. A removal from the British subsystem. Keep in mind that Gandhi was fully aware of the perverse nature of the British and their way of colonizing with a smile. Gandhi was a lawyer in south Africa before his involvement with the Indian national congress and so on and knew full well the methods and limits of the colonizer and the effects on the colonized. He also mentions in his letters the plights of other repressed by the British in the past (and the current) such as the Chinese, the South Africans, and the Irish. Also, satyagraha and swadeshi were methods of instilling pride in the colonized, of infusing the people with Indian nationalism.

Was all of this effective? Yes and no. Yes, India became a free country, but no in the respect that one of Gandhi's main goals, a united India, fell short with the alienation of the Muslim population and the establishment of Pakistan.


My point exactly, the bolded. Thank you for actually answering my questions about dignity! I agree with you on that one, somewhat. However, I can't shake the feeling that there had to be a large amount of people who did not enjoy not fighting back. I mean, babies were killed, and parents couldn't do anything about it, because of what Gandhi said? I think that's how the war between Hindu and Muslims started, and the seperation of India and Pakistan. Because they were fed up with getting beat around. Gandhi's teachings would be the most effective under a patient amount of people.

kennethamy;128104 wrote:
Hitler managed to accomplish great things. He defeated France in six weeks, and he nearly conquered the Soviet Union in less than a year. He made Germany the greatest military power on earth, and it took the combined forces of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and The United States, to conquer him. And they nearly failed.

I could also cite Napoleon the first, who equally accomplished great things.

I suppose it's all perspective. I would like to think that the larger percentage of the world would see the Hollocaust as a very horrible thing. If great things are accomplished that lead to a massive massacre to a certain race, are they really such great things, still?

Quote:


Eh, what has all this to do with Gandhi's idiotic advice to the British and the Jews.


That wasn't the orignal topic, anyways.
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 03:32 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;128205 wrote:
My point exactly, the bolded. Thank you for actually answering my questions about dignity! I agree with you on that one, somewhat. However, I can't shake the feeling that there had to be a large amount of people who did not enjoy not fighting back. I mean, babies were killed, and parents couldn't do anything about it, because of what Gandhi said? I think that's how the war between Hindu and Muslims started, and the separation of India and Pakistan. Because they were fed up with getting beat around. Gandhi's teachings would be the most effective under a patient amount of people.


As to your comment about the possibly of an amount of people who did not like the fact they could not fight back, it is certainly the case that there were at least some who did not share Gandhi's methods. But I think in that respect, it was more a case of solidarity for the establishment of India as a nation and the freedom from British imperial control that was the primary concern. You see this all the time in populations that are confronting empire, like in French Algeria, south Africa, etc. There are numerous factions with different viewpoints and methods, but they have to essentially close ranks and work together for a short period of time to beat one evil and challenge another. For example. you have people like Nehru and his supporters who tried their hardest to apply Gandhi's principles as best they could and also further Indian nationalism. But you also have people like Jinnah and his followers who, though in support for the Indian nationalistic movement, were ultimately in favor of a Muslim state (Pakistan). Self interest plays a part in all aspects of Gandhi's closest circle, even when the spirit of nationalism Gandhi sought was more for the interest of a unified state regardless of personal motive. But all of them worked together to throw the British out.

But as to people being killed because of what Gandhi said, there is always a conscious choice to be made. Indeed, Gandhi makes this clearly known in his definition of Satyagraha that calamity may come, but solidarity (in nationalism, spirit, ideal, etc.) in the movement is essential to an Indian victory. But you had to make that choice for yourself. And others would join that solidarity if for anything than to further their own interests... what ever that may be.

As to the war between Hindus and Muslims, I think it was a matter of deep seated distrust and anxiety that set about the fighting and separation. Muslims were an extreme minority at the time, and the Muslims were apprehensive at first to even join in Gandhi's movement because they thought without the balance and protection of a British colonial government, they would fall prey to the vast Hindu majority.

But in my own opinion, and also in regard to your final comment on the fact that Gandhi's teachings would have been best with a patient amount of people, I would also add that they would have to have been predisposed to Hinduism and the ideals it taught in order to fully understand the movement Gandhi wanted. Not that Muslims would not understand it, they did, but just that it would have been un-natural and counterintuitive. But that's just my own opinion.
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 12:04 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Quinn;128205 wrote:
I mean, babies were killed, and parents couldn't do anything about it, because of what Gandhi said? I think that's how the war between Hindu and Muslims started, and the seperation of India and Pakistan. Because they were fed up with getting beat around. Gandhi's teachings would be the most effective under a patient amount of people.


VideCorSpoon;128220 wrote:
Self interest plays a part in all aspects of Gandhi's closest circle, even when the spirit of nationalism Gandhi sought was more for the interest of a unified state regardless of personal motive. But all of them worked together to throw the British out.

As to the war between Hindus and Muslims, I think it was a matter of deep seated distrust and anxiety that set about the fighting and separation. Muslims were an extreme minority at the time, and the Muslims were apprehensive at first to even join in Gandhi's movement because they thought without the balance and protection of a British colonial government, they would fall prey to the vast Hindu majority.

But in my own opinion, and also in regard to your final comment on the fact that Gandhi's teachings would have been best with a patient amount of people, I would also add that they would have to have been predisposed to Hinduism and the ideals it taught in order to fully understand the movement Gandhi wanted. Not that Muslims would not understand it, they did, but just that it would have been un-natural and counterintuitive. But that's just my own opinion.



The characterisation of the discord between Hindus and Muslims as a 'war' would be highly erroneous.

Hindus do not have a structured format of authorities or hierarchy which would allow or disallow allegience, order or dictates. There is another belief that muslims in india were all invaders. In fact, only a handful were invaders, while the majority who were Hindus converted to Islam when Invaders and their sultans, imposed strictures on non-muslims like jiziya tax etc. This took place after succesful invasions and conquests about 1000 a.d from the western sector.

The partition of India in three parts led to widespread anger, discontentment and retribution. Riots, rape, looting were done by vandals, looters and dacoits, and ocourse the communal elements on both parts.

The pent up feelings against the Britishers, and against all those forces who played the divide and rule policy, had to be unleashed. The greatest human migration with the greatest human tragedy of displacement, killings and all crimes were committed by weak intellectual abilities.

Civil disobedience is always against the state or rulers. A civil war is a domestic war between groups or political persuasions.

However, in India's case and one may thank the Mahatma for averting a much larger bloodbath unprecedented in human history where killings would have been on ethnic basis. Best described by Domique Lapiere et al, the relief the Viceroy and all top Indian Leaders had when Gandhi took upon the task of persuading the Bengalis both Hindus and Muslims not to kill each other on the wake of Independence and the partitioning of land and nationhood. Gandhi walked the streets of bloody Kolkatta, and Noakhali where he walked alone to pacify both communities, and single handedly prevented a pogram, a genocide or cleansing by those assuaged by communal feelings on both sides of the spectrum. Gandhi was an one-man army in the East, while even tens of thousands of troops deployed by the British army and police could not prevent the greatest loss of human blood in the entire human history as a consequence of a Divided India. So describes Lapiere.

Now, coming to the specific issue of whether in the ultimate analysis, civil disobedience was a success or not, history has already judged it, acknowldged it as a powerful weapon that can be wielded by the oppressed, the dispossessed and the poor masses.

Gandhi had already shown the way, people can fight injustice, oppression, tyranny, etc without resorting to violence of any kind. This is universal. It apllies to as much to Jews, Britishers, Americans, South Africans, Brazilians, Chinese students, green activists. The Jews would have had a greater moral position today if they had done a satyagraha against the evil Hitler and his dirty men. Eventually, and unfortunately, six million died then, and they are still fighting to survive. What a shame?
0 Replies
 
polpol
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 02:41 pm
@Quinn phil,
Greetings, May I suggest also the Gandhi Serve Foundation. They have a community forum "Gandhitopia". They are very dynamic and there is lots of information on Gandhi's influence today in India and elswhere.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 06:18 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;127189 wrote:
Do you think Gandhi's ways of Civil disobedience leave no room for dignity? How about pride? Were they effective? Discuss.
Don't know about how effecttive his methods were, but they were successful. I doubt there were any better methods.
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 06:32 pm
@polpol,
Smile I think C&obidience HELPS !

Free US 4 Boeddha >

FRee TYBET:bigsmile:
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 09:43 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
How would it affect things if Al Qaeda adopted civil disobedience to further their aims?
0 Replies
 
polpol
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:28 pm
@Quinn phil,
On Mani Bhavan Gandhi Sangrahalaya: Mahatma Gandhi Information Website, there is an article on Gandhi's vews on Satyagrahi, in the philosophy section. Here Gandhi defines the Satyagrahi, the non-violent warrior as opposed to the Duragrahi, the armed, violent warrior but he puts them on extremes ends of the same continium and opposes them to the coward, the one who runs away from danger, who "does not know how to die". While there can be hope for the violent one to become non-violent, Gandhi saw no hope for the coward and since many of his people were uneducated, half naked, half starved people, he had to put much energy to promote fearlessness. Thanks Quinn, for this very interesting discussion; by the way Gandhi was indeed influenced by Thoreau and Tolstoy
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 12:15 am
@polpol,
polpol;139637 wrote:
On Mani Bhavan Gandhi Sangrahalaya: Mahatma Gandhi Information Website, there is an article on Gandhi's vews on Satyagrahi, in the philosophy section. Here Gandhi defines the Satyagrahi, the non-violent warrior as opposed to the Duragrahi, the armed, violent warrior but he puts them on extremes ends of the same continium and opposes them to the coward, the one who runs away from danger, who "does not know how to die". While there can be hope for the violent one to become non-violent, Gandhi saw no hope for the coward and since many of his people were uneducated, half naked, half starved people, he had to put much energy to promote fearlessness. Thanks Quinn, for this very interesting discussion; by the way Gandhi was indeed influenced by Thoreau and Tolstoy


Can I get a link to this article? Gandhi, in my mind, seems supernatural. Someone who shared his same views ought to be a soldier, or a mother of a soldier, or a peasent of a town that's getting destroyed, or a jew during the Holocaust. Gandhi, however, was in a state of power. When the British attacked, he could have spoken to Nehru and Jinnah about initiating a counter-attack. He could have surrendered the land, as a coward. It's almost as if Gandhi felt no fear. Not only the various fasting, civil disobedience, and abuse he took, but the courage to speak out about his views. And the effectiveness with which it spread. Martin Luther King wasn't as influential. William Shakespear wasn't, in my eyes. Who could have been more influential for the greater good, than Mohandas Gandhi?

Noone. If the spirit of Christ were real, it was in Gandhi. :flowers:
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 09:48 am
@Quinn phil,
Christ was Great, Gandhi was simply great!

Both, as it is said, delivered their people. They have some strange but similar circumstances. Although there was nothing supernatural about him, it will so happen when people will revere him more, and may likely take him to those levels of human consciousness.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 09:52:47