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.
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.
You think the Hollocaust was a great accomplishment? You never seemed like much of a Nazi to me...
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.
.
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.
Eh, what has all this to do with Gandhi's idiotic advice to the British and the Jews.
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.
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.
Eh, what has all this to do with Gandhi's idiotic advice to the British and the Jews.
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.
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.
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.
Do you think Gandhi's ways of Civil disobedience leave no room for dignity? How about pride? Were they effective? Discuss.
I think C&obidience HELPS !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
