Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Gandhi
Hi everyone, my children expressed an interest in the history of Gandhi, my eldest having studied non-violent protest in school. So we watched the movie with Ben Kingsley on the life of Gandhi.
It's been a while since I have seen this film but it really is brilliant and gave me a boost as I'm involved in a lot of non-violent political protest. Although Gandhi was not a Buddhist, but a Hindu educated in a Christian environment, he still had a lot of ideas of which the Buddha would have approved. Like for instance "I am prepared to die in a just cause. But I am not prepared to kill". He advocated 'fighting' injustice by using his integrity to shame the opposition into realising their own error.
His teaching is still radical after all these years and I suspect we all need a reminder that fighting evil is not the same as hurting people.
It's been a while since I have seen this film but it really is brilliant and gave me a boost as I'm involved in a lot of non-violent political protest. Although Gandhi was not a Buddhist, but a Hindu educated in a Christian environment, he still had a lot of ideas of which the Buddha would have approved. Like for instance "I am prepared to die in a just cause. But I am not prepared to kill". He advocated 'fighting' injustice by using his integrity to shame the opposition into realising their own error.
His teaching is still radical after all these years and I suspect we all need a reminder that fighting evil is not the same as hurting people.
0
Comments
I wonder if anyone has read a book biography, my understanding is that his early life was very uneventful in contrast?
This may be controversial (and "not Buddhist)), but I am sometimes of the opinion that it's hard to say whether or not non-violent protest is objectively better than violent protest.
In cases like the Civil Rights Movement, MLK Jr is generally credited for the success of non-violent protest. But we forget/are not reminded that lots of radical groups were fighting racist institutions as well and prepared to use their stockpile of arms if necessary (e.g. Black Panthers, Young Lords, etc). MLK Jr was just the mainstream, friendly face that people could more easily support. But I don't think it would be accurate to say the entire Civil Rights issue was "won" by his faction alone.
Nelson Mandela is also an icon of "peace," but people don't seem to remember that he was the leader and founder of the ANC party's militant wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, which translates to Spear of the Nation.
So, to take a "Middle Path" approach to this topic, I think that although non-violent resistance is preferable, we cannot discount the fact that militancy does aid social change. So "fighting evil" can take different forms - if the lesser evil involves some people doing harm to others, I think it has to be accepted.
I hate to bring Godwin's Law into this, but I dont' think non-violent resistance would've helped the Jews during WW2. In an extreme situation like that, of course those who have the privilege and safety to participate non-violently should do that, but we can't look down upon those who choose to take up arms.
Good thought provoking post Invincible_summer
What do you think of Western civilisation?
Gandhi:
I think it would be a very good idea.
He was fluidly articulate, having been educated and trained as a lawyer.
fortunately, he had a knack of knowing precisely which buttons to push - and how.
My son goes to an independent autism school where they tend to follow his lead in terms of what he wants to know, but until recently, his understanding of timelines was so poor that history wasn't really feasible. But he really enjoyed the Gandhi movie and for the most part, could follow the storyline. Even though he wasn't quite sure that the guy with hair and glasses was the same bald guy in glasses later on in the film.
His teaching is still radical after all these years and I suspect we all need a reminder that fighting evil is not the same as hurting people. I don't know if its controversial, but I certainly disagree. But then I've spent a lot of time reading about political protest and the means of political change in my politics degree. A lot of historians and political scientists argue that whilst political change has no doubt occurred following violent protest, it is invariably despite the violence, not because of it. Ultimately, peace can only be built by peaceful means.
Other figures you mention, like Nelson Mandela often started off as violent revolutionaries, but changed their mind as they went through life and learned better ways of dealing with situations. Mandela was heavily influenced by reading the teachings of Gandhi and MLK, as well as many other, non-violent protestors, while he was in prison. And he saw the problems caused by violent protest, such as the opposition feeling justified in their oppression.
Malcolm X is another figure who radically changed his views, becoming a peaceful Muslim at the end of his life, rather than a member of the Nation of Islam sect.
Anger and violence seem like easy solutions on the surface, but IMHO that is only because young people are unaware of the complexity of political life. It seems that the solution is to kills the evil dictator, so that democracy can flourish, for instance, but you simply replace the Tsar with Stalin. Have a read of Orwell's "Animal Farm" if you doubt what I'm saying! (or read Hannah Arendt's 'On Violence').
Could the Jews have found Hitler with non-violence? Actually, they did, in a way, since they had no way to fight with force. I am reminded by the story of the recently departed curator of the Auschwitz museum, a former inmate who spent his last few years actually living on the site of his incarceration, where so many of his friends and family were murdered, fighting tyranny with the only means he had: his words. By telling any that would listen, what happened in that terrible place, he was able to do his bit to make sure it never happened again.
Anyway, before I lapse off into vague ramblings about non-violent protest, I can heartily recommend you have a read around the subject. As well as Gandhi, Mandela and MLK, don't forget contemporary people like Aung San Su Kyi, the Burmese opposition leader, recently released from 20 years house arrest. And as I mentioned, Hannah Arendt argues very forcefully (?) for non-violence.
interesting but just so loooooooonnnnngggg!
"Although violence and the use of force may appear powerful and decisive, their benefits are short-lived. Violence can never bring a lasting and long term resolution to any problem, because it is unpredictable and for every problem it seems to solve, others are created. On the other hand, truth remains constant and will ultimately prevail." - HH Dalai Lama
For example, thousands of people have died in Syria over the past year. Do you really think that Gandhi's principles would solve the situation?
Gandhi's actions worked in one circumstance. A situation where there were many other factors contributing to Great Britain's ultimate decision to leave India. A very short reading about this is at: http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/india/indiaind.html
Martin Luther King was mentioned. He, also did not operate in a vacuum. He has gained the most respect because he played inside the main arena. But at the same time, violent civil rights groups were also operating, major parts of cities were being burned to the ground, and together many forces made it a tidal wave of pressure. MLK is a hero of mine, but he did not bring about civil rights on his own, nor did his peaceful policies do so in a vacuum.
Nelson Mandella...same here. A major factor, yes. The only factor, no.
And I am reminded of 2 Indians who are highly respected in the part of the West in which I now live. Chief Washakie in Wyoming and Chief Ouray in Colorado. They helped bring peace to those to states because they were peaceful and cooperated with the White man...and lost all their tribe's land.
I am not questioning the greatness of any of these people. Rather, I am saying they were one part of the puzzle in solving the situations in which they operated. And there is a danger to jumping to a conclusion that Gandhi-like actions will solve any problem.
I am reminded of my days as a principal. As negative situations would arise, the administrative team would start by doing 2 things. First, try to determine worst case scenarios, best case scenarios, and the more likely scenario "in the middle". Then come up with various strategies which can be applied to the situation...and, of course, determine which combination of actions, or which order of actions is best to resolve the situation.
Gandhi was kicked off a train when he refused to give up his 1st-class ticket and move to the "colored" 3rd-class car, as then required by law in South Africa. He spent a cold, angry, sleepless night on the railway platform. This marked a turning point in his life. It was then that he decided to devote his life to fighting injustice not case by case, as a lawyer would, but on a grand scale, for the liberation of entire populations. It was on that night that he formed his strategy of fighting by combining loving-kindness and non-violent resistance, which in his mind would elevate the consciousness of both the oppressed and the oppressor.
The first phase of his new non-violent war against injustice was fought against the apartheid of South Africa. That was where he first tried out his methods and found them very effective. He decided to return home to India, to apply his methods there. And the rest is history.
"I have learned through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move the world" --Gandhi
How great to have a Gandhi thread! If anyone can add something about his childhood and education in India, that would be enjoyed by all, I think.
The Wiki on Gandhi is well-written and well-researched, as a basic introduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0403/196.html
Harilai later reconverted to Hinduism.
But it seems he had a turbulent connection to his father...
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/harilal-gandhi-life-IDJ821/
I think there is a problem if you look at what he achieved, and some of his fantastic teachings, and expect to see Gandhi the God. Fortunately, he wasn't that, he was just a human being, but what an extraordinary one! But because he wasn't perfect he shows that to do right, you don't need to be perfect, just determined. And probably more than a little brave.
@Ada_B Where was his primary and secondary education done, in India? Any info on his childhood and schooling?
I also hate to be nitpicky, but the Czar was overthrown by Lenin.
And I don't want to get too political (it may be too late!) but Orwell was in favour of socialism, just not the Stalinist variety, which is why he wrote Animal Farm. It's not an anti-revolutionary parable. Well, I didn't mean the Jews directly, but rather the Allied forces (although it's debatable whether or not they were fighting to liberate the Jews or just in their own self-interests), but I suppose I could include the small pockets of (violent) Jewish resistance. I studied quite a bit about social movements in university, which is why I came to the conclusion that I did. Like I said, non-violent resistance is always preferable, but it will not and cannot be 100% like that, and those who do choose violent resistance shouldn't necessarily be demonized for it. Social movements don't "win" 100% on either non-violence or violence.
George Orwell was a socialist who believed in democracy i.e. democratic socialist, along the lines of the Labour Party in Britain (Old Labour that is, pre-Tony Blair). I know some of you seem to be under the impression that socialist=communist, but it really isn't the case. At least not here in Britain it isn't. Very different animals.
Orwell wrote Animal Farm, and later 1984, following his disillusionment of the results of the Russian revolution, which he had initially supported. He continued to be a passionate (democratic) socialist to the end of his life, but believed the situation in Russia bore little resemblance to the teachings, or intentions, of Karl Marx or other socialist philosophers.
No social movement produces change in and of itself - a movement may be the nexus of that change, but a kind of momentum has to build up in which the self-interest of those in power coincides with the goals of the social movement. For instance, the independence of India owed as much due to Britain's inability to afford to keep the Empire going, following WWII, as to the Indian independence movement.
However, the independence movement helped make India more ungovernable than it might have been. It became the straw that broke the British Empire's back.
Of course, going back to Gandhi's teachings, he wasn't at all naive about the true reasons why Britain granted India independence: he knew it was as much about finance as ethics. Like he said, it was impossible for 30,000 British to control 300 million Indians, once the Indians decided they wanted home-rule. His campaign was deliberately intended to place the British in the position whereby they could only rule by violence, whilst generating a situation in which the British people were not prepared to support that violence. Clever stuff - rather like persuading your boss that your good idea was his idea, so that he was forced to support it and couldn't go against it without losing face.
Like I said, I'm a political science graduate. And protest was/is my special interest.
The armed struggle continued before and after Mandela's influence, but it was Mandela ceased supporting it long before he was freed from prison. He was largely credited with preventing the feared bloodbath and helping South Africa to become a multi-ethnic nation (a journey it it still on, incidentally - the battle is won but the fight for justice continues). He was a joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for this reason. If you are interested to read about Mandela's story, do please read his autobiography "The Long Walk to Freedom".
My father worked for the BBC in India, and was responsible for preparing the broadcasting studio from which Gandhi spoke to the nation. He actually heard the shots - and the subsequent commotion - that heralded the death of the great man.
i find it hard to believe that he put the British into the deliberate position of having absolutely no choice but to react violently; there was an awful lot of British Empirical history preceding Gandhi's push for an independent India, and everything the British had ever done, before that point - had involved accomplishing things by force.
therefore, he knew what to expect - why would Great Britain change its modus operandum simply because they were faced with a pacifist?
Having spoken to my father, and studied a bit too - i don't think that your statement, @Ada_B is strictly accurate.
i can see what you mean, but i don't think everything he did was intended to provoke a violent response; he simply knew one would come about - because the British had always won the world over - in this way.
there is still, even today, a relatively gung-ho attitude when we go into battle against those we view as a threat to the general balance of things;
America considers itself the Police of the world; Great Britain bizarrely still basks in the illusion that they (should) own it.....
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians - they are so unlike your Christ."
Plus Gandhi knew that the British population might support the violence suppression of a violent rebellion, but they weren't going to support their troops attacking a load of harmless, peaceful protestors. Gandhi knew that too, and campaigned to get the British working classes on his side. He knew that the British had an honourable sense of fair play and he was able to tune into that. Lack of popular support for the Empire from Britain's citizens, plus the inevitability of a bloodbath if they carried on as they were going left the British with only one viable option: Indian independence.
This isn't encouraging violence, this is understanding what would happen if they carried on the way they were going (violent revolution against British rule) and giving them the opportunity to avoid that fate. Gandhi understood violence and he understood the need to save face and the need to keep popular opinion. He simply used these tools of persuasion and thus avoided bloodshed.
You need to be clear that understanding the violent instincts of others, and such unholy impulses such as the need to save face and the need to keep in with popular opinion, does not mean you approve of those impulses or feel they are the best way to behave. They simply are. A wise person can turn those impulses towards good, as Gandhi did.
The point is, if you have two choices, good and evil, and I know you will always want to take the latter choice, really I have presented you with no choice at all. Hobson's Choice, we call it: the choice between the right thing and something totally unacceptable. The clever thing is to present choices in such a way that you can clearly see that that is the choice: between good and evil, not two neutral choices of equal worth.
For instance, in the movie, Gandhi is seen defending himself in court from the charge of sedtition. He says "I have always felt that the duty of a good man is to fight evil. I consider the British rule of India an evil, and therefore, as a good man, I must fight it".
See how he cleverly argues that the rule of India is evil, and gets the people on his side by his implication that as good men, they must, of course, want to avoid evil. His argument is based on the assumption not that the British Raj is evil, but that it is populated by people who want to do good.
Maybe I was trying too hard to explain his clever arguments, and confused people? But it is deep stuff. It is not easy and he does demand a startling honesty of people to admit that they want to avoid evil, and yet have somehow found themselves doing it. I find that challenging even in the little political campaigns I fight! It is too easy to paint the opposition as the bad guys who have no conscience and no desire to do good.
@Ada_B For us Yanks, could you explain please, what a "comprehensive" school is?
Here in UK, I'm involved in the fight to stop the government privatising our National Health Service and potentially basing it on the US system (crazy, eh?) They are also cutting welfare to disabled people, including children and the care of the elderly is a national disgrace.
I'll fight that as there are many people who aren't able to fight for themselves. Doesn't mean I have to hurt any body or even be mean. It does mean I'm not going to give up though and I am going to tell the powers that be the truth of what their policies could mean for Britain.
So for instance, the Prime Minister said last week "We will not be reducing the [welfare] benefits to disabled children". We checked that out and discovered he either lied or he's mistaken (neither of which is great for the leader of Britain). The truth is, some children were getting a little more, but most disabled children were having their benefits halved. Which is bad news when you consider that many parents of disabled children are unable to work due to their caring responsibilities.
Our campaign is first to alert the British public and the media about potential lies being told to them. We get the figures, we collate them and we publicise them. Next we write to MPs, sign petitions, blog, get hard cases in the media and publicise the negative results of these policies. And this is when you realise how potentially powerful these new media are.
My principle means of 'fighting' are, as they were for Gandhi, communicating the issues, raising awareness and raising consciousness. It's about enlivening people's consciences with the truth, not hurting them.
What about increasing revenues, through closing tax loopholes, and forcing corporations to pay their share? What about cutting the salaries of members of Parliament? :eek:
A US-style health system is no health system. I knew Canada has been discussing abandoning their socialized medicine in favor of a US system, but the UK, too?? I thought the UK was proud of its public health system.
Oy, Samsara! :bawl:
By the way, I did a little bit of sociology for my degree but I found it s*dd*ng hard. Completely over my head!
Normally, people go to extremes - either they're too scared to fight evil, or they take it personally and start hurting people under the pretext of fighting evil. Gandhi taught the middle way - fight evil, not people. Simply beautiful! Shame on those who can't recognize this.
At least in my case, I rather admire Gandhi. BUT, I also know that it was not Gandhi alone that caused the British to leave India. Many factors were involved. BUT, I also know that you cannot translate Gandhi's principles to solve every "power problem" in the world.
I try to do the same with ML King and Thomas Jefferson...both heroes of mine...but not perfect men.
I've never before heard of a little man standing up to a mighty power, not even in fairy tales. That this happened in the 20th century is ... well, no words can describe this!
Enough said.
And sociology difficult? I suppose it depends on what the focus is on - statistics gives me an incredible headache, whereas doing research on radical groups and whatnot is definitely fun