Not because I Cant, But because I Wont

A response to criticism of my style of comments and also to this comment "btw gone are the gandhian days when we showed the other cheek for getting slapped on one!! in fact gandhi was killed for doing so....see if u show the other cheek for getting slapped on one ppl think that ur loco and locos like gandhi always get killed!! i bet even gandhi must be regretting he ever made such a statement.........................ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha "by Rage against Mad Dogs.
I am not a Gandhian, but I do respect him and try hard every day to be guided by his philosophy.
Gandhi on violence :"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour."
"But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her." "But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India's and my strength for a better purpose.Let me not be misunderstood. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will."
"Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law to the strength of the spirit."
"And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-violence because it is weak. I want her to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power." and finally "If India takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory."
But how feasible is this philosophy today in international politics ?Case 1.Bush vs Saddam HusseinOn December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by Sr.Bush and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rumsfeld looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Sr Bush and Rumsfeld seemed pretty happy with the results because The Donald Rumsfeld went back to have another meeting with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that Sr Bush and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of USA.I dont have to tell what happened in 1990 and later on till today.
Case 2. ISI encouraging terrorism in KashmirFidayeen (suicide cadres) have for years been mobilized, ideologically motivated and trained in Pakistan for export in the neighbourhood -- particularly to Jammu & Kashmir. While J&K witnessed six fidayeen attacks so far in the current year, with a total of 29 fatalities, 86 people have been killed in at least seven fidayeen attacks within Pakistan.High-profile targets of the fidayeen have included, among others, President Musharraf & the Prime Minister. The increasing deployment of fidayeen and the legitimization of suicide attacks is disturbing at another level as well. There have been reports that Al Qaeda operatives have infiltrated into Pakistani security agencies. For instance, a constable of the Karachi Police is alleged to have been the suicide bomber in the May 7, 2004-attack in which 15 members of the Shia community died at the Haideri mosque in Karachi. Earlier, a local intelligence official, Muhammad Naeem, was arrested in Islamabad on January 11, 2004, for allegedly tipping off the two suicide bombers who tried to crash their explosive laden vehicles into President Musharraf's convoy at Rawalpindi on December 25, 2003. To sum up the ostensibly US-friendly Musharraf regime is losing control over terrorist groups within Pakistan -- and, indeed, itself being targeted by them.
Those who live by sword die by sword. And doctrine of the sword gives only Momentary victory.
What has that to do with my style of blogging. I try to avoid abusive terms and try to not generalise groups. This attitude is not similar to what is being thought of as Gandhian principle of cowardice(which he and I condemn) but similar to Gandhian principle of non-violence. Not indulging in an action, not because one can't but only because one can and still won't .
Rage, if I dont use abusive language, its not because I Can't but because I Won't .
And if I dont generalise in return its not because I Can't but because I Won't. My comments will be attributed not just to me but also to groups I belong to. A reader from Indore, who could till now been neutral to Southies is not going to feel the same after reading your comments on Indian?Idol http:o3.indiatimes.com/hmmm
And when I generalise and think "the flow of language" is more important. I lose my position to justify my other positions.What is the difference between a person who passes a generalised comment based on gender to one who passes a generalised comment based on religion and to one who who passes a generalised comment based on region? To me None.
Bias and prejudice towards a group based on gender or relgion or region etc are a form of violence towards a group and are seeds of hatred. Just because they some of them May not grow into trees of hatred and violence, doesnt mean one should accept them all. Therefore I try my best to stand up to deal with them.
My resources are limited. There is a point in waking a person who is sleeping but not one who is pretending to sleep. And if I find that a person has closed the mind to arguements from me, I do give up trying to convince further. Or agree to disagree. Sometimes I decide to lose a battle to win the war. due to my limited resources of time and also my way with words :).
I try my best to fight in the way which is convenient to me and appeals to me, however small, however insignificant. And that to me is certainly better than using abusive languages to score a point or generalising because it is easier.
UItimately it comes down to what one wants to achieve through blogging.
posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:07 PM on O3