Last year I wrote on your birthday 8 things you could have said but didnt
What amazing is not just your conviction, but the character of the millions of people who followed and perhaps even now follow your path.
Here are 10 things your followers could have said during the struggle but didnt
1.I dont see why I should protest against the government, in fact it would upatriotic to do it.
2.The king should worry about the country , I should worry about myself and my family
3.Gandhi doesnt belong to my caste/religion/province
4.He has probably taken money from the French or Germans to destabilise the fine British Government
5.Let my neighbour follow him first
6.I will follow him after I earn money
7.My grandchildren need wealth not what he calls freedom. Someone is always going to rule, there is no guarantee my granchildren will become the Prime Minister in future. They will need me and my money.
8.We are brave people and warriors, lets throw bombs and kill. Whats this about violence is better than cowardice but nonviolence is better than violence.
9.We are more developed now, and socially all sections have better rights, and British united and brought this concept of India, why go against them .
10.It will be more fun if he said, lets burn the goras and rape the goris. This fasting , getting lathicharged, going to prison , etc ..I will be an idiot to get into this.
Perhaps its not in me to become you, but I would be more than happy if I could make iota of contribution the Freedom Fighters (and not just your followers) did for this country.
To throw away your lifestyle and life, for the concept of better future not for your children but for the children of the country without the expectation of praise, and perquisites, and post, is perhaps the most unselfish deed.
Hoping on your Birthday, that I would discover the spirit of the Freedom Fighters who were non violent in their struggle, Today and Everyday.
Showing posts with label MKG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MKG. Show all posts
Jan 25, 2005
8 things you could have said but didnt
To many, today, your birthday, might just represent a holiday.Or the smiling face on the currency. I dont think you were perfect, who is ? To me, you represent the belief that the path is as important as the goal.
When 22 policemen were done to death, in Chauri Chaura, I can think of 8 things u could have said :
- I didnt do it, so i am not responsible
- My followers didnt do it . Its a frame
- My followers were provoked
- 22 lives. what about the millions of Indian lives!
- Goal justifies the attimes unfortunate Path we have to follow
- They were policemen, its similar to killing a soldier in war
- They weren't civilians leave alone children
- Appoint a committee
But you decided to call off the Non Cooperation Movement itself!
Hope that I discover your spirit in me, everyday, and not just on your birthday.
Technorati Tag India Gandhi
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
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
Non Violence
Reply to WGAF's comment"Gayathri, a)I disagree that Gandhi stood up and fought for India in every battle. If he had he would not have been assassinated. b) You are merely arguing, in theory, about non-violence, when in practice you are talking about cowardice. Non-violence does not mean just being reactive, it also means we have to be proactive. c) What is an instrument of war for, if its not meant to be used in our defense, or in offense, to protect ourselves? What, are our defense services for, if we cannot get Pakistan/Bangladesh, et al, to do what is right? d) What, I ask you, have we gained by thinking judicious force is only defensive in nature? e) Pakistan, Did you read me championing the cause of terrorism anywhere? No, I am long past that. What I instead pointed out, was that we have a Water treaty with Pakistan, and we are on the upstream of the rivers. So if they can shed our blood, we can shed some water for them, as and when we want. Get the point? f) "If there is war, neither I nor Gandhi would say dont fight.or dont take action against terrorist for that matter. " Correct, but are we really looking at addressing the bigger issues of that? or going for the jugular? NO. Even that "HARDLINE HINDUTVA NATIONALIST" Lal Krishna Advani, could not use hot pursuit as a weapon."
I have in my blog on Gandhi said that I dont believe in following anyone and in learning from everyone. No human being can be perfect all the time including Gandhi and me :)
When I introduce the word judicious it obviously means thinking and choice.My concept is simple, thinking principle of violence works always is stupid. And equally stupid is thinking one should not use their strength. (In my opinion, India on foreign affairs has been doing the later). And strength is not just about military strength.
Nonviolence is about thinking of using strength. Not about not using strength even to defend, or using strength only to defend. Since offense sometimes, could be the best method of defense. Similarly forgiving can be an option but it is NOT THE option. Surely our reaction to a child hitting us by mistake is not going to be the similar to one who wants to harm us. I dont think it is easy to lay down preconditions for forgiviness but it would depend on the situation and what we want to achieve.
Also turning the other cheek, doesnt mean being passive. But just not being influenced by the strength of the opponent. A soldier without weapons who continues to fight because he believes in his cause doesnt mean he is a coward. Whether he would be wise and right depends on what would have been achieved by his fighting or by his turning back.
Thinking and deciding on the course of action is the essense of non violence and by ignoring a problem, we are not thinking. Thinking doesnt mean thinking for eternity, its important to arrive at a decision. And just arriving at a decision is not enough, implementation is important. And even if non-action is the decision, if the problem continues to exist, one must go back to the thinking stage, decide, and implement another alternative. I am not sure which stage India is stuck up, re its policy against Pakistan. But its policy is definitely not about nonviolence.
An example. When it comes to issues like nuclear, we have the non-first use policy. I agree with that.But that doesnt mean I accept Pakistan's policy which doesnt have the non-first use clause. Of course I perceive it as a serious threat. Some might say lets just nuke Pakistan now, while others will say wait for them to nuke us first and then nuke them. I am against both. Even if the entire Pakistan is wiped out, what about the people we lose? I believe in Aggressively trying to commit Pakistan to the policy thru international forums and other methods. In my opinion on the whole, we were stupid inspite of having the strength in international affairs
And if I have fail to convince people about non-violence the fault is mine not that of the ideology. I will try my best to answer your WGAF points. But please note that I am not an expert, and definitely would not be able to do justice to the topic to the extent it deserves. I would request you to do independent research and then decide whether you are for it or against it.
a.Gandhi cannot be perfect. Even though he advocated it, it doesnt mean he is the sole authority and representative of the ideology of non violence. There are chances that he thought judiciously and still came out with the wrong conclusion or wrong results. That doesnt mean that the ideology is faulty. 2.I absolutely agree reg. proactive. And if people confuse non violence with appeasement or non action, its not the fault of non violence principle.
3.Re use of defense forces. Saying we should use it all the time is wrong and at the same time saying we shouldnt use it at all is equally stupid. So sure there can be cases when we will have to use our forces or atleast Assert our Authority. We are not a small island. Surely we must make use of our strength. Strength need not be just military, it can be economic and political too.
4.5.6.I think i made it pretty clearly that non violence is not just about thinking about using strength in defensively. There can be situations when the immediate choice of defense might be offense, even when there is no physical offense from the opposition. To me nonviolence is just about thinking about usage of strength. Its not about postponing decisions or waiting for the opposition. And again there is a choice of weapons on either side, and usage of one weapon as against another too. I think what we have done is not judicious and not about non violence but just ostrich style dealing with situations. Judicious use of violence also means thinking about the method of violence :) Economic sanctions and political boycott etc too can hurt. I cant say which is better because I think it would depend on the case.
Well in US eg, its my take that, they encouraged Saddam against Iran without thinking Saddam might eye other countries too. That too me is, not judicial use of strength. (May be it was to some in Reagan Govt. But not to me :) )But after the first Gulf war, they still kept Saddam. And I know that they did try to remove Saddam in other ways. But that just wasnt enough. Either they shouldnt have encouraged him in the first place against Iran or after he invaded Kuwait not leave him as a leader. Surely they could have done then what they are doing now. And I think they would have had more international support then too. I dont mean they should have killed him, or occupied Iraq forever, but they should have removed his influence. In my recollection even during Gulf War, there was talk about use of biological weapons against US. And its amazing that someone thought "judiciously" and still decided Saddam was safe in power. Keeping Saddam in power after the Gulf War 1 was not an act of non-violence but just an act of stupidity (ie not being judicious) to me. I dont know if it was an act of forgiving Saddam. Just like violence should be a choice after thought, forgiving too should be a choice after thought.
Similarly Pakistan encouraged terrorism and didnt think that the terrorists who are trained to hit India wont hit Pakistan. Encouraging terrorists and terror leaders to me seems a policy of, encouraging a form of violence without thinking about consequences ie non-judicious. I think everyone knows the difference between terrorists and soldiers. And that I am not saying one should not have an army.
At the same time, ignoring threats and being willing to defend only when one is attacked or at times not even defending when one is attacked is worse than cowardly just stupid. Ignoring a problem to me is not judicious use of strength and our ability to think.
I should have in my first post talked about both non-judicious use of violence and non-judicious act of ignoring a problem. My apologies.
Theory and practical implementation.Theoritically our legal system is supposed to not punish the innocent. But can anyone of us guarantee that not even 1 innocent has been punished. And what about cases when a higher court disagrees with a lower court.What is a better option, punishing all accused or not having a legal system at all. Similar to arguement against democracy. If you cant have a democracy in its true form, dont have it at all. Because all we will then have is a farce. Similarly with the theory of non violence which means judicious use of strength. Like the legal system and democracy, practically it might not deliver 100% of the time. But to me rather than blindly commit any act, as a solution to a problem I would prefer to think before an action. Whatever the ideology, the implementation will be by humans who are not perfect.
Also its easy for me to say, when the results are wrong, that the person was not judicious and when the result right, they have been judicious. :) Judicious is a grey area. And sometimes results are grey too. An immediate defeat need not be a permanent defeat. So its all grey :) and I have tried to in the best way I could.
My main arguement was many misunderstand Gandhi by thinking non-violence means losing the right to defend.Gandhi was never against violence, but against cowardice. He believed in not just physical strength but also mental courage, and if one reads the full text of his message on which I based my arguments, you will find him applauding Rama for taking on Ravana. He certainly didnt say Ram shouldnt have attacked Ravan.
I have talked about what is not non violence. But I will finish my case with what is non-violence with reference to the above example itself.When Sita was abducted, Rama didnt take Ravana individually or go to war immediately.Neither did he give up hope by thinking how can a vanar army defeat the Rakshas.Nor did slam the door on diplomacy.He sent Hanuman as a messenger first. To spare Ravan if he returned Sita was the gesture of forgiveness. But forgiveness too should have a purpose and should not be equalled with appeasement.And when there was no other alternative he attacked. But he could also distingush between Ravan and Vibhishan. And didnt believe in indiscriminate attack on all of Ravan's clan.
That too me is the essense of non violence. And though it may not be easy to follow or implement, or guarantee results, non violence seems to be preferable ideology though not the best ideology. If Gandhi couldn't distingush clearly between the Ravans and Vibhishans At times or if he seemed to forgive even when it didnt serve a purpose, it is not the fault of the ideology. Why not pratise it ourself and be a better example for this concept than Gandhi? This ideology appeals to me and I leave each one of you to decide for yourself
posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 2:04 PM on O3
I have in my blog on Gandhi said that I dont believe in following anyone and in learning from everyone. No human being can be perfect all the time including Gandhi and me :)
When I introduce the word judicious it obviously means thinking and choice.My concept is simple, thinking principle of violence works always is stupid. And equally stupid is thinking one should not use their strength. (In my opinion, India on foreign affairs has been doing the later). And strength is not just about military strength.
Nonviolence is about thinking of using strength. Not about not using strength even to defend, or using strength only to defend. Since offense sometimes, could be the best method of defense. Similarly forgiving can be an option but it is NOT THE option. Surely our reaction to a child hitting us by mistake is not going to be the similar to one who wants to harm us. I dont think it is easy to lay down preconditions for forgiviness but it would depend on the situation and what we want to achieve.
Also turning the other cheek, doesnt mean being passive. But just not being influenced by the strength of the opponent. A soldier without weapons who continues to fight because he believes in his cause doesnt mean he is a coward. Whether he would be wise and right depends on what would have been achieved by his fighting or by his turning back.
Thinking and deciding on the course of action is the essense of non violence and by ignoring a problem, we are not thinking. Thinking doesnt mean thinking for eternity, its important to arrive at a decision. And just arriving at a decision is not enough, implementation is important. And even if non-action is the decision, if the problem continues to exist, one must go back to the thinking stage, decide, and implement another alternative. I am not sure which stage India is stuck up, re its policy against Pakistan. But its policy is definitely not about nonviolence.
An example. When it comes to issues like nuclear, we have the non-first use policy. I agree with that.But that doesnt mean I accept Pakistan's policy which doesnt have the non-first use clause. Of course I perceive it as a serious threat. Some might say lets just nuke Pakistan now, while others will say wait for them to nuke us first and then nuke them. I am against both. Even if the entire Pakistan is wiped out, what about the people we lose? I believe in Aggressively trying to commit Pakistan to the policy thru international forums and other methods. In my opinion on the whole, we were stupid inspite of having the strength in international affairs
And if I have fail to convince people about non-violence the fault is mine not that of the ideology. I will try my best to answer your WGAF points. But please note that I am not an expert, and definitely would not be able to do justice to the topic to the extent it deserves. I would request you to do independent research and then decide whether you are for it or against it.
a.Gandhi cannot be perfect. Even though he advocated it, it doesnt mean he is the sole authority and representative of the ideology of non violence. There are chances that he thought judiciously and still came out with the wrong conclusion or wrong results. That doesnt mean that the ideology is faulty. 2.I absolutely agree reg. proactive. And if people confuse non violence with appeasement or non action, its not the fault of non violence principle.
3.Re use of defense forces. Saying we should use it all the time is wrong and at the same time saying we shouldnt use it at all is equally stupid. So sure there can be cases when we will have to use our forces or atleast Assert our Authority. We are not a small island. Surely we must make use of our strength. Strength need not be just military, it can be economic and political too.
4.5.6.I think i made it pretty clearly that non violence is not just about thinking about using strength in defensively. There can be situations when the immediate choice of defense might be offense, even when there is no physical offense from the opposition. To me nonviolence is just about thinking about usage of strength. Its not about postponing decisions or waiting for the opposition. And again there is a choice of weapons on either side, and usage of one weapon as against another too. I think what we have done is not judicious and not about non violence but just ostrich style dealing with situations. Judicious use of violence also means thinking about the method of violence :) Economic sanctions and political boycott etc too can hurt. I cant say which is better because I think it would depend on the case.
Well in US eg, its my take that, they encouraged Saddam against Iran without thinking Saddam might eye other countries too. That too me is, not judicial use of strength. (May be it was to some in Reagan Govt. But not to me :) )But after the first Gulf war, they still kept Saddam. And I know that they did try to remove Saddam in other ways. But that just wasnt enough. Either they shouldnt have encouraged him in the first place against Iran or after he invaded Kuwait not leave him as a leader. Surely they could have done then what they are doing now. And I think they would have had more international support then too. I dont mean they should have killed him, or occupied Iraq forever, but they should have removed his influence. In my recollection even during Gulf War, there was talk about use of biological weapons against US. And its amazing that someone thought "judiciously" and still decided Saddam was safe in power. Keeping Saddam in power after the Gulf War 1 was not an act of non-violence but just an act of stupidity (ie not being judicious) to me. I dont know if it was an act of forgiving Saddam. Just like violence should be a choice after thought, forgiving too should be a choice after thought.
Similarly Pakistan encouraged terrorism and didnt think that the terrorists who are trained to hit India wont hit Pakistan. Encouraging terrorists and terror leaders to me seems a policy of, encouraging a form of violence without thinking about consequences ie non-judicious. I think everyone knows the difference between terrorists and soldiers. And that I am not saying one should not have an army.
At the same time, ignoring threats and being willing to defend only when one is attacked or at times not even defending when one is attacked is worse than cowardly just stupid. Ignoring a problem to me is not judicious use of strength and our ability to think.
I should have in my first post talked about both non-judicious use of violence and non-judicious act of ignoring a problem. My apologies.
Theory and practical implementation.Theoritically our legal system is supposed to not punish the innocent. But can anyone of us guarantee that not even 1 innocent has been punished. And what about cases when a higher court disagrees with a lower court.What is a better option, punishing all accused or not having a legal system at all. Similar to arguement against democracy. If you cant have a democracy in its true form, dont have it at all. Because all we will then have is a farce. Similarly with the theory of non violence which means judicious use of strength. Like the legal system and democracy, practically it might not deliver 100% of the time. But to me rather than blindly commit any act, as a solution to a problem I would prefer to think before an action. Whatever the ideology, the implementation will be by humans who are not perfect.
Also its easy for me to say, when the results are wrong, that the person was not judicious and when the result right, they have been judicious. :) Judicious is a grey area. And sometimes results are grey too. An immediate defeat need not be a permanent defeat. So its all grey :) and I have tried to in the best way I could.
My main arguement was many misunderstand Gandhi by thinking non-violence means losing the right to defend.Gandhi was never against violence, but against cowardice. He believed in not just physical strength but also mental courage, and if one reads the full text of his message on which I based my arguments, you will find him applauding Rama for taking on Ravana. He certainly didnt say Ram shouldnt have attacked Ravan.
I have talked about what is not non violence. But I will finish my case with what is non-violence with reference to the above example itself.When Sita was abducted, Rama didnt take Ravana individually or go to war immediately.Neither did he give up hope by thinking how can a vanar army defeat the Rakshas.Nor did slam the door on diplomacy.He sent Hanuman as a messenger first. To spare Ravan if he returned Sita was the gesture of forgiveness. But forgiveness too should have a purpose and should not be equalled with appeasement.And when there was no other alternative he attacked. But he could also distingush between Ravan and Vibhishan. And didnt believe in indiscriminate attack on all of Ravan's clan.
That too me is the essense of non violence. And though it may not be easy to follow or implement, or guarantee results, non violence seems to be preferable ideology though not the best ideology. If Gandhi couldn't distingush clearly between the Ravans and Vibhishans At times or if he seemed to forgive even when it didnt serve a purpose, it is not the fault of the ideology. Why not pratise it ourself and be a better example for this concept than Gandhi? This ideology appeals to me and I leave each one of you to decide for yourself
posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 2:04 PM on O3
Gandhi & the Congress Party
Gandhi & the Congress Party
On January 29th, a day before he died, Gandhi had a radical proposal that the Congress, its role fulfilled with independence, should dissolve itself as a political party and "flower into" an association for empowering the people of India. It would tackle illiteracy, ill-health, unemployment, untouchability and communal intolerance in every village in India. In proposing this a day before he was killed, Gandhi’s aim was two-fold. While Congressmen would be prevented from encashing for themselves their new-found power, the people of India would be strengthened in their equation with the state. Aware that the state of independent India retained a colonial and feudal mindset, Gandhi wanted yesterday’s freedom fighters to empower the citizen; and he was confident that parties old and new, from the left to the right, would fill the vacuum created by the Congress’s exit as a political body. Congressmen unable to live without politics could join another party, he said.
Source : An article by Rajmohan Gandhi http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040823&fname=FCol+Rajmohan&sid=1&pn=2 Hmmm how many of those in Congress, talk about this when they discuss Gandhi?
And a pointless questions : If the Congress party had been disbanded, would India be different today? And what if Indhira had married a man with a different surname, would Congress still refer so much to MK Gandhi? What is in a name, be it a surname or a party name? And have “Congress”, & “Gandhi” become misused brand names.(referring to the Gandhis in Nehru's family not MK Gandhi's family)
On January 29th, a day before he died, Gandhi had a radical proposal that the Congress, its role fulfilled with independence, should dissolve itself as a political party and "flower into" an association for empowering the people of India. It would tackle illiteracy, ill-health, unemployment, untouchability and communal intolerance in every village in India. In proposing this a day before he was killed, Gandhi’s aim was two-fold. While Congressmen would be prevented from encashing for themselves their new-found power, the people of India would be strengthened in their equation with the state. Aware that the state of independent India retained a colonial and feudal mindset, Gandhi wanted yesterday’s freedom fighters to empower the citizen; and he was confident that parties old and new, from the left to the right, would fill the vacuum created by the Congress’s exit as a political body. Congressmen unable to live without politics could join another party, he said.
Source : An article by Rajmohan Gandhi http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040823&fname=FCol+Rajmohan&sid=1&pn=2 Hmmm how many of those in Congress, talk about this when they discuss Gandhi?
And a pointless questions : If the Congress party had been disbanded, would India be different today? And what if Indhira had married a man with a different surname, would Congress still refer so much to MK Gandhi? What is in a name, be it a surname or a party name? And have “Congress”, & “Gandhi” become misused brand names.(referring to the Gandhis in Nehru's family not MK Gandhi's family)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)