Why Gandhi Ji was wrong – nonviolence doesn’t work Essay Example

so and could do it but he wanted Nehru to become India's first Prime Minister over Mohammed Ali Jinnah. This was the reason he agreed to the partition. While agreeing to the partition, Gandhi Ji only thought about the present and not about the future. It is because of the partition that so many lives were lost in wars.

People were slaughtered and innocent blood was spilled. Where were his principles then? They have implied no inaction anymore. Due to his simple decision, India and Pakistan have been in a state of war since 1947. The writer very cleverly states that "Yet despite the hypocrisies that have dotted Gandhi's life, his ideas continue to have a powerful hold on the Western imagination". This is indeed true.

Throughout the world, people believed in Gandhi Ji's principles and still do. Gandhi Ji has been a role model to millions of individuals out there. To insult the person who is respected by so many individuals around the world, someone who people look up to is being relentlessly insulted by someone who fails to understand his principles. Gandhi Ji wasn't dealing with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. He was dealing with the British and knew exactly what he was doing.

His principles are one that will last forever. The application of his principles was ideal to deal with the British and the proof of this is 15th August 1947. If he was indeed dealing with Imperial Japan or the Nazi government, the application of his principles would have been different. His principles are what we believed in and this belief got us the freedom we deserved. Even though the writer says it

"would have been nothing more than an invitation to a bullet."

I choose to defer his opinion. I think that Gandhi Ji would have used his principles in another way. That guy was one of the most learned people to have fought the fight for freedom. He used his charm and words to convince a whole nation that what he was doing was indeed the right thing to do. People saw this in him and believed in him.

Yes although Gandhi Ji was in the end shot by a bullet, the reason for killing him was for the partition of India. Look at a person like Nelson Mandela. He had more or less the same principles as Gandhi Ji, and guess what, they too worked against the British. It is the application of the principle that matters and not the principle. Ultimately Gandhi Ji's aim of getting rid of the British was fulfilled as he did get them to leave India. This is proof of what his beliefs are.

Here the application for his principles is justified. Taking into consideration the 9/11 bomb blasts, as the writers say, "slogans were already appearing on posters challenging," "what would Gandhi do?" If Gandhi Ji was alive, He would have surely found a way to solve this problem. "Why is the writer questioning what Gandhi Ji would do? He isn't alive anymore to say, "ok do this. "Why are the writer's eyes glistening with the ghost of the past?" Gandhi Ji wouldn't have done what President Bush did that led to the 9/11 attack. There were better ways to approach the situation that Bush didn't think of or just chose to

avoid.

The problem could have been avoided. The whole point of Gandhi telling the Jews to willingly walk into the Gas chambers was because Gandhi thought that perhaps this would hit Hitler and make him realize that what he was doing was wrong. This was Gandhi Ji's approach to things. The Jews were anyways being massacred, so why not try something that might work. The writer claims that "It is a particularly futile and dangerous strain that values internal nobility over the lives and welfare of others." The writer should be aware that by calling Tolstoy's and Gandhi Ji's principles pointless, he is contradicting himself.

If their principles were pointless, how come Gandhi Ji still managed to free India from British rule? It was a method better than spilling the blood of so many innocent people. Nonviolence isn't redundant nor dangerously misguided as the writer claims. Non-violence does work until a certain limit. You cant expect it to be foolproof.

If the writer thinks there is a solution that is foolproof then I would surely like to know. His goals were always peaceful and thus according to the writer's claims, Nonviolence does work. Aren't we all ready to reach a peaceful agreement? Or do we, like the writer wants the war to continue and more bloodshed to happen? Another time I agree with the writer is when he states that, "Nonviolence is a tactic that can only work against essentially peaceful opponents" but the British weren't peaceful nor easy to beat. How can the writer call a country that had conquered most of the countries in the world once upon a time peaceful? The British too were violent

but in their own ways.

Bloodshed isn't the only form of violence. The British took away our revenues, beat farmers who couldn't pay the high taxes, and not to mention ruthlessly killed innocent children and people at the Jalan Wala Baug. There is a gap between the reality and ideology of non-violence, but that doesn't mean that non-violence doesn't work. Don"t all ideologies have their individual drawbacks? Throwing light upon a Bollywood film made on the principles of Gandhi Ji called, "Lage Raho Munna Bhai," tells us that even up to now, people still believe in his principles no matter what people like the writer said.

Taking a scene from the movie where a man keeps spitting a pan on his neighbor's door every time he walks past it, the advice given to the neighbor according to Gandhi Ji's principles is that just clean the stains with a smile. This actually works as the man soon stops spitting as he gets ashamed and realizes that it's wrong. Although it is a movie, only people who have some shame within them and some inner consciences will realize. This is what the writer fails to understand.

Guilt can drive a person crazy until he or she doesn't fix his or her mistake. "In Gandhi's non-violence, a rape victim who screamed for help would be guilty of practicing violence rather than non-violence." What I don't understand is that how is screaming an act of violence? It's simply an act of self-defense. Gandhi Ji never said don't protect yourself when getting harmed. He simply said that there are better ways of solving fights and issues rather than using violence. In situations such

as rapes, it's a given that the girl is allowed to use violence as an act of self-defense and self-defense only.

Gandhi had no reason to urge the British to surrender to Hitler other than for the good of the people. Besides he didn't force. Looking at the choice of words chosen by the writer, he simply urged. It was a suggestion made and not a compulsion. How was self-interested while offering advice is something I didn't understand. What good would it do Gandhi Ji if innocent people died? Nothing.

Precisely why that mustn't have been his reason for urging the British to surrender to Hitler. It was simply a suggestion that would have spared the lives of millions of innocent people. If Gandhi Ji's policies were so flawed as the writer portrays it to be, the United Nations, being an unjust and fair body, wouldn't have passed a resolution to honor this man's great achievements. To quote our beloved prime minister Manmohan Singh, "Gandhi himself stated:" Nonviolence is the rule of conduct for a society if it is to live consistently with human dignity and make total progress towards the attainment of peace.

As observed, non-violence is not a value principle alone but science based on the reality of mankind, society, and polity. "To quote Gandhi Ji," To practice ahimsa, one requires the qualities of deliberate self-suffering intended to awaken and convert the soul of the enemy and a harmless mind, mouth, and hand. This is the point that the writer should agree and follow. You need the qualities and the patience to make your enemy understand your intention and how wrong their doing is. To conclude

on-violence isn't the solution to every single problem, but it is a solution and an option open to everyone. There are always two sides to looking at a thing. A glass can either be half empty or half full, it depends on your interpretation of the situation. For the writer, he seems to look at things and situations in an extremely pessimistic way while others take them in an optimistic way.

As long as you justify why you feel so, your thoughts are justified. No one can force you to believe them, it is ultimately what you want to believe in.