Posted on 01/22/2013 9:25:32 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
At a time when President Obama has announced severe gun control proposals, it might come as a surprise to note that Mahatma Gandhi, one of the greatest champions of non-violence and someone whom the president counts among his personal inspirations, actively campaigned for the right to bear arms during the Indian freedom struggle.
Today it is often argued that a large part of the purpose behind the Second Amendment—protection against the prospect of government tyranny—is unjustified or irrelevant. But this argument is strikingly similar to the one advanced by the British colonialists who presented themselves as the redeemers of their colonial dominions and claimed that their rule was the best and most enlightened form of government in the world. History tells us that they were wrong.
It was then that Gandhi realized that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right of free people because despite constitutional provisions and non-violent methods of protest, it sometimes becomes necessary to resist tyranny with force. He made it a part of his program first in South Africa and later in India—both under British rule. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at thecollegefix.com ...
Gandhi is credited with promoting non-violence but he recommended using violence when necessary. He said: “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence... but non-violence is infinitely superior to violence.”
CC
The only reason non-violence worked with Ghandi was the fact that he was dealing with a somewhat civilized people in the British. Also the fact they didn;t have much for weapons.
Try nonviolence with barbarians and you end up literally as supper.
> ...he was dealing with a somewhat civilized people in the British.
Not even “somewhat civilized”:
How Churchill ‘starved’ India
Soutik Biswas
BBC
Thursday, 28 October 2010
It is 1943, the peak of the Second World War. The place is London. The British War Cabinet is holding meetings on a famine sweeping its troubled colony, India. Millions of natives mainly in eastern Bengal, are starving. Leopold Amery, secretary of state for India, and Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wavell, soon to be appointed the new viceroy of India, are deliberating how to ship more food to the colony. But the irascible Prime Minister Winston Churchill is coming in their way.
“Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country,” writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. “Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country,” he writes.
Some three million Indians died in the famine of 1943. The majority of the deaths were in Bengal. In a shocking new book, Churchill’s Secret War, journalist Madhusree Mukherjee blames Mr Churchill’s policies for being largely responsible for one of the worst famines in India’s history. It is a gripping and scholarly investigation into what must count as one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the Empire.
The article continues here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html
I find it amusing how Westerners refer to Gandhi as “Mahatma.”
Its a reverential term meaning “Great Soul” that followers give to their spiritual leaders, teachers or gurus.
Mostly it is the the “civilized” people one needs to watch out for. Most of the worlds evils are committed not by primitive savages but by people promoting “civilization”.
The supreme irony that seems to have escaped you is the fact that the 2nd Amendment was designed to take care of the very excesses in cruelty by the British, in America. The two are intertwined. The British were burning houses, churches and towns during the time, here. As for India, look up Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre or how British policies led to famines in India which killed millions. Post-Independent India saw a drastic, dramatic reduction in famine.
Gandhi had/has an international following. But I’ve seen Easterners refer to Western Reverend [name] in similar manner. It must be the polite thing to do.
I am not so sure non-violence actually “worked” with the British. I don’t think the Brits woke up one fine day and had sympathy for Indians they decided to pack up and leave. The British economy was devastated after the war. They didn’t have the financial resources to hold on to India. India also had 3 million strong highly trained army who just returned from WW2 and they were only waiting to rise in revolt. Gandhi was actually doing the Brits a favor by saving their @sses from slaughter via non-violence. If the British has killed him the dissenting Indian army would have unleashed hell on the Brits.
Gandhi’s methods weren’t just non-violent. He was a sly fox.
His target was not the British military, but British economy. He instituted civil disobedience and non payment of taxes. He correctly identified the real source of British power.
He maybe “non-violent” but he exhorted Indians to volunteer in the British army to fight the Nazis is Europe and North Africa. The result was 3 million Indians became highly trained the the art of modern combat. When they returned home, the political power base had shifted. Gandhi held the ultimate influence over the 3 million Indian soldiers even through they took orders from their British officers.
Non violence is not a passive deal. When used effectively its the most effective art of war.
Excerpt:
It is not generally known that Gandhi was not a pacifist: he served on British frontlines in the Boer and Zulu wars in South Africa, and was very eager to lead a medical unit to the killing fields of France in 1914, at the onset of the first world war. In 1918, Gandhi worked so hard as a recruiting agent for the British army, urging Gujaratis to prove they were not “effeminate” by picking up a gun, that he almost died of exhaustion.
Source: Why was Bose diminished on Republic Day? Saturday, January 26, 2013
http://mjakbarblog.blogspot.in/2013/01/why-was-bose-diminished-on-republic-day.html
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.