What Did Gandhi Do? One-sided pacifist.

NRO ^ | 28 Apr 03 | David Lewis Schaefer

[GATOR NAVY]

This reminded me of a Harry Turtledove alternative- history story I read. The Germans have captured India and Gandhi is continuing with his civil disobedience tactics, thinking that since he is still dealing with Europeans, the Germans will back down the same as the British did.

Oops! Too late he discovers the Nazis are a totally different breed of cat. Gandhi tries to escape after the Germans machine gun demonstrating crowds, but he's turned in by a Indian traitor and the Nazis execute him without a second thought. The End.

[Kozak]

Beat me to it. Yeah. If India had been conquered by the Nazi's or the Japanese, Ghandi would have been just another body in the camps.

[T Lady]

The Gandhi-as-Peacemaker myth has been shattered to pieces.

-Regards, T.

[JulieRNR21]

Excellent find.....I'll be sending it to a liberal who idolizes Gandhi!

[keri]

ping

[sharktrager]

The analogy, it should go without saying, overlooks major differences between the two cases. Whereas the 20th-century British were far too benign an imperial power to choose to slaughter peaceful resisters to their rule, there’s no evidence that Saddam Hussein, already responsible for the massacre and torture of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen (to say nothing of the many more who died in his aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait) would likewise have succumbed to friendly persuasion — Jacques Chirac to the contrary notwithstanding. (It’s not that we didn’t try!)

The 400+ killed a Armistar in 1919 would disagree. The British in this case, to gain revenge for the deaths of four of their countrymen 2 days earlier. trapped between 15,000 and 20,000 in an essentially enclosed area, and opened fire. These were not the people responsible for the earlier murders, by the way. These people were involved in a peaceful protest.

Are the British equal to Saddam? Not even close. Was their rule always benign? Not even close.

[DaveCooper]

I've always suspected that Gandhi was one of the most overrated people in history.

I've also wondered how long he would have lasted if he had been, say, a Tibetan in 1951, trying his "passive resistance" idea against the Chinese Communists.

[Kozak]

Also I find Einstein and interesting "pacifist". Sure was able to come up with a rational for use of force when his ox was getting gored.

[American Soldier]

Whatever the occasional failings of the British In their colonies, one could hardly have asked for a better opponent. Gandhi had the unbelievable good fortune to be a revolutionary fighting against the most civilized, benevolent and lawful empire in the history of mankind. His experience is worthless as a guide to any other situation.

[GATOR NAVY]

Was their rule always benign? Not even close.

I agree, but let's face it-Gandhi's tactics worked only because the British were reluctant to do something like Armistar again. Gandhi wouldn't have lasted 2 minutes against true ruthlessness like Hitler, Stalin, Mao or even Saddam.

[GATOR NAVY]

Well said.

[Welsh Rabbit]

ping for later

[sharktrager]

That is true. I think, however, it had a great deal to do with increasing prsee attention to the situation in India.

[The_Reader_David]

The one aggrieved group in the world today who would do well to imitate Gandhi are the Palestinians. Although some Israelis have become brutal, vicious and insensitive toward anyone except fellow Jews, the American Jewish community who back them, and, I think, a majority of Israelis would readily grant a Palestianian state, and possibly even cede some of East Jerusalem if instead of their mad tactics of turing their young people into guidance systems for bombs (which only alienate possible supporters in the West by dehumanizing the Palestinians through their own actions), they adopted Gandhi's tactics.

It would be hard for the Palestinians, but martyrs deaths which imitate the Jewish martyrs at Massada or in the days of the Maccabees and are recognizably martyr's deaths to Jews and Christians, rather than the twisted "martyrdom" of Qutb's existentialist reimaging if Islam would win the day. Following Qutb's notion of martyrdom will only lead to decades more of death on both sides and no Palestinian state.

[Sonny M]

If he still idolizes him, give him this quote.

"Pacifism should not be used to justify ones own cowardnice. To be a Pacifist is honorable, to be a coward and claim to be a pacifist, is despicable." ----Mohatmi Ghandi.

[Sonny M]

You make a good point, but the quran specifically prohibits and bans even the concept of pacifism. For them to use non-violent means, in the eyes of the arab world, would enrage other arabs, infurate the religious fundamentalists, and leave them vulnerable. It doesn't help, that arabic thinking is very different in some other senses, they don't want to be given a land, they want to take it. Its a concept that americans can't understand. If you offer them a mile of land, they'll fight you for more, and make sure the deal falls apart, but if they think they fought you and won an inch, they can actually be happy. Getting land, in there eyes is like getting a handout, they want to take, not have something given to them, there are many religious roots to this thinking.

[lainde]

Another illusion bites the dust. So much for revisonist history from the movies.

[jagrmeister]

Gandhi's example is useful only in limited circumstances. I've heard contradictory things about whether or not Gandhi supported war in dire situations. Gandhi's leadership of India to independence through peaceful protest is praiseworthy. However, it's unfortunate that people today apply his example beyond its application. It unfortunately leads to unwarranted criticism of Gandhi.

[Cronos]

Jag, that's the correct phrase: useful only in limited circumstances

The non-violence movement was successful against the British because the Brits were civilised, gentlefolk not crazies like the Nazis or commies.

But, the nature of India's independence helped that country as, every other nation which had armed rebellion leading to it's independence had the armed forces staying and forming dictatorships while India has been a continuous democracy (a flawed one maybe but still a democracy with governments chosen by the people like here in the US) since it's independence.

Gandhism was useful in it's time and that's what our present day peaceniks need to realise.

[JulieRNR21]

Many thanks for that quote....I will confront him with it!