Was Gandhi as non-violent as the peaceniks would have us believe?

[nwrep]

The Truth About Mahatma Gandhi

A lot of today's peaceniks quote the Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi when they talk about resisting war against evil dictators. Yet how many of them know (and how many of you Freepers know, for that matter) that Gandhi was not a traditional peacenik in that he did not see the absence of war as an end in itself. His philosophy was far more complicated than that.

In fact, he was honest enough to admit the usefulness of violence, particularly when dealing with evil regimes and dictators bent on the destruction of a whole race of people, such as in the allied effort against the Nazis in WWII. This is a fact conveniently forgotten by all clueless pacifists today, who are too naive and simple-minded, or simply too stupid to understand the realities of this world.

Gandhi's advocacy of non-violence was specifically in the context of India's struggle for independence from the British rule from the 1920s to the 1940s. He did not believe in a violent revolution or uprising to achieve this goal, and neither did he approve of terrorist activities or assassinations of British military officers, as called for by some of the more violent Indian leaders back then. He steadfastly opposed such actions on part of the Indian people, and instead, preached a non-violent, non-cooperation against the British empire in its efforts to rule over India.

Here is an important quote from him:

"where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I advise violence."

Other Quotes from Gandhi:

I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.

But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

My method of non-violence can never lead to loss of strength, but it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.

My non-violence does admit of people, who cannot or will not be non-violent, holding and making effective use of arms. Let me repeat for the thousandth time that non-violence is of the strongest, not of the weak.

To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith.

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind non-violence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which non-violence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life. As a teacher of non-violence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.

Note to Freepers: I want to hear your comments.

[xkaydet65]

Threads like this are one of the reasons I'm a Freeper. Our advesaries would have all believe that we are a bunch of either toothless militiamen or mindless followers of Rush & Co. But threads like this point out the intelligence, knowledge, and willingness to learn something new which are the hallmarks of FreeRepublic, and have always been the hallmarks of the American Republic we love.

[struwwelpeter]

Didn't Ho Chi Minh once say that Gandhi wouldn't have lasted five minutes in French Indochina?

[Goodlife]

Say what you like... the success of Ghandi's movement says more about British morality than Indian morality.

Imagine trying non-resistance against any other people?

[nwrep]

I agree, in fact, that was not the thrust of my argument. That point is not even debated today, and the Indians know that this method would certainly have not been useful against a more brutal, less civilized regime, such as the Ismlamo-fascists.

I wanted to point out the factual bankruptcy of the present day peacenik movement, even when they hold up the world's best known advocate of non-violence.

[USMMA_83]

Gandhi himself said that the reason non-violence would work against the British was because the brits thought themselves to be morally superior. Gandhi wanted to show them that when push came to shove, they (the brits) could be just as brutal as any one.

His whole aim was to show to the brits back in Britain how brutal the brits were in India. That fact alone would cause the brits to vacate India. Gandhi knew that his non-violent ways would not work with the Muslim. Notice that for all his hunger strikes to stop rioting between the Hindus and Muslims, it was always targeted towards the Hindus. The Hindus always stopped...the Muslims after their blood-letting and rampaging would stop much later.

[sharktrager]

I'd say no, since he had only one wife and she died in British custody.

[stiga bey]

I just finished reading "Setting the East Ablaze" by Peter Hopkirk (about the Soviet Union's attempts to take expand the revolution into Asia). There's a few things in there about Ghandi. He was definitely a pragmatist. In the beginning of WWII, he called off the activities against the British in India in order to free their (the Brits') hands to fight the Nazis, even though he knew that there would of course be violence as a result. He knew who the real bad guys were. Stalin was furious with Ghandi because he had been planning to co-opt the Indian uprising for his own purposes, which was the Commintern's most succesful tactic.

[xm177e2]

Ghandi told the Jews to suffer their fate quietly at the hands of Hitler, lest they do anything "immoral." He was not a moral man, and his "moral" message only worked because the British were decent chaps at heart.

[smoking camels]

bump for later

[TigersEye]

bttt

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[nwrep]

What is your source? This is the first time I have seen such an accusation.

[thathamiltonwoman]

I read somewhere that he refused to let his wife have penecillin and that's why she died.

[sharktrager]

This is a very biased interpretation of the story.

He did not ask for penicillin for her because he felt an injection was an act of violence. She was treated, but was treated using traditional Indian methods.

At the time she was 75. 75 years is an impressive age for a woman in a developing nation iun 1944.

[pray4liberty]

Winston Churchill (The Gathering Storm, p348): "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Our Hope is assured, but Churchill's point is well taken.
Source: cathfam.org

[pray4liberty]

Didn't Gandhi refuse medical intervention for at least two of his dying wives, but when he himself was sick, relented and accepted medical intervention for himself?

No, Gandhi had only one wife and she outlived him. They were married when he was 13 and she was 11.

[DoctorMichael]

I heard the Indian government uses the same Public Relations firm as the Kennedys.

[Kira-USA]

I absolutely agree with you!!!!! Nonviolence works only in confrontation with moral enemies!!!

[HighRoadToChina]

"Ghandi told the Jews to suffer their fate quietly at the hands of Hitler, lest they do anything "immoral." He was not a moral man, and his "moral" message only worked because the British were decent chaps at heart."

What is the source for this information. Disinformation, perhaps?

[Eternal_Bear]

I personally know Gandhi is violent. He has declared war on me in the Civilization III game numerous times.