Discussions

Discussions » Shameless Blog Promotion

Gandhiji's Non-violence Policy...

Posted by indianasim • 10/02/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: gandhi, mahatma, policy

Do you think Mahatma Gandhi's Non-violence Policy irrelevant in today's perspective?

User Comments

10/02/09

juxtaprose

I think it has become even more relevant today

[reply]
10/02/09

aspotofblog

No, I think it still stands.

[reply]
10/02/09

indianasim

Yes. I agree with you aspotofblog.

[reply]
10/02/09

indianasim

juxtaprose, I also think so.

[reply]
10/02/09

nothingprofound

Joan Baez worked in the non-violent demonstration movement for many years. Her conclusion: "Non-violence is a flop. The only bigger flop is violence." Unfortunately, life is full of these sad paradoxes.

[reply]
1. 10/02/09
  
  jeremyjanson
  
  Non-violence is a flop? You mean to tell me that a desegregated United States, labor protections, getting rid of slavery in England, and a Christian Church which changed the world are nothing? The problem with the non-violent demonstration movement is they have no clue where they're going, and thus will get nowhere, not the methodology they use which is surprisingly effective considering the severe lack of guidance in objectives.
10/02/09

Adityavardhan

Even for being and becoming non violent you have to suppress a lot which is another form of violence...so the debate is whether his ideologies and theories he proposed are relevant or not..... yes they do....

these are all parallel thought process , violence and non violence were always present and will always remain till the existence of society is there....
issue is never or was never of quantity.and quantum of violence and non violence ... its always that we as individuals,whether we are ready to accept our being one with nature and existence or not... will we be able to accept our own self with ease and with equal comforts will we accept others and all or not....

[reply]
10/02/09

sudam08

Completely Irrelevant.

[reply]
10/02/09

jeremyjanson

Never goes irrelevant. Non-violence worked for the church in 30 AD, non-violence worked in the many labor strikes and anticorporate uprisings of the 1800's, nonviolence worked in the 1940's with Ghandhi and the 1960's with MLK (who was far more successful then slightly, though only slightly, violent Malcom X). The only difference is that the protesters these days are so detached from reality that they don't even know what they're fighting for. It doesn't matter how you fight for something, if you don't know what it is, you won't get anywhere.

Also, you have to consider your situation. There are situations where violence is warranted and other situations where it's a dumb idea and the process of sorting between the two and figuring which is which is not an easy one.

[reply]
10/03/09

quack18

violence or no violence, protest of 1000 or millions have no effect these days. politics in my opinion has become stronger than what people want. what countries have planned will not be changed no matter what the people try to do. its sickening and disgusting.

[reply]
1. 10/03/09
  
  jeremyjanson
  
  @quack18: Except that said political estabilshment is starting to crack up. You can already see the warning signs. I wouldn't be surprised if the governments of China, the US, India, Brazil, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, and 20 other countries all got flipped around one way or another over night.
10/03/09

NatetheGrate

Of course not. Non-violence is the only way to achieve political change that is not destined to result in a violent regime.

[reply]
1. 10/03/09
  
  jeremyjanson
  
  How about 1776?
  
  I think the best reason to not resort to violence is so you don't kill people.
10/03/09

drjay1966

If the human race survives into the next century, it'll be because people saw the wisdom in Gandhi, King, and others. Not that I'm necessarily saying that's likely...

[reply]