Gandhi: Different varieties of Pacifism

Gandhian Pacifism
Pacifism is the opposition to the practice of war. Many pacifists are committed to non-violence in society and achieving their goals only through actively non-violent resistance or non-aggressive means. Among these pacifists, there may be differing views as to what constitutes violence. There are several different varieties of pacifism, including those who believe killing is always wrong, those who believe that any kind of violence is wrong, those who argue that personal violence is always wrong but political violence is sometimes right, and those who justify some personal violence but reject war as always wrong.
Mohandas K. Gandhi believed in the doctrine of Ahimsa, which stands for non-killing. He believed that no form of violence is acceptable. A more peaceful way of life is dreamed about by everyone, but it seems almost impossible to achieve. In his essay, Gandhi says that to reach this level, which he considered bringing offense to no other person, keeping pure thoughts especially with your enemies, and not resenting your friends or enemies' actions, you must continue this practice throughout your life. You cannot simply achieve it in one day. Gandhi believed in not only spreading this as a practice but living his life based on this doctrine.
Non-violence looks good on paper and seems like it would function well. There would be less blood in our world, and instead more conversations, more peace between people and nations. But would this really hold up completely today? In the most recent war in Afghanistan, what would have happened if the president had decided to practice pacifism and do nothing in return based on our beliefs that war is always wrong? Was this even an option for our country? Our president, as our leader, decided to act accordingly in response to the events going on to protect our nation. Many people think he made a good decision. What if he was a pacifist? He would not have handled this situation the way that he did. His beliefs would have, according to Gandhi, been to not act violently and let our attackers have this burden on their souls. Would this have really worked? Do you think that the Afghani nation would have just backed off had we done nothing?
Throughout history, many nations have protected their country's rights by using military defense and seldom used nonviolence to address issues at hand. Pacifism is a tricky subject to deal with mainly because you would be left defenseless without using violence. Gandhi was a man of great character, and his decisions continue to affect many people's lives, but it is almost impossible to practice committing not one act of violence throughout your lifetime of practicing Ahisma. This is the main reason we cannot agree with what Gandhi was trying to practice and accomplish throughout his lifetime.
Works Cited
Bignell, Kate. “Shopping for Non-violence.” 26 May 2004.
“Coercion.” Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia 12 April 2005.
Gandhi, Mohandas K. “The Doctrine of Ahisma.” Just War: A Wadsworth Casebook in Argument. Eds. Sharon K. Walsh, Evelyn D. Asch. Australia: Thomas Wadsworth, 2004. 177.
Lackey, Douglas P. “Varieties of Pacifism.” Just War: A Wadsworth Casebook in Argument. Eds. Sharon K. Walsh, Evelyn D. Asch. Australia: Thomas Wadsworth, 2004. 154.