Ahimsa, meaning non-violence or non-killing is an important principle that Gandhi firmly believed in. Gandhi criticized violence as a way of achieving ones goal saying that there is a definite relation between the means of accomplishing something and the final result. Using violence as a method of solving a problem will only result in more violence. Gandhi used the comparison of planting a weed in the hopes of getting a rose (Gandhi 79). To further demonstrate the value of non-violence over violence Gandhi tells of a scenario of a homeowner robbed of their possessions by a thief with both a violent and a nonviolent way of handling the situation. The violent means is getting angry at the thief and seeking retribution by hunting him down with …show more content…
Sometimes violence creates far more problems than it solves. The situation depicted in The Battle of Algiers showed a situation where every aggression warrants a reprisal, and for every reprisal, an aggression. This downward spiral ended up with many innocents dead on both sides as more and more people got dragged in whether as collateral damage or indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Had the FLN adopted a method similar to Gandhi perhaps the French people in Algeria would not have held much animosity towards Algerians Maybe the Algerians would have gained their Swaraj through suffering and throwing the French off balance. It is true that Algeria eventually was granted its independence through years of struggle which weakened popular support for France’s hold over its colonial areas. It’s entirely possible that the sympathy of the French public could have been obtained instead, through passive resistance and suffering. The FLN use of violence was ultimately its undoing when the French took serious measures to dismantle the organizations leadership. Nonviolent tactics would have made it harder for the French to justify cracking down on the FLN the way then did. I also support Gandhi over Fanon on the fact of fact that he think that fighting is the only solution for those who are victims of exploitation and contempt. We can see some proof of the success of Gandhi’s methods in the tactics of Martin Luther King Jr. during the American civil rights movement; fighting in some cases is not the only option. However I don’t entirely agree with Gandhi that peace is the only option either. Despite the merits of non-violence and passive resistance I don’t entirely agree with Gandhi’s assertions that passive resistance is the only valid method for obtaining home-rule. I think that whether or not using violence or non-violence is a purely situational question. Some
When you are fight to get peace and fairness back to your government, does it involve nonviolent or violent acts to get what you want? When Gandhi came back to India after getting his law degree, Gandhi started a movement to bring peace and fairness back to their government. What made Gandhi’s nonviolent movement work? The reason Gandhi’s nonviolent movement worked was because he didn’t believe in segregation, didn’t follow the British’s rules for Indians, went to jail for his movement, and he was determined.
The mission of Gandhi’s life was to help the people of India free themselves from British rule. Many people have struggled for independence. They have fought bloody battles or used terrorism in an attempt to achieve their goals. Gandhi’s revolution was different. He succeeded as an independence leader with the use of nonviolent methods. The young Mohandas Gandhi did not seem as a boy that would become a great leader. He changed as he studied in Britain and practiced in South Africa. He fought for the rights of Indians in both South Africa and India. Gandhi believed that all people in the world are brothers and sisters. He didn’t hate the English. Actually, he saw a lot that was good about them. His nonviolent means of revolution was referred to as satyagraha, which is a combination of two Sanskrit words, satya, meaning truth and love, plus agraha, meaning firmness. Many people were influenced by satyagraha.
Fanon stated that in order to achieve liberation we need violence. He clearly says, “But it (decolonization) cannot be accomplished by the wave of a magic wand, a natural cataclysm, or a gentleman’s agreement”(3) It was and is a vital part against colonialism and imperialism. Because not only do the colonized have to fight for liberty they have to dominate those once colonized centers. When they fight for liberty the natives become united. That is his first strategy in order to obtain decolonization.
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
The role of violence in the fight against injustice is a tricky one. If an oppressor is willing to use violence to maintain control should not the oppressed use violence to achieve liberation? Franz Fanon would argue that the pent up anger and frustration must be released in violent action to tear down the oppressor’s regime. However, there is a better way and that is through non-violence and understanding that Martin Luther King, Jr. champions. Only through creating tension around injustice via non-violent direct action can the conversation begin around mutual understanding and justice. It is this justice achieved through non-violent means that will last as violent action is ultimately unjust in nature.
Many prominent political figures have spoken out against violence; among them are Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Dalai Lama. Instead of choosing physical brutality, they chose to follow difficult, winding paths full of powerful speeches, civil disobedience, and peaceful protests. These non-violent ideals have led leaders like Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. to achieve goals in ways government leaders and thinkers previously thought to be impossible. Different literary works like The Night Thoreau spent in Jail by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, Walden by Henry Thoreau, and Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr., show efforts of these leaders through Thoreau’s stand against the Mexican War and opinion of life in Walden, as well as Martin Luther King’s peaceful protests.
Having a non-violent way to approach civil engagement helps people rise from the dark. In the article, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by King Jr., he writes, “So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crises-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation”(236). King Jr. suggests that the only way for Americans to see the need to change is through direct actions and that could possibly get them to negotiate. It related to the article, “from Non-Violent Resistance,” by Gandhi because through a non-violent action, people see the value of actually wanting to create justice. He points out, “Non-violence is the supreme dharma is the proof of this power of love. Non-violence is a dormant state”(Gandhi 316). He refers to all people that if someone gives a person pain, the person receiving the pain should not act back in a harsh attitude, but he/she will win if they show love. However, King Jr. also explains one’s right to express verbally. He writes, “If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history”(MLK 242). It is within the first amendment that all people have the right to free speech in any way, and if people express their emotions in an intimidating way, it is not a threat. Approaching all injustices social issues in
Mohandas K. Gandhi, a great Indian philosopher, wrote the essay “My Faith in Nonviolence”. His essay focuses on the use of nonviolence means on overthrowing the British rule of India. Gandhi’s main claim on this essay is that love is the higher law of life and that “every problem lends itself to solution” (p. 203) , if we followed that law.
During a freedom march on May 29, 1964 in Canton, Mississippi a boy by the name of McKinley Hamilton was brutally beaten by police to the point of unconsciousness. One of the witnesses of this event, and the author of the autobiography which this paper is written in response to, was Anne (Essie Mae) Moody. This event was just one of a long line of violent experiences of Moody’s life; experiences that ranged from her own physical domestic abuse to emotional and psychological damage encountered daily in a racist, divided South. In her autobiography Moody not only discusses in detail the abuses in her life, but also her responses and actions to resist them. The reader can track her progression in these strategies throughout the various stages of her life; from innocent childhood, to adolescence at which time her views from a sheltered childhood began to unravel and finally in adulthood when she took it upon herself to fight back against racial prejudice.
Cesar Chavez in an excerpt from an article published in the magazine of a religious organization asserted that nonviolence is a more effective method of resistance than violence. Chavez supports his assertion by introducing a poignant juxtaposition of violence and peaceful methods, then he employs an effectual allusion to a past peaceful civil rights leader, and finally he presents a compelling logical appeal to the audience about the consequences of violent retaliation. The author’s purpose is to persuade the audience to protest injustice through peaceful methods in order to avoid physical harm and gain public support. The author utilizes an urgent tone for all of society, specifically members of the farm worker’s movement.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Mahatma Gandhi), welcome to the world of non-violence, not similar to ‘disney land’ but merely a small philosophical village coated in white, decorated with crystals and abundant in doves; white resembling peace, crystals for clarity and pure spirit and doves for .. I don’t know, I guess I have been driven by my imagination.
Try living in a society where starving children lay on the streets looking for food, or where lack of education leads you nowhere. However, a man with knowledge and wealth helped his people fight for their rights. Gandhi’s background made him who he was; giving him an idea of how to get India’s independence, and impact on India helped people realized you can fight with knowledge and nonviolence to change a way of life.
The year was 1986 and the people of the Philippines were being oppressed by their elected president turned Dictator Ferdinand Marcos for twenty years. And a four-day series of non-violent mass demonstrations toppled Marcos dictatorship. It was a series of popular non violent revolutions and prayerful mass street demonstrations in the Philippines that occurred in 1986, which marked the restoration of the country's democracy. Non violent resistance is the best method to peacefully attain social change in times of political oppression. Non violent resistance is just one teaching of Mahatma Gandhi that was used by the people of Philippine in their times of political oppression and is evident throughout the Philippine revolution of 1986 which helped the country restore democracy.
Mahatma Gandhi has undoubtedly had the greatest positive impact on humanity. The message that he expressed revolutionized the way that the world perceived the notion of non-violence. Throughout his life, the Indian leader developed many theories which combated the idea of utilizing violence as a means to solve any issue; He believed that violence should never be inflicted upon man, even in the case that violence had previously been inflicted upon him. (Or her.) Furthermore, he taught that non-violence is not a decision made by the weak, but rather by the strong.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi- 2 October 1869 - 30 January 194 was the pre-eminent political and spiritual leader of India during the Indian independence movement. He is also known as Mahatma which means “The Great Soul”. He was committed to pacifism, that there should be no violence.(1) He had three concepts to follow in his life for independence of India: Satyagraha, Ahimsa and Swaraj.