Dylan Greene dot com

Dylan Green "What if America took the first step by following Gandhi's principles of nonviolence?"

Then the US would be another India, and you'd all have to go to Japan to realize your dreams.

Also, Gandhi's main reason for using non violence was simply because he had nothing else to use. I mean, when your enemy has weapons that can fire 50 (whatevers) a minute, and you go face him with twigs and stones... then non voilence is probably the only good thing to use.

Don't believe anything you hear from them brownskins. Its a pity you wated your time watching that crap.

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint, Anonymous. Remember, that Gandhi did live in the 1940s. And then, as now, it doesn't matter what weapons you have, if you are outnumbered 400 to 1. Gandhi had a global view, and realised that the world of the future was about collaboration. By achieving a peaceful solution, any animosity on both ends was squashed.

Of course, you are a flame artist. And you don't deserve a response. But there it is.

I love that movie

well then... have a look at this

http://ngodse.tripod.com/godse14feb2000.htm

I'm sorry to see the poster above despises America and its freedoms to be anything you want, good or bad, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. He is fortunate to live here- imagine him saying similar things in in Iraq, back when Saddam was in power. He'd be horribly tortured to death, as would anybody connected with him who didn't denounce him immediately and publicly. And maybe not even then. We live in a safe, insulated bubble here, and often we don't have to put our ideas to the test of reality.

As for the Gandhi film, I have seen it at least fifty times, yes, fifty times. I worked as a thater usher in W. Springfield, MA, back in the 1980s while an undergrad, and got to know the movie in depth. It's a fine movie, and Ben Kingsley's a fine actor, displaying the complexities and faults of Gandhi and his life- and his philosophy. As Gandhi said, "I'm not a saint trying to be a politicain, I'm a politician trying to be a saint."

Gandhi, as the first poster said (before the poster slid into the muck of racism), had nothing else left to fight with. He as did his fellow Indians had no independent means to wage revolution against their colonial masters. He did say in his autobiography, "Of all the deeds of the British in India, the depriving of Indians of arms was the blackest". He did not want to kill anyone, nor does any good person, but like all good people, when confronted with evil, he had to use the most effective means available, and there wasn't much for him to work with. He had to use moral suasion, create political alliances, and also present himself and his movement as the better alternative tfor the British to the likes of Subhas Chandra Bose and his Japanese-supported, violent Indian revolutionary movement.

Gandhi had been educated in the British colonial system and  fought for the rights of fellow Indians while in South Africa (although not for the rights of indigenous black people there, sadly) and brought his movement and principles back to India. He knew he had to get British -and Americans -on his side or else the non-violent movement would not work. In other words, he had to appeal to people's consciences. He had to shame the British government.

However non-violence is a tactic that works ONLY when the enemy possesses a conscience and is afraid of world opinion.

This was especially the case after the massacre at Amritsar, depicted in the film, which was actually worse than depicted. So many British voters and politicians were horrified by what their very own troops would do under bad leadership, that the question of freeing India became important in British politics, but still- India would not be independent for another thirty years or so.

It took World War 2 to make it so that Britain, made weak and weak-looking by the expense of war, and by getting defeated so much by the Japanese until 1944, losing face to their colonial vassals in India, Burma, Malaya and Singapore, that the Empire had to be slowly wound down, and given independence, starting with India.

Let us not confuse pacifism with non-violence. Pacifism means, in effect, letting oneself be a victim, because to raise a hand to strike back would be to deny one's humanity and that of the enemy. It is a dead end philosophy, much like Shakerism. (Seen any Shakers around lately?)

Non-violence, however, is a tactic, to be used as an alternative to waging war. With the implicit threat of boycotts, guerilla action, non-compliance and eventually, open warfare if the demands aren't met, it can work, but, like being a Marine landing on Iwo Jima, it takes a hell of a lot of courage, faith and perseverance. Gandhi and his followers were incredibly gutsy people.

Would such a tactic as non-violence alone work against Hitler, Stalin or Mao? No. Their regimes were set up for, and thrived on, mass murder, terrorization and imprisonment of all opponents and they had no qualms about doing it. None, whatsoever. With no conscience, with no restraint on these dictators, the only consequence was genocide.

These dictators were also emboldened by the rest of the world's pacifistic and divided, inconsistent response to them. Only when we in the West stood up to them, and fought back, did their evil regimes change or die.

Would such a tactic of non-violence work in Iraq? Yes and no. As the  s o l e  means of achieving political change and peace, no, since the Baathists and al-Qaeda see everything with a long view and are willing to kill everybody in order to achieve their goals. They are a bit like the executed Afghan Communist leader Najibullah, who, when asked about the enormous casualties among his people in the Russian invasion after 1979 said, "I can make a Communist Afghanistan just as easily with a million Afghanis, as with fifteen million". That's how the Baathists and al-Qaeda think.

An effort of Iraqis and others willing to fight and die, if need be in battle -if they must, against such a conscience-less, soul-less enemy, is what is required in conjunction with Iraqi civilians willing to make their own peace sign- blue fingers- coming out of a voting booth, even though they could be cut down by suicide bombers or be kidnapped in the might and have their throats cut on video, for all the world to see. And it is slowly happening. Too slowly for our hyepr-fast nervous systems and TV viewing habits, but it is happening, nonetheless.

Both armed and non-armed (NOT passive) resistance are the ways, working together, to solve this problem. Non-violence alone will only result in a modern Holocaust of those who would live free.

Thanks for your time, love your webpage,

R Fuller

WHOA

i think the movie sucked

could some one please send me a writeup  on Gandhian principles in todays violent world.That is to say can we follow gandhian principles to fight against terrorrism

wow R Fuller.... good job. i loved the movie but i am surprised that lots of the scenes or a few anyway were fictional or exaggerated.  

Mahatma once said - "an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind" i think that is what iraq is heading towards....... i wish they could get a mahatma as a saviour.

there are two ways of looking at everything........radicalism is quick but short-lived and perishable. Gandhigiri is painful, time-taking but fruitful. However,its extremism which yeilds benefits. Why not sacrifice a few hundreds of innocents to kill thousands of culprits rather than keep waiting for several years, enduring atrocities, watching lakhs being killed to realize the outcome which could have been reaped for lessor no. of people dying for it? Its good to have principles in life but its bad to be rigid. Sometimes its wise to be practical than being unreasonably rigid.

india has one of the best militaries and advanced equipments today!!!!!!

the movie was fabulous !

Great post on gandhi and about his non-violence movement. Today iraq faces what many years before india was facing. Iraq peoples need a person like gandhi who has not got fear hesitate to say about his thoughts. But in iraq the non-violence will not work for the violence has been boosted everywhere there. peoples are suffring now with terrorist gangs . The terrorism must be stopped first.