Do Gandhian Principles work in real life?

[integratdbrains]

With the Mahatma’s birthday upcoming on 2nd oct let us put this topic in the debate section where we can have shouts from the CEans. Well for me Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the Mahatma are two different individuals.
Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a very common man, probably a person next door. But the Mahatma has emerged out of this very next door person. I hear people saying it was his own urge to attain his goals can be out of his selfishness. Well for these friends I don’t deny the fact that it could have been a possibility. But then friends how many of us have really had the urge to run and attain our dreams for the whole life! And how many of us have attained something which is on nationwide importance? Lets also say that Gandhi where not the only one to pursue his dreams there were others like Lal Bahadur Shastri, Subhaschandra Bose also, retaining this fact also how many of us really can cope up with our colleagues at work to attain (only) our goals!
I waiting for the oppositions and supporters!! J

[aashima]

Thats true that Mahatma Gandhi contributed whole heartedly to earn the freedom of India. He played a major role in buying us the freedom with his all distinct and revolutionary ideas. He was well in the race with all the other freedom fighters but it should be marked that partition of India was HIS decision.
There was no one from the Indian panel except for Mahatma Gandhi when the decision was required to be taken. And it was a decision that required the consent of the entire nation including the part of population that was to reside in Pakistan after the partition. After all they were the civilians who were going to be affected and no one else. That was not just the partition of two nations, it included dividing two religions i.e Hinduism and Islam. And its the outcome of that partition only that today the two nations, the two religions are fighting like hell since then!
We were freed one one side and we were handcuffed by this everlasting feeling of hatred which we still are continuing to cope up and the biggest sufferers being the innocent Kashmiris!

[The_Big_K]

(Uses freedom of speech)

Do Gandhian Principles work in real life?

Now this is a topic which I think will attract 100 different views. My view is simple -

Consider a War-like situation between Nation -I & Nation - II. Nation - I decides to bomb Nation - II.

What should be Nation - II's counter strategy?

-> It should let Nation - I Bomb; and hope that it will stop bombing some day.
-> Fight for self defense.
-> Start bombing Nation - I & destroy its military base.

Your answer decides your view.

-The Big K-

[mayurpathak]

Gandhi ji divided India.

He preached non voilence, and it all went down the drain during partition. Where was he when the violence spread across the border? All years of non-violence was out in one go.

I dont believe in violence, but I'm not a protagonist of Gandhian principles either.

[integratdbrains]

Had he been of attitude that there should not be any partition believe me it would have been more difficult. Books are the best vision provider as to how the great man must have faced the controversy. Had we been in the same situation what would have been the scene?

[aashima]

Originally Posted by The_Big_K

(Uses freedom of speech)

Now this is a topic which I think will attract 100 different views. My view is simple -

Consider a War-like situation between Nation -I & Nation - II. Nation - I decides to bomb Nation - II.

What should be Nation - II's counter strategy?

-> It should let Nation - I Bomb; and hope that it will stop bombing some day.
-> Fight for self defense.
-> Start bombing Nation - I & destroy its military base.

Your answer decides your view.

-The Big K-

As far as my descretion is concerned, I woulf first go for option 2 i.e. would fight for self defence and if that doesn't turns out successful, I won't wait going for the third option i.e. i would start bombing the other nation.

[gohm]

I do not believe Gandhi seperated India. He clearly stated repeatedly that he wanted a peaceful, unified co-existance. One man can not unify or divide a nation, only a nation can. One can can only lift a voice. Many of the people for various reasons broke into violence against neighbor, mainly on religious/class lines. He reluctantly conceded that the population would not quell the violence so seperation was a distant "second choice" for a peaceful means. The world needs more like him.

[technospartan]

The big k has put forward a good condition.i would go wid the option of nation 2 attacking the military base of nation 1.but does that mean we need to have a fixed view or opinion about Gandhian thoughts. he was right but today his principles will not work for every condition of the world.i mean how about the condition 1 of big k's example? can any nation allow its enemy to bomb its territory? and will they stop bombing thinking they are killing innocent children & women? we need to have a versatile opinion as far as i guess.

[raj87verma88]

A nice subject to debate. I just came hear to appreciate this thread and won't contribute anything. I am not a fan of Gandhi and co. and my feelings will be against him. Many here may not like it therefore i won't comment.

[gohm]

I agree options are important to have. I personally believe the principles are just as valid today. Look at the effect they had for social change in the US in the 60s. If people believe and hold fast to the principles as a group, it will work (like any ideal). Peaceful non co-operation is very powerful and brings things to a halt. That is why labor unions practice striking. It can be a slower route than force and humans tend to be a "results now" mindset species. There have been global examples since Gandhiji that showed positive results.

[gohm]

Patty,

Why not post? This is an opinion piece? As long as you stick to opinion or fact & leave out any personal attacks (which I know you would not do!) post away. We are all adults and won't get our feelings hurt if we have different views.

[frodo.rok]

Now this is a topic which I think will attract 100 different views. My view is simple -

Consider a War-like situation between Nation -I & Nation - II. Nation - I decides to bomb Nation - II.

What should be Nation - II's counter strategy?

-> It should let Nation - I Bomb; and hope that it will stop bombing some day.
-> Fight for self defense.
-> Start bombing Nation - I & destroy its military base.

Your answer decides your view.----The Big K


And my answere is--> Start bombing Nation - I & destroy its military base.

And in addition I am going to ask all of you a qustion.....

Suppose Mahatma Gandhi was not assasinated and became prime minister of India.
What would have he done now??
Would he have any Armed force and polce force for Indias SAFETY from externa as wel as internal threats??
If he had let India to have any force then he would have violated his own IDEA, and if he did not have any force then as I think India would be destroyed completely by now if not earlier.

So what Mahatma ji would have done????

[raj87verma88]

Yes i agree with Frodo. Killing or hurting someone is sin but being attacked without raising your hand in self defense is an even greater sin.
If someone attacks you then the best strategy would be to take the war to him. Attack is the best form of defense.

Personally i know a lot about war and strategies. My paternal grandfather retired as a Lt.Gen. father is a Col. maternal grandfather was in the missiles department. 90% of my family members are either in the infantry, artillery, navy or air-force. All say this that attack is the best form of defense.

Gandhi has been given the status of a saint and the myth surrounding him will grow as time passes but he did not do enough for the country. India could have got independence much earlier, during non-cooperation movement had he not dismissed it. And why, he was against violence and some people set fire to a police station. So, was his theory that everything will go as i plan then only i will play the game.
During the time of choosing the prime minister for India, he chose Nehru while Sardar Patel was a much better leader and human being then Nehru and was also more popular among citizens. Why because he personally liked Nehru.
There are many other instances where we see that Gandhi did many things thinking about himself first and the country later.

[The_Big_K]

[Rings Bell]

Please do not veer away from the topic! We aren't here to discuss who favored whom and about history.