View Feed
group-icon
Coffee Room
Discuss anything here - everything that you wish to discuss with fellow engineers.
12838 Members
Join this group to post and comment.

Do Gandhian Principles work in real life?

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
aashima • Oct 3, 2006
well

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!
Kaustubh Katdare
Kaustubh Katdare • Oct 3, 2006
(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-
Mayur Pathak
Mayur Pathak • Oct 5, 2006
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
integratdbrains • Oct 6, 2006
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
aashima • Oct 7, 2006
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
gohm • May 3, 2008
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
technospartan • May 4, 2008
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
raj87verma88 • May 4, 2008
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
gohm • May 4, 2008
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
gohm • May 4, 2008
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
frodo.rok • May 5, 2008
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
raj87verma88 • May 5, 2008
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.
Kaustubh Katdare
Kaustubh Katdare • May 5, 2008
[Rings Bell]

Please do not veer away from the topic! We aren't here to discuss who favored whom and about history.
raj87verma88
raj87verma88 • May 5, 2008
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.
Yeah right Bigiie
Well my answer to the question is NO
Ashraf HZ
Ashraf HZ • May 5, 2008
*waves peace flag and launches dove bird*
Okay, I don't have a clue about his principles, but I'll just look at the options Big K has given.

*ahem*
Obviously a country has the sovereign right to defend itself. Personally, its best to keep the collateral damage to the minimum. Even so, using effective yet non destructive technologies is the key, since human life is indeed valuable. Diplomacy must be tried throughout to resolve a conflict.

One caveat of option III: By retaliating on their home soil, the aggressor has no choice but to dedicate all their resources and military assets for a drawn out war, despite being their fault. Even if only military bases were the target, it'll definitely spill over to the rest of society (look at the Iraq Invasion for proof). Bad news for both countries, winner or loser. When was the last time there was a full scale conflict between nations, where both countries were attacked? Thats right: WWII, the blackest mark in human history. You can't forget the trench wars and the atomic bombs, can you?

Weapons are such double edged swords indeed.
frodo.rok
frodo.rok • May 6, 2008
I am still waiting for an answere...
vivekji
vivekji • May 17, 2008
To be honest, it never does, for all Indians are not mahatmas
just2rock
just2rock • May 20, 2008
sURELY WORK's Man...havent you seen MunnaBhai in MoVIE and Sanjay Dutt in Reel life....;-)
kashish0711
kashish0711 • Jun 15, 2009
Gandhi was responsible for the assassin of Bhagat Singh.
I am not his fan or follower
I know some of his principles are something to be respected but many are not worth it.
The victory we had over britishers would have been got like 10 years ago the real time if only Mr. Gandhi had changed a few of his believing and I am not talking about non-voilence but the extra patience he had ultimately hurted India.

Those 10 years would have made a huge difference on what we stand on today.

I am not in favor of vilence but its just stupid to allow the others to treat you like bi*tches and then allow them to forgive you with a pity feeling. That's rubbish.

Anyway if I hurt anyones feeling here, I am sorry these are just my views, I am not an extremist myself to somehoe prove them. 😉
manusaluja
manusaluja • Jun 16, 2009
bit confused.. but speaking out truth works, rather than lying again and again for something. As far as violence is concerned, non-violence in todays world might work in some situations, while in others using hockey stick to quiet others could also prove worthy. So it rather depends on situations also.

I sometimes wonder what Bhagat Singh had not done to earn the respect that Gandhi do have...😔
Red Hawk
Red Hawk • Jun 16, 2009
kashish0711
I am not in favor of vilence but its just stupid to allow the others to treat you like bi*tches and then allow them to forgive you with a pity feeling. That's rubbish.
Your view about our independance is wrong kashish.. We did not beg for freedom. You can call it persistance, perseverence or whatever you like..
They had been treating us llike "the way you said" for almost 200 years even before gandhi had began his quest for independance.. At that time, (ie) during gandhian era we were treated a lot less than slaves.. Its not that we "allowed" them to capture us..

They captured us long before and then we were struggling to revive our rights.. Everyone can fight in a battle but there is always a need for someone to lead them.. A good leader must be a role model to his followers and i am 200% sure that gandhi had been and is now being a good leader for all of us even today..

Gandhi lead us towards non violence because at that time we were not equally trained and equipped as compared to the britishers.. Think.. Can u kill a giant army with full of technically equipped tanks with just a .22mm caliber??? Our status at that time was like that only.. And i cant find the exact reason for gandhi being the reason for baghat singh's death.. 😁Think again buddy.. BYE...😁
Red Hawk
Red Hawk • Jun 16, 2009
And about my view on "Do gandhian principles work"?
I think that depends on our view about the problem.. There are many ways to solve a problem.. Truth and Non violence are the powerful weapons always.. But to use them rightly and in exact situation we need experience.. Gandhian principles always work.. But it maybe sooner or later depends on our luck..
ms_cs
ms_cs • Jun 16, 2009
I am also not his fan or follower. I vote for second option
kashish0711
kashish0711 • Jun 17, 2009
Red Hawk
And i cant find the exact reason for gandhi being the reason for baghat singh's death.. 😁Think again buddy.. BYE...😁
I will avoid the discussion on being wth / against gandhi right now, those were just my views, no need for a debate. 😀

For bhagat singh death well gandhi had an opportunity to stop Singh's execution but did not.A variation on this theory is that Gandhi actively conspired with the British to have Singh executed. Both theories are highly controversial and hotly contested. Gandhi's supporters say that Gandhi did not have enough influence with the British to stop the execution, much less arrange it. Furthermore, Gandhi's supporters assert that Singh's role in the independence movement was no threat to Gandhi's role as its leader, and so Gandhi would have no reason to want him dead.


Google it or just go here for a short answer
Bhagat Singh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

😀
gohm
gohm • Jun 17, 2009
Isn't saying someone's view is 'wrong" how all the troubles and conflicts start? How can someone's view be wrong, it is an opinion. Your views bring some good thoughts to the table. My opinion is that Gandhiji led using the nonviolent approach because it was something he believed in and new could be successful not because of a lack of training. I think the passive approach of non-cooperation is more difficult and takes more training than fighting back (which is a natural reaction).
Red Hawk
Your view about our independance is wrong kashish.. We did not beg for freedom. You can call it persistance, perseverence or whatever you like..
They had been treating us llike "the way you said" for almost 200 years even before gandhi had began his quest for independance.. At that time, (ie) during gandhian era we were treated a lot less than slaves.. Its not that we "allowed" them to capture us..

They captured us long before and then we were struggling to revive our rights.. Everyone can fight in a battle but there is always a need for someone to lead them.. A good leader must be a role model to his followers and i am 200% sure that gandhi had been and is now being a good leader for all of us even today..

Gandhi lead us towards non violence because at that time we were not equally trained and equipped as compared to the britishers.. Think.. Can u kill a giant army with full of technically equipped tanks with just a .22mm caliber??? Our status at that time was like that only.. And i cant find the exact reason for gandhi being the reason for baghat singh's death.. 😁Think again buddy.. BYE...😁
kashish0711
kashish0711 • Jun 17, 2009
Yup that's a point, and that's what I say he choose the harder way and delayed the operation. Instead we could have fought back, we all could have united, which we already did by the time Gandhi came, and then we only had to do is to non-cooperate + in case they force, we hit them back.

where there is will, there is a way, you know the army contained many Indians and they could be the source for weapons, if not then still there were ways to get them, look what Nehru did, he made a full army equipped with weapons, Rajguru and folks learned how to make dangerous weapons like bombs, so even a few incidents could have scared the Britishers and made them back off

The revolts like of Mangal pandey which were meant to be on high level but were carried out on a small level, that incident sent a huge upset in Britishers and you can get the details in our history books. Just one incident like that on a bigger level could have uprooted the Britishers and gave us freedom a long while ago.

Anyway I do appreciate his principles but I am just not a supporter. 😀
Red Hawk
Red Hawk • Jun 18, 2009
K.. Nothing about the personal views..
Now back to gandhian principles.. We had started this fight in 1857: The first fight for INDIAN INDEPENDANCE - Sepoy Mutiny.. But what happened? We were suppressed by a large force..
But during 1940s we had strong army with Subash chandra bose, Nehru, etc.. So we would be suppressed by a larger force maybe after a year or so.. If there were chances of winnig by a battle why did all the great leaders and people of that time followed gandhi? Even now there are people who worship Gandhi as god.. On the ither hand there are people who hate him the most.. According to me he is one of the best leaders of the world..
shalini_goel14
shalini_goel14 • Jun 18, 2009
Well I like and try to follow only 2 of his principles "Truth and non-violence" and I guess they work a lot in my real life(No ideas about others 😐). Nothing else interesting about him.
arihant007
arihant007 • Jul 18, 2009
Gandhian principles lead us to short term happiness and Long term sufferings, Like in our very own country.

Gandhi cannot be the father of our Nation. Our nation has national anthem also which is wrongly understood. Rabindranath Tagore had written it praising the english, not the country. Let me not get into controversies. Our nation would have been in a better place, if not for that one guy known as Gandhi.

Gandhian principles lead to humiliation. Gandhian principles are not even for the weaks. Believe me even if the weaker ones get angry, the mighty ones would always fear.

Try raising your voice to a clerk who is not passing your file in the court. The moment you show him your anger, he ll pass your file. For the very same instance, become gandhi & go to the court. The clerk will harass you, make you come to the court again and again,etc.

Forget gandhi and his principle. That's my principle.
jhbalaji
jhbalaji • Jul 26, 2009
It only works in some places mate...
vishnu priya
vishnu priya • Jul 26, 2009
Definitely it works!!!
cowboy
cowboy • Jul 27, 2009
I am from gujarat where gandhiji born,but i feel now days 'gandhigiri' not working at all. It is good in movie, in real life we can't follow gandhiji's rules.I am very respect gandhiji.

Share this content on your social channels -