lichess.org
Donate

*Non-Violence - The Mightiest Weapon Of Mankind...

"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man".

- Mahatma Gandhi

The name of Mahatma Gandhi transcends the bounds of race, religion and nation-states, and has emerged as the prophetic voice of the twenty-first century.

The world remembers Gandhi not just for his passionate adherence to the practice of non-violence and supreme humanism, but as the benchmark against which we test men and women in public life, political ideas and government policies, and the hopes and wishes of our shared planet.

Background

The life and leadership of Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhi, who helped lead India to independence, has been the inspiration for non-violent movements for civil rights and social change across the world.

Throughout his life, Gandhi remained committed to his belief in non-violence even under oppressive conditions and in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges.

The theory behind his actions, which included encouraging massive civil disobedience to British law as with the historic Salt March of 1930, was that "just means lead to just ends"; that is, it is irrational to try to use violence to achieve a peaceful society.

He believed that Indians must not use violence or hatred in their fight for freedom from colonialism.

Definition of Non-Violence

The principle of non-violence — also known as non-violent resistance — rejects the use of physical violence in order to achieve social or political change.

Often described as "the politics of ordinary people", this form of social struggle has been adopted by mass populations all over the world in campaigns for social justice.

Professor Gene Sharp, a leading scholar on non-violent resistance, uses the following definition in his publication, The Politics of Nonviolent Action:

"Nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence.

Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore conflict.

It is one response to the problem of how to act effectively in politics, especially how to wield powers effectively."

While non-violence is frequently used as a synonym for pacifism, since the mid-twentieth century the term non-violence has been adopted by many movements for social change which do not focus on opposition to war.

One key tenet of the theory of non-violence is that the power of rulers depends on the consent of the population, and non-violence therefore seeks to undermine such power through withdrawal of the consent and cooperation of the populace.

There are three main categories of non-violence action:

- Protest and persuasion, including marches and vigils;
- Non-cooperation; and
- Non-violent intervention, such as blockades and occupations.

Mahatma Gandhi Quotes

- Poverty is the worst form of violence.
- Non-violence is a weapon of the strong.
- Non-violence and truth are inseparable and presuppose one another.
- We may never be strong enough to be entirely nonviolent in thought, word and deed. But we must keep nonviolence as our goal and make strong progress towards it.

Relevance of Mahatma Gandhi in the Contemporary World

Video:

youtu.be/D9vDVXiwWMw

Source:
www.un.org/en/observances/non-violence-day

-----

Let's Try To Make This World A Better Place For Everyone!

-----
When I think of non-violent solutions; that seems to be in-line with this guidance below...

"Do on to others what you would have them do on to you." -- Christ's Golden rule of Empathy.

After all, if the shoe is ever on the other foot, would you want them to act out violently just to prove their point? No.

Keeping the bigger picture in mind - that is Civilization; shouldn't people behave Civil towards one another, even if they are in the unpopular minority group and feel right about their cause?

Therefore, I agree at the Heart of this message - I think; which is ultimately about being Civil towards one another, I feel, while still sharing the necessary viewpoint having discourse about whatever topic or situation, intelligibly.

Of course, this assumes, the public will be open to listening, as well as won't act out violently themself against the minority or unpopular group. Now, the real-world does know some level of Crime/War; so sometimes Police and Soliders are the best option, I think, except if I'm on the losing side of an unjust War (Nazis) or an unfair law (Holocaust), historically. It pays to know who your neighbor is, in any event, and to give Peace and Civility a chance!
Gandi did many mistakes, I dont support him as much.
His saying If you are slapped on the right cheek, then bring your left cheek forward is controversial.
@BKrivi09 said in #3:
> Gandi did many mistakes, I dont support him as much.
> His saying If you are slapped on the right cheek, then bring your left cheek forward is controversial.
That's not Gandhi's, that's in the Bible.
It only works if the "opponent" is somewhat committed to being humanitarian. That's why it worked against the UK.

It would not work at all as a form of resistance aganst opponents based on spreadng an aura of fear like Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler or a Colombian drug cartel.

Such opponents would just be content it was easy mowing you down and then stick your head on a pole or something like that.
@thence said in #4:
> That's not Gandhi's, that's in the Bible

From Jesus, no less, in Matthew 5:38-42. Non-violence is maybe not the exact same thing as turning the other cheek. Even if you organize a march or take a stand otherwise, running away from the violence doesn't mean you're conceding your right to protest.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #5:
> It only works if the "opponent" is somewhat committed to being humanitarian.
I am not sure how much the UK was committed to be humanitarian in India...
@thence said in #7:
> I am not sure how much the UK was committed to be humanitarian in India...

Enough so they weren't willing to for instance crucify 6000 people along a popular road and leave their bodies to rot off the crosses to scare people off from rebelling. That's what the Roman at the end of the Spartacus rebellion.
@thence said in #7:
> I am not sure how much the UK was committed to be humanitarian in India...

But do you seriously think that say if the Polish Jews in WWII had done the Gandhi thing then it would have worked against the Nazis?

It's just a historical fact that non-violent demonstrations many times ended in a bloodbath and utter defeat. It's just not true that it's this magical thing that always works.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #9:
> But do you seriously think that say if the Polish Jews in WWII had done the Gandhi thing then it would have worked against the Nazis?

It seems to require a powerful third party observing to do its magic.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.