DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Raj_Copi_Jin** · 12-17-2005, 07:00 AM

Here we have to note the difference between the Non-Violence Concept of Sathyagraha..
...an INTERNAL AFFAIR... of NATIONAL move by the PEOPLE... raising their objection through their united gesture...

...and another Non-Violence Concept of Protecting the Nation from foreign Invasion...

Gandhi did support the British in WW I.
He offered moral support for the fight against Nazism is WW II.
It is not as if he did not understand the difference.

As early as 1920 in the brilliant article "Doctrine of the sword"

Gandhi[/url]]I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

...so much for Gandhi allegedly having admitted his method to be a blunder of any sort.

The above quote is the kind of line that gets trigger happy nationalists swayed - so much so that they may ignore the gem that follows..

Gandhi[/url]]But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish, it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her......

But I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature.

Just dwell on it for a moment. Are these the words of someone who was unclear. To attribute Indian foreign policy failures to the following of Gandhian ideals is incorrect, to say the least.

The way Patel put together this nation from minor Kings, the accession of Hyderbad (not to mention Kashmir), the despicable way India got hold of Goa are all progressive steps away and away. To call any of them in line with a shred of Gandhian thought is risible.Particularly the parallel drawn to today's problems. India's approach in home and foreign policies has been anything but Gandhian.I do not wish to elaborate on that statement as it is likely to take us goes beyond the scope of this Hub.

PS: Gandhi's exact words on Himalayan blunder are
I made a Himalayan blunder. I thought my people were ready; I thought they were disciplined for this task The only reference I could get was this one. As quoted by Martin Luther King in one of this books.

So I reiterate the "blunder" was not the method, but rushing to assume that people were prepared.

12-17-2005, 07:00 AM	#8
Raj_Copi_Jin Join Date Oct 2005 Age 48 Posts 4,533 Senior Member	Here we have to note the difference between the Non-Violence Concept of Sathyagraha.. ...an INTERNAL AFFAIR... of NATIONAL move by the PEOPLE... raising their objection through their united gesture... ...and another Non-Violence Concept of Protecting the Nation from foreign Invasion... Gandhi did support the British in WW I. He offered moral support for the fight against Nazism is WW II. It is not as if he did not understand the difference. As early as 1920 in the brilliant article "Doctrine of the sword" Gandhi[/url]]I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. ...so much for Gandhi allegedly having admitted his method to be a blunder of any sort. The above quote is the kind of line that gets trigger happy nationalists swayed - so much so that they may ignore the gem that follows.. Gandhi[/url]]But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish, it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her...... But I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Just dwell on it for a moment. Are these the words of someone who was unclear. To attribute Indian foreign policy failures to the following of Gandhian ideals is incorrect, to say the least. The way Patel put together this nation from minor Kings, the accession of Hyderbad (not to mention Kashmir), the despicable way India got hold of Goa are all progressive steps away and away. To call any of them in line with a shred of Gandhian thought is risible.Particularly the parallel drawn to today's problems. India's approach in home and foreign policies has been anything but Gandhian.I do not wish to elaborate on that statement as it is likely to take us goes beyond the scope of this Hub. PS: Gandhi's exact words on Himalayan blunder are I made a Himalayan blunder. I thought my people were ready; I thought they were disciplined for this task The only reference I could get was this one. As quoted by Martin Luther King in one of this books. So I reiterate the "blunder" was not the method, but rushing to assume that people were prepared.
	Quote