Using your phone's internet browser
go to:  qna.rediff.com
Click and drag this link to
the Home icon in your browser.
Q.

Had GANDHIJI been pitted against Hitler, Stalin, Czars or even Edi Ameen....his NON-VIOLENCE would not have survived a single day ! Any com?

Tags: gandhiji, hitler, violence
Asked by Shunmugham, 02 Mar '11 11:49 am
  Invite a friend  |  
  Save  |  
 Earn 10 points for answering
Answer this question  Earn 10 points for answering    
4000 characters remaining  
  
    
Keep me signed inNew User? Sign up

Answers (9)

1.

Gandhi's non-voilence was against the Colonial Ruler and not against his own government.. Non-violence is a measure of Indian Civilisation and not of western.. India never had dictatorship and even if it had some cruel rulers.. they were countered.

Non-violence means a Resistence without violence means.. and it is more tougher than violence..
Answered by Sharmila Bose, 02 Mar '11 12:18 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (3)
Not Useful
 (1)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
2.

You must understand the basic fact that you can hit only a person who resists you. You, even if have stone heart can not beat a man who is not resisting repeatedly. That is what happened with the ahimsa movement. All forms of dictatorship will die a slow death depending upon the dictator. There is a famous story where after killing all meat eating animals by uniting together the grass eating animals made the Elephants, Bison and Rhinos as their rulers and after some time they have transformed into lions, tigers and other flesh eating animals, meaning power corrupts.But Gandhiji's movement of ahimsa is not borne out of dictatorship. Hence he could have succeeded at all circumstances.Hence I do not agree with your sttement
Answered by Josna, 02 Mar '11 12:31 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
 
3.

Its true...they would have brutally subjugated him to a non-entity.
Its the British love for justice and fair play...their belief in democracy which gave so much importance to the ' Naked Fakir ".
However policies of opposition change depending on the kind of adversary one faces. And in all probability...Gandhiji would have thought on different lines when facing such dictators who had the least respect / value for an opposing human life 1
Answered by prasoon, 04 Mar '11 12:21 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (0)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
4.

And what happened to violence based opponents of these historical villains. Neither they survived. Gandhiji's non-violence always had a brighter chance.
Answered by Aarnika Tiwaari, 02 Mar '11 11:52 am

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (2)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
5.

I absolutely agree with you.Though I see him as the most cunningpolitician of his times who preached non violnce just as a sychophant.If he was so much concerned about non violence why did he keep quiet when Bhagat Singh,Rajguru& Sehdev were being hanged.He had a good rapport with the British govt. and his intervention could have saved the life of these three martyrs.
Answered by HEMANT MEHTA, 02 Mar '11 11:59 am

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (1)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
6.

Gandhiji and his non-violence etc survived because of British and their humanitarian ways. Had India been under the rule of The Nippon, they would have shot Gandhi dead the very day he surfaced above others as their leader. Or they would have made it easier for him to starve to death on his very first hunger strike.
Answered by QueSera Sera, 02 Mar '11 12:05 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (2)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
7.

You are absolutely wrong. As far as my knowledgd is concerned, his way of preaching the non-violence values was unique in its own way which made him special and most sought after personality of all time. His unique way of approaching and preaching is main reason why he could have survived even against such type of dictatorial, tyrannical amd despotic leaders
Answered by lenin panda, 02 Mar '11 12:37 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (1)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
8.

He would have tamed all of them.
Answered by prabir sanyal, 02 Mar '11 12:35 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
9.

TAGORE ONCE OPINED ABOUT GANDHIIJI"S NON VIOLENCE AND WROTE -"--NAGINIRA CHARIDIKEY FELITECHEY BISHATO NISWAS //TAI AAMAR BISWA/SANTIR LOLITO BANI SHUNAIBEY BYARTHO PARIHAAS /JABAR AAGEY TAI /DAAK DIYEY BOLEY JAAI/DANOBER SAATHEY SANGRAMER TOREY /PRASTUT HOTEYCHO JARA GHOREY ---" which means ,when the cruel serpents breathe fire in the atmosphere ,the message of peace sounds like a farse .So before departing I do give a clarion call to all concerned that in each house there should be preparation to fight the demons and devils -----AND THE MESSAGE WAS MEANT FOR NETAJI SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE. Obviously no comment to your question is needed after this submission
Answered by HARIJIBAN BANERJEE, 04 Mar '11 01:21 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (0)
Not Useful
 (1)
Your vote on this answer has already been received

Ask a Question

Get answers from the community

600 characters remaining

Related Answer

Q.
A

This is the biggest myth.gandhi ji was the most cunning and selfish politician of his times.Had Bhagat Singh ,Azad,Subhash Chandra Bose not been there..more

Answered by HEMANT MEHTA