Raj said...

Yeah agreed. Since the world is stewing up some serious bullshit like terrorism and jehad.. but then, if we fight back, they also increase the internsity of the fight. So will the cascading effect not lead to more violence?
Are non-violent methods completely out of the question?

Ok as you have brought this up,with the given idea of the workings of 'jehad','terrorism',dont you think any ahimsa method will be recognised as a sign of submission? You stop fighting them and then they'll again quote non-existent chants saying that if an enemy submits then he is ours,its like 'you keep what you kill' or in this case that which you bring down.

Take the example of the reporter who was beheaded(Daniel Pearl),was he up in arms against the forces? Although he was not openly fighting them he was just doing his job but still was a victim to such a gruesome act.To people who kill innocents to strike fear,should they not experience fear as well?

And for Ahimsa to work the enemy must have a fixed goal,all these acts of terrorism are done by different groups and with different agendas,most of whom are just little groups of frustrated men who want to show the world that they are somebody and are not nobody.With these kind of people where is the way of ahimsa?

And if one of the groups is dealt with lightly all other groups expect not resistence but tolerance,at this point in time their hearts dont melt and go "Oh i think I'm doing the wrong thing,let me give up",No they will be more like"Ha, we'r not getting any resistence,lets take this to the next level".

Let's just fast forward to the real word shall we?
Gandhi's idea of showing the other cheek when one is slapped just does'nt work anymore,this is one of his general ideas that I'm quoting of-course.Even the ones discussed in the movies have either been overly simplified or applied to simple everyday happenings.


A rough idea of Gandhigiri can be given as

Gandhigiri denotes modifying one's principles and lifestyle reflecting the moral principles of Satya (the Truth), Ahimsa (passive non-violence), Sahishnuta (Tolerance) and Ekta (Unity) as practised in real life by Mahatma.

But such principles were accepted by the so called 'youth of the nation' creating a 'stirring' , and 'awakening',and all words which can spice up an article or give a sense of false hope to a lost cause in a lost world. I am referring of course to the reaction to the recent movie 'lage raho munnabhai'.
To tell you the truth i haven't watched the movie nor do i intend to as this is not a review of a sort of misleading film but a discussion or rather my strong opinion of an idea which just cannot survive in this world or that which can't be applied to all aspects of life,or in most cases the important parts of life.
Gandhi proposed these values to a world lost in time,i use this phrase not for effect but to tell you that there is a humongous difference in the world of that day to the world of this day.In the time of Gandhi there was a cause which everybody was fighting for, the cause of freedom,freedom against a foreign reign . But now although the cause is mostly the same but in different forms, everybody is not fighting for it as one,the system is one sided,the enemies are among us or of us and openly oppose us.
They say 'We need a Martin Luther','We need a Gandhi',but will they be able to save a world gone so wrong? Where ideals do not exist? Where its no more a question of black or white,but how much grey? How do you lead a world or give guidance (as no one man can lead a world,no matter how great he may be considered or no matter how great he may invoke the spirits within us) to one which does not know where it is headed?
Such a leader's ideals or ideas are but a new 'thing','a fad' in the modern world which craves for anything or everything which they think might save them from an event they are not sure of.
How long can you keep on showing the other cheek? How long will your tolerance hold? How long?
Which one event in this world has gotten enough response or enough of a 'stir' to bring about a phenomenal change in our society? None.

A simple idea such as Gandhigiri cannot be adopted to complex situations.


This world is not divided into people who have morals and those who do not,but into those who weild power and those who crave for it and those who are powerless.After all morality is relative while power is not.
But the principles of the Mahatma have 'morality' as their crux and rely on the notion that another person may realise the humanity within him,what if that other person is not moral as it is defined by this age's society,then where do those principles go?