Thoughts+on+Gandhi's+nonviolence


 * Directions**: To add your post to this page, click the "Edit this page" button on the top right of the page, add your post, and then click "save." Be sure to refresh before typing and try not to type at the same time as someone else so you do not overwrite someone else's text. You are encouraged to comment on someone else's post. Please be sure to add your name before your comment and change the font color.

What benefits and/or limitations do you see with Gandhi's strategies for nonviolent change?

Christina: Some advantages were people would need to address what he was standing up for, there was no way of getting around the issue, they just had to deal with it. Some limitations were that many innocent people ended up in jails, beaten, or dead, you were not able to fight back. There was no hostile language or destroying or hurting anyone or anything. Another limitation was that they were sometimes breaking the law, while they were doing it nonviolently, it was still breaking the law.

Ms. Sanders: Christina, your last point about breaking the law is a good one. Many people in society believe that people should abide by the law. But what about when laws are unjust? Gandhi wanted to draw Indians' attention to laws that he thought were unjust, and purposely took action to highlight injustices. At that time, most laws were made by British officials - not the Indian people. He felt that he (and other Indians) had a moral duty to try to overturn these unjust laws. His ideas would influence Martin Luther King, who worked to overturn unjust laws (for instance, segregation laws) in the United States during the Civil Rights movement.

Corina: Benefits: Less people are injured and killed while protesting. While doing nonviolent action the Indians have the moral high ground over the brutality and vulgar actions of the British. When the Indians overwhelm the British and the British leave, the government will be easier to establish.

Limitations: The nonviolent action is slow and takes time to have an affect. Its also hard to be nonviolent if your passionate about the cause.

Nate: The benefits for Gandhi's nonviolent change were that because he refused to be violent and try and take his country by force it allowed him to gain great support through the masses. Because Gandhi showed his willingness to do what ever it took to make his country free I think this is what allowed him to accomplish his goals. Not attacking or killing his opponents showed that he just wanted change and did not want to destroy his opponents. The main reason that Gandhi's method really work was because he had the support of the people. Every one believed in him and his cause. Every one from the small farm working right up to the lawyers and educated men. Because of this it allowed Gandhi to take his nonviolent method and use it against the British to gain sympathy.

Sean: Nate, I think your point about the majority of India gathering behind Gandhi was a good one in that it really tells the British that this is what everyone wants and that you can't ignore their unified voice anymore.

Smythe: I like what you said about how Gandhi was willing to do whatever it took to rid the country of British oppression. Like we saw in the movie, Gandhi even went to the extent of fasting until the entire Indian population ceased their rioting. This demonstrated Gandhi's strength and passionate belief that his course of nonviolent action would work. Like you said, Gandhi had the support of the people and he believed in this support and had faith in the people of India which made it possible for Gandhi to go to these extreme measures to get their attention. Gandhi did an amazing thing by uniting the small farm workers with the lawyers and educated men because it allowed India to stay a united front against the British.

Billy:It is obvious to me that Ghandi's goal to make change without violence was very beneficial. First off, Ghandi himself went to jail or received threats to end up there but continued with his peaceful protest. There is nothing violent about these gatherings of thousands of people but they are still breaking the law. Ghandi himself was charged with sedition. The good thing about the fact the protesting was non violent is that in the world's eyes the British look like the enemy. When protesting becomes violent between two sides it looks more just that Britain in this case, is fighting back.

Ben: Billy, I liked how you explained that with Gandhi's techniques and ways of starting a revolution, he began to demonstrate to the world that the British would appear as the enemy and that they were a dangerous threat to India. In my own opinion, it makes me believe that it looks as if the British were invaders, even if they claimed over the years that India was "a British territory" or "under British control." With British appearing as an enemy, we notice that people from other countries (Mirabehn, Walker, and the Americans/other countries who appeared at Gandhi's funeral) begin to support Gandhi's belief to revolutionize India from British rule. Also, without the Indians retaliating to British violence, their opposition of non-violence could be seen across the world through through media.

Sean: The main difference between passive resistance and non violent action is the affect that each may have in Gandhi's situation. Passive resistance shows one ability to not react to British control and helps the cause very little not impacting the oppressors at all. Nonviolent action will effectively convey that you do deeply care for a cause and will remain against, still without any violent opposition. Gandhi was always in respect for the law until the law was unjust and this is shown through his struggle to force the British to realize the error in their way.

Connor: Sean, I totally agree with your definitions of "passive resistance" and "non-violent action." Like you said, Gandhi not only disagreed with British rule in India and disobeyed their laws (passive), but he also actively campaigned his cause and united the Indian people under his mantra of non-violence (active).

Carter: Gandhi's idea of nonviolent action was incredibly peculiar, especially for that time. There was much violence between the Muslims, Hindus, and British. Nonviolent action required both parties to have a great sense of morality to work properly, which eventually happened. A benefit to nonviolent action would be the mature and respectful transfer of power from the oppressors to the people. Another advantage clearly shown in India is the fact that nonviolent action leads to peaceful partnerships between the two people after the revolution. A serious limitation would be the obvious loss of life. Many Indians died during the revolution because they chose to not fight back. Some more disadvantages are the loss of property, beatings, prison time, and other violations of basic human rights. Although the disadvantages are substancial, the advantages outweigh them. Nonviolent action and the Indian independence movement were the greatest form of revolution to date.


 * Billy: I agree with the fact that this non these non violent protests would bring together the two people after the revolution . With violence comes bloodshed on both sides. If one side shows they are going to remain peaceful even when some of their own people are dying, no war can start. "Nonviolent action and the Indian independence movement were the greatest form of revolution to date. " Without Ghandi showing his people that this was the right way to go about fixing this nation who knows where the country would be today.**

Molly: Gandhi encouraged nonviolent action amongst the people of India because he felt it was the most effective way to stop oppression and injustice. One of the benefits of nonviolent action is that the public feels more empathy toward the people protesting if they are accepting beatings and imprisonment. Another advantage of Gandhi's strategies is there is a better chance that the opponent will not engage in a dictatorship, but rather become an ally or partner once the conflict has been resolved. However, there are limitations as well. For instance, it requires a large amount of people to participate for it to be effective. Also, nonviolence is dependent on whether or not the opponent or leader gives in to the pressure put on them by the public.

Smythe: Gandhi graciously accepted prison and beatings and refused to be afraid of what the British used as punishment and he encouraged his followers to do the same. By refraining from using violence on the British, once the higher power left India, they became partners and friends. It seems as though Gandhi's strategy strongly emphasized forgiveness which proved beneficial to the country in the long run. Another benefit of his strategy was that by respecting the law, he proved more of a point when he broke it: "only people with a high regard for the law were qualified for civil disobedience," the article says. When Gandhi broke the law, his followers knew it was done for a legitimate reason because of his normal adherence to the law and in Gandhi's case, it gave his cause more of a backbone. One limitation is that nonviolent action is a difficult strategy to inspire the masses to strictly follow.

Ali: Smythe, your point regarding Gandhi's respect for the law strengthening his protests makes a lot of sense. I didn't initially think of this, but it clearly makes a much stronger statement when a lawyer breaks a law than when an ordinary citizen breaks a law that he/she might not completely understand like a lawyer would. It is also very inspiring to think about how Gandhi could communicate with the masses in order to unite them in peaceful protest without all of the media and communication that we have today. As we saw in the movie, Gandhi was able to get his followers to stop the violence that broke out when they killed the police in the riots by fasting. His followers' obedience and response to his fasting shows how much respect they all had for him as a leader.

Connor: Gandhi attempted to create a peaceful democracy based on the tenants of non-violent action. He realized that the most effective way to create a peaceful, lasting democracy was through civil disobedience. As Mark Shepard said, Gandhi knew that most violent revolutions ended in military dictatorships, and he did not want to take that chance with India. It seems ridiculous that he would think that going to prison would make a difference but obviously it worked. There are two big problems that I can see with non-violent action: It has to be perfectly practiced by a large portion of the population and it takes much longer than most military revolutions.

Josef: Gandhi chooses the people as a way of the revolution. It was much more powerful than some military action. India didn't have any others things as a money or strong military. People is what India did have. Why don't use this weapon again the British. You can compare Gandhi with Vaclav Havel. Both wanted just basic human right for the people and both of them choose the non violent way how to do it. We can say that they just lead the people and show the chance how to change condition for better living in freedom and democracy.

Ali: One of the benefits of Gandhi's action was that the "[aggressiveness]" of his civil disobedience made it impossible for his opposition to avoid his nonviolent protest. Also, Gandhi's movement never killed a member of the opposing British force. By "converting" his opponent, or "bringing about a 'change in heart,'" Gandhi's nonviolent strategy most likely results in a higher likelihood of peace after the protest is won. This strategy also gains the support of the public's opinion which increased the likelihood that the powerful public officials grant the demands of the nonviolent protestors. Finally, Gandhi's protests were based on him and his followers winning respect, which ultimately may lead to more successful outcomes than violent rebellions, on behalf of the protestors. The only apparent limitation I can see with Gandhi's nonviolent action is that his followers had no way of defending themselves from the opposition's violence and hundreds of Indians, including Gandhi himself, died for his caused.


 * Molly: I like the way you described Gandhi's protests as being "based on him and his followers winning respect". That is a great way to think of it because without the support of the public Gandhi's strategy would have been ineffective. **

Ben: One of Gandhi's benefits is that he was able to non-violently remove the power from the tyrannic rule over the country by just trying to "bring change the heart" to the opponents who are currently in control of India. As he and his followers allowed themselves to be beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and even killed, it began to rally up other civilian followers to join up in the rise against the rule over the country. Mark Shepard informs the readers that: "Gandhi saw that the power of any tyrant depends entirely on people being willing to obey." This means that "non-violent activists" willingness to die and their "noncooperation" with the government was Gandhi's belief on how the tyrant's power would be stripped away from him/her/them. Finally one of the best parts of non-violent action is that his revolution was able to make the British leave rather than cause the to continue fighting over the years (which would result if a violent revolution happened instead). One of the limitations that comes with this movement is that the hundreds to thousands of deaths, both from indirect causes (starvation, sickness/disease, etc.) and direct causes (massacres, torturing, etc.), caused by British are a large cost for India and may turn some civilians away from Gandhi's revolution.

Carter: Your "change of heart" note was a similar point to mine, which I liked. It makes me think that everyone has moral codes, even the most tyrannical rulers. Another example of nonviolent revolution that i like to connect to your change of heart comment is a democratic election. For example, in the United States, the republicans and democrats are clear opposites on most issues. They are able to rule the country peacefully due to mutual respect for each other and the country, just like India.

Katie: One of the benefits of Gandhi's action was that it truly stripped the tyrant's power without using weapons. The simple act of resistance can go so far if you get a large enough number of people to resist as well. The leader can kill as many people as he wants, but so long as the majority still resists, he has nothing. But that is also a part of it's limitations. Nothing can stop the other side from fighting back. As it says in the homework "Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers."

Christina: Katie, I really liked how you said " it truly stripped the tyrant's power without using weapons" I thought it was a very powerful statement. Gandhi's weapons was that he didn't do anything violent, it was all very neutral and non-aggressive, but just as powerful.