MK Ghandi
Many individuals in the contemporary society in which we reside in have various opinions in regards to any topics or situations that may occur. One topic in particular is what is just, and unjust? Or even before one asks that, they ask, "What is Justice?" Single individuals, I believe will differ in their opinions of justice, however, which view of justice is correct? Would that view be an appropriate one for all situations? Can justice be used, or assumed to be the same in every situation? Should one belief of justice be used as a universal law? My mind begins to boggle when looking at what my belief of justice is, in comparison to what the authors in our course readings have to say about justice. I find myself agreeing with some of what certain authors say nonetheless, I find myself in disagreement with most ideas from the same authors. To take a step back and to get a clear view, I see myself in strong divergence with the view of the author of "Non-Violent Resistance", M.K. Gandhi. His implications do not justify, and there are many of his beliefs that I am in disagreement with. Prior to looking at Gandhi's belief of non-violent resistance, we must understand the meaning of violence and non-violence. Violence being specifi
In conclusion, I feel, M.K. Gandhi caused a disaster by dividing the entire country. I feel that was not just. As for his viewpoint of non-violence, I feel that there comes a time when you have to watch over yourself or your values, and have to obtain a weapon. If not, you are weak, and the conflicting side, will abuse you, and take advantage of you. Even when it came to India's freedom, Gandhi's non-violence practice with hartal did assist, but there were also many revolutionary people who were fighting, by using violence, who gave a very cruel time to the British, and had a great deal to do with their departure of India. Nothing is universal, nor is it imprinted. I feel that justice should be made at an individual discretion everything is subject to change. What the meaning of justice is changes in the minds of individuals as they encounter different situation. With regards to non-violence as a whole, survival causes violence and weapons, if the big fish never fed off the little fish, how would they perish? If humans never violently killed animals to eat, or even plants, how would we continue to exist? Gandhi also feels that one may eliminate their errors that have occurred in the past, but one can never get away from the Law of Suffering. There are many historical events that he goes on to articulate to prove that. For example, if Yudhister did not suffer, than the greatest psychological book, the Mahabhart would not have been created. Also, if Arjun did not suffer, than there would have been no one to create the inspiring, guiding Geeta. And, of course, Jesus sufficed himself to free a sorrowing world. I do see where Gandhi would believe that suffering does bring a raise of revolution, nevertheless, I don't feel that every situation has something good coming out of the suffering that took place prior to it. c forces in any form that are intentionally applied to assault others, bodies, minds or intellectual levels. It is often an exhibition of anger. Looking at the definition, we must be aware that non-violence is not limited to not doing the act of violence, rather, it is the practice of the ahisma, were not only do you appreciate the co-existence of living or non living beings, but you also contribute and maintain harmony in the total existence by experiencing a oneness, non duality with the existence itself. This law of suffering is the only theory of Gandhi's that I slightly agree with. During the time of slavery in India, Indians suffered for centuries, and our nation builders identified the raise of revolution from time to time. Amongst those nation builders was M.K. Gandhi. He very effectively amplified the raise; by educating Indians that freedom is "your birth right." Gandhi believed that you must have this right with ahisma with applying non-co-operation. India did suffer, but after our raise of revolution, like Gandhi discusses, we were free, and much happier as a nation. M.K. Gandhi not only supported the non-violent hartals, but he felt there were no actions without a cause and no results without an action. For him causes were behind actions and actions were behind results. That idea perfectly molds his idea of hartal. Hartal is an action with a cause, behind that action is found to create a result. This direct action of Hartal is based spiritually where it is serving the higher behest of ahisma of doing what is godly right, other wise known as righteous. That in India is known as "Dharm" and some call it Sanatan or Hindu Dharm. This is not equal religion. In the beginning of the article, it reads a cutting from the April number of the east and west. It states that M.K. Gandhi is neither a saint nor politician. I agree with that statement. He could never be a shrewd or power hungry like a politician would be, neither could he be a saint because he could not be outstandingly devout or a virtuous person throughout every passing second of his life until death. M.K. Gandhi himself
Some common words found in the essay are:
MK Gandhi, Buddha Christ, Law Suffering, Indians Hindus, Gandhi's Hartals, Justice Single, Hindus Muslims, Hindu Dharm, Hartals Non-violence, Swedishi Gandhi, mk gandhi, raise revolution, law suffering, direct actions, name religion, gandhi feels, feel justice individual, east west, neither saint, ceasing assist, april east, april east west, india attain freedom,
Approximate Word count = 2964
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)
|