Question

Different siate between Gandhi and Mandela

Answer 1

Both Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were outstanding leaders of men and the present destinies of their respective countries have been shaped by them.

Gandhi and Mandela mobilized the masses against oppression, against hatred and against prejudices. They suffered in jails, they suffered politically but they steadfastly pursued their missions.

The main difference would lie in the fact that Mandela’s fight was of a higher and different order than Gandhi’s. Gandhiji fought for independence from the foreign powers which he believed could result in economic emancipation and political empowerment of the natives. Mandela had to fight a bigger curse- the phenomenon of apartheid, where one human was segregated from the other due to his color and the dark-skinned were meted out sub-human treatment. Gandhiji had no such cancer to fight against the British. If at all we Indians ourselves had divided ourselves into several castes and other sects for which the British could not be held responsible.

There is another major dissimilarity in their ways. Gandhiji’s methods of Civil Disobedience and non-violence earned global acclaim and even the British feared and respected him. They could not keep him in prison for long without damaging their own image. Hence Gandhiji could use his methods as an effective counter  against the imperialist British.

Mandela did not have this privilege and he had to suffer incarceration for a very long period. Also, Mandela had to briefly stray from the path of non-violence knowing well that the White regime did not understand the language of non-violence.Mandela, however, returned to a non-violent path later.

Please mark me as brainliest

Answer 2

DIFFERENCES—Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are entitled to our affection and respect for more than one reason. They eschewed violence against the person and did not allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force are manifest