short Essay violence ( Gandhi ji weapon Non violrnce) in words 200
Please answer if you know D answer
Answers
Answer:
Gandhi overlooked many existing complex conditions. He at times allows the use of “violence,” but does not recommend the need of its preparation and training for its proper and effective use. The Government of India in 1948 as usual, kept military Forces in alerted condition. Otherwise how Gandhi could have permitted the use of “violence” (use of armed personnel) to repel the aggression. Violence or Army also like non-violence requires discipline, preparation, and training. Few would agree that all “violence” (power) is used out of cowardice.
He always declared that non-violence always wins or never fails. But it is a widely known fact that both types of non-violence, i.e., non-violence of the brave as well as non-violence of policy or expediency failed to deliver the goods, i.e., ‘Swaraj within one year’ (1920) and ‘Complete Independence’ (1930).
Even after the use of these two types of non-violence, the society was left unprotected. Evidence is nowhere available that a few non-violent persons are ever able to turn out the aggressors after the latter forcibly entered and settled down in a country. Non-violent measures undertaken later often fail to stop their misdeeds, and, expel them from the land.
Answer:
Gandhi overlooked many existing complex conditions. He at times allows the use of “violence,” but does not recommend the need of its preparation and training for its proper and effective use. The Government of India in 1948 as usual, kept military Forces in alerted condition. Otherwise how Gandhi could have permitted the use of “violence” (use of armed personnel) to repel the aggression. Violence or Army also like non-violence requires discipline, preparation, and training. Few would agree that all “violence” (power) is used out of cowardice.
He always declared that non-violence always wins or never fails. But it is a widely known fact that both types of non-violence, i.e., non-violence of the brave as well as non-violence of policy or expediency failed to deliver the goods, i.e., ‘Swaraj within one year’ (1920) and ‘Complete Independence’ (1930).
Even after the use of these two types of non-violence, the society was left unprotected. Evidence is nowhere available that a few non-violent persons are ever able to turn out the aggressors after the latter forcibly entered and settled down in a country. Non-violent measures undertaken later often fail to stop their misdeeds, and, expel them from the land.
Similarly anti-social elements finding non-violence as ineffective or powerless often perpetrate much more violence to society than a limited use of force by some trained armed persons which would do some hurting and killing, but defend the larger segments of society in a disciplined and legally permissible manner. What would happen if there were no civilised or liberal government available to permit the use and spread of violence?
Would a society or community like to leave their fate in the hands of a leader for whom the realisation of independence is not an end, as was in case of Gandhi, but a means for the realisation of God? Can a leader like Gandhi be allowed to treat defence and protection of the whole nation as means to realise his own personal end: the moksha (salvation). To achieve independence of India was not the central theme and ultimate goal of his techniques.
The use of non-violence perhaps is simple when there is only one opposing party confronting a Gandhian movement as was during the days of freedom movement. That too must be alien or foreigner, a small minority, not residing in the country. Difficulties would arise in case it was to be conducted against one’s own countrymen. There can be equal number or a substantial majority of adversaries standing against the satyagrahis.
In such a situation, it is not easy to determine the ‘truthfulness’ of the issue or outcome of the conflict even if a large number of satyagrahis make sacrifice of lives on both sides. Similarly, there can be more than three or four parties to the conflict. One or two of them may not be believing in practicing non-violence. In such a situation, the fate of ‘non-violence’ would hang in balance. A country, divided badly into differing big religious, cultural or ethnic communities, when resorts to satyagraha movement may fall prey to separatism, partition or civil war.