Gandhism ::The Power

Sometimes I like to make an argument on fresh issues related with MahatmaGandhi and his practices.But it is shame to us that people usually find bravery to make a joke of this Mhatma.In all over the world, his methods were easily misinterpreted by Westerners. In order to fathom what he was about, westerners fluctuated between hyper-difference, in which Gandhi was seen as the inexplicable product of a foreign culture; and over-likeness, in which they found similarities that were not really there. The real Gandhi lay somewhere in between. The concept of non violence and making the country fre is somehow related to some basic experiments what this Mahatma did during the first cycle of our great revolution.it is being explained by some of our modern philosophers that gandhi was somehow a little bit controversial about his experiments can be eventually compared with the hindu religion.Gandhi departed from Hindu orthodoxy in two significant ways: on nonviolence and on caste. Ahimsa, or nonviolence, maintained that all killing should be avoided to accrue spiritual merit. Gandhi, who had encounters with poisonous snakes in South Africa and rabid dogs in India, redefined the concept and mandated killing for humanitarian purposes, as in the euthanasia of rabid dogs. If some Hindus were alienated by his lack of orthodoxy on ahimsa, many more fell out with him over his championing of the untouchables, the lowest of India's castes.in most of the part of our contry we common people still having this disease what we call as a regional old manuscripted thought where the people from lower caste should not be touched. In traditional Hindu belief, an untouchable's contact with the person, food, or drink of a member of a higher caste would defile that person. For orthodox Hindus, it was a scripturally enjoined inequality, a product of individual karma (action) and performance of dharma (dedication to a calling), and a proof of the cycle of sansar (reincarnation). Gandhi never succeeded in justifying his stance against untouchability; in the end, he simply asserted that Hinduism needed to change.Attempting to understand Gandhi fares no better if he is misconstrued as a product of Indian asceticism. Although Gandhi followed various ascetic regimens such as brahmacharya (celibacy), his purpose was to gain the strength for successful worldly action, rather than to accumulate spiritual merit. Just as mistakenly, Gandhian protest can take on the guise of things.it is not a matter a joke when there was a time people started to follow a person just by hearing his speech.in the stories and fairy tales we have heard the youngesters started to follow the witch or fairy because of her hyptonacy.But this was not the case at the time of slavery,where people from our country started to listen a particular person.It was the magic and poer of a mahatma whose theory and style somehow reflects the hope to get the freedom from slavery.Westerners already know well. Attempting to see in Gandhian nonviolence a form of Christian nonresistance glosses over the activist, confrontational element in Gandhism. Gandhi wanted worldly success, the independence of India, not divine martyrdom. He made salt, he burned cloth, he led boycotts, he was thrown in prison, but he never waited around to be thrown to the lions. The concepts of Gandhian nonviolence and pacifism are not at all close. Gandhi did not believe in turning the other cheek in every situation―evil had to be resisted, best done nonviolently, but better by violence than not at all. Passive resistance was the term that Gandhi originally used for his South African protest, but he soon disowned the term in favor of his neo-locution, satyagraha or soul-force. For Gandhi, passive resistance was a weapon of the weak, used expediently, not morally, when violence was impossible or too costly. When Gandhi pondered the case of the British suffragettes and Irish Republican hunger-strikers offering passive resistance in jail, he saw an essential coercive element in the protests, which made them akin to violent resistance. Such passive resistors were perpetrating nonviolence to extract concessions from their enemies. The purpose of India's nonviolent resisters, in Gandhi's terms, was to suffer nonviolently to engender trust and respect in their opponents. Civil disobedience against the state, and the anarchist spirit of protest it represented, was also a departure from the Gandhian concept. Civil disobedience as proposed by Thoreau and practiced by anarchists depended on individual acts. Mass action was suspect because participants might not share the same conviction or some might feel coerced into action.
In Gandhian protest, civil disobedience could begin with individual acts, but only for the purpose of mobilizing mass protest. Otherwise, civil disobedience was an ego trip, not a moral action. Gandhi's truth was not just a product of his Indian tradition; nor was he parroting methods already known in the West. It was a syncretism of Western and Indian practices that drew upon Gandhi's experiences living in England, South Africa, and India. By 1918 Gandhi had put together the three most important elements of his philosophy―namely, morally informed nonviolence, mass civil disobedience, and courageous suffering.
The concept was almost as strange to Indians as it was later to Americans. In the West, Gandhi was perceived as powerful for his ability to hold back threatened violence from the Indian masses. That power was taken as spiritual. Gandhi "suffers himself to be adored," as one New York Times commentator put it. Another commented that Gandhi's penitential fasting for political ends illustrated the "difference between East and West." A Gandhi sanctified in this manner spoke to American social activists only as a saint―which meant that he was heard best by Christian militants, rather than by secular ones, and that his work was taken as prophecy, not politics. Even this depended on seeing Christ like qualities in Gandhi and in tailoring nonviolent resistance to Christian nonresistance and pacifism. This over-likeness grew stronger from the 1920s on as Gandhi's influence over Indian nationalism developed and as more and more American clergymen went to India to meet the Mahatma and bring his ideas home. John Haynes Holmes, a Protestant minister, pacifist, and activist with A. J. Muste's Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) was a major agent of Western over-likeness. He began to preach a Christianized version of Gandhi and Gandhism as early as 1918 and met the Mahatma in 1931. In a 1922 sermon, Holmes said that "Gandhi is thus undertaking to do exactly what Jesus did when He proclaimed the kingdom of God on earth." For many U.S. activists in the 1930s, even Christian ones, a Christ-like Gandhi gave no political direction. A. J. Muste remembered the period with regret: "In the thirties . . . we faced a terrible situation . . . .I did not know how to apply nonviolent methods effectively to the situation. The effort to apply Gandhian methods to American conditions had scarcely begun. Pacifism was mostly a middle-class and individualistic phenomenon." Rejecting Christ and a Christ-like Gandhi, Muste turned to Trotsky and Communism for a period.

Hanging Kasab............

Hanging the Kasab the topic is very Argumentative and need much more mature knowledge and dimension.Justice is not just hanging a person.It serves to set an example so that in future no onewould try to do the crime again.By delivering a death sentence to Kasab we cannot root out terrorism.How will a person who does not fear death he will be forced to be moved to realise that what he has done was wrong?So many people are daily killed day by day and the count is still going on.The very fact that you say he has killed many so deserves death brings out the very “emotional” argument . If you were to rationally think about this you would not say this.Indians were killed,We were attacked.Obviously a lot of incidents was flowing.the count and the happenings are going on.In times of crisis more than the enemy we need to fight with our own bodies.we as a human being we are reponsible for producing terror and terrorist in our society.we never think about the root cause and always try to find the shortCut solutionStill the second argument occurs Death of Kasab will make him a martyr in the eyes of other jehadis and the jehadis and Kasab himself will believe that he will reach Jannat. So the punishment won’t serve any purpose.this is the general thought what terrorist think before going to do attacks.Then about the money.Many thoughts were crossing my mind while reading people’s views on Kasab.In your rebuttal to this point ,you have kind of accepted the validity of the argument and your argument in effect proves mine.the incidents which are happening now days are we ever bother about these why it happened and who is the main culprit as a wholeWhat is terror?Why are we so enraged with just Kasab?What about the terror within?Militant groups? Religious fundamentalists, political parties….all are tacitly trying to break the fabric of this nation.We should be vocal about them too!Humlog yaha kuchh jyada conservative ho jate hain bahut sare cases aise bhi hain jaha killing hoti hai but we just neglect them. A Hindu terrorist killed a Christian missionary 12 years ago and is running Scot free!No body cares! He is a terrorist too.He too threats the country!why does no one speak about him? A group of people break down a heritage mosque in the nation!it takes 19 years for the verdict to come,no one cares!25 years on victims of riots get no justice!no one talks about them,this is definitely a rare case.But the incidents i mentioned were terrorizing too.About this case.Yes he deserves a harsh punishment.I never had any difference of opinion on that.But death is not that punishment.The burden of life is much heavier to carry for these men who were on a mission of death.just tell me if we are going to hang Kasab will this incidents will be removed ,it might be possible more of our people will be killed in blasts and etc.there should be some permanent solution about this.Moreover corollaries with Kandahar incident seem futile.that incident was an example of ineptitude and inefficiency on part of the erstwhile government in power.Speculating on that is a futile exercise.Moreover we have no right to take lives.Kasab killed cause he was blinded by faith.We want him hanged cause we are blinded by vengeance,in the end if we demand his hanging why we sink to the same lowliness that he is in now.Now we come on main root does our religion anytime says he is bullshit person because he is from a specific religion,we should not live at a particular city or town because that is filled with the people of a specific religion.we worship our holy book without reading or knowing about this .because there is no habit in our family to know the truth and the root reason.we are following whatever our old species followed.If believing in a god or gods is good, then why is so much pain and suffering caused by religion--like the crusades, suicide bombings,etc?If believing in a god or gods is good, then why is so much pain and suffering caused by religion--like the crusades, suicide bombings, etc., etc?This is a question we hear very often, and there are a number of ways of approaching the issue. meri baatein bahut hi odd aur behisab lag rahi hongi but just think about this.I'd like to try a scientific approach.The position is that religion causes war. Just like, say, alcohol causes inebriation and sunlight makes things grow.If we wanted to test the alcohol/inebriation or sun/growth hypotheses scientifically, what would we do? Quite simple: Remove the alcohol from whatever drinks we are serving and see if our clients are still inebriated. Same with the sun/growth theory: Remove the sunlight and see if things still grow.With the religion/war hypothesis, we don't have to actually make a clinical study--it's already been done for us. In the 20th century, we saw the most disastrous wars of history, both in Europe and in the Far East. Tell me, which of these were centered around religious disputes?I can't speak on behalf of other religions, but I can tell you that many of the great prophets of Judaism spoke of the value of peace even in a time when war was the accepted state of affairs. Isaiah's words are inscribed on the wall of the United Nations: "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword upon nation, neither shall they learn war any more."This is not the first case when it is happening the world has seen a very cruel incidents in the form of holocaust and still the count is going on in the form of terrorist attacks in all over the world.i know jo bhi log mare hain mumbai blast me unko dilasa dena bahut muskil hai lekin kasab ko just latkane se kuchh nahi hoga usko ya fir is theory ko hi hatana hoga which is producing a lot of kasabs in the society......