Very few people know that 9/11 is also marked for the introduction of non violent weapon of political resistance called 'satyagraha' (insistance for truth) by Gandhiji.
What a sharp contrast.
Exactly hundread years ago first 'satyagraha' was performed. Though the term 'satyagraha' was coined later on.
Gandhiji always insisted that means are equally important to ends. Ends cannot justify means. Violence or state repression cannot justify violence.
Violence breeds violence.
Can war against 'terror' or 'terrorism in the name of jihad' justified?
-
- 2006-09-12 @ 06:31:48
-
-
varshakale
- 2006-09-15 @ 22:21:32
Thanks.
-
-
-
Pompadour
- 2006-09-12 @ 13:56:24
Gandhi got it so right.
I heard Joan Baez say, during one of her concerts - 'I will die for my beliefs but I won't kill for them'.
I don't know if it was a quote from somewhere or if she made it up herself.
I like Joan Baez.-
-
varshakale
- 2006-09-15 @ 22:23:16
It is not quote but my understanding of Gandhiji's message.
-
-
-
-
waves
- 2006-09-14 @ 12:49:47
Dear Varsha,
Happy to find you promoting "Gandhi Giri'!
Yours Arvind -
-
-
varshakale
- 2006-09-15 @ 22:30:18
No 'giri' or promotion Arvind. Just came to mind on that day.
Gandhiji is always closed to my heart for his emphasis on values, truth and non-violence, though I may not share many of his other thoughts or approaches. -
-
-
suzeemoon
- http://suzeemoon.friendpages.com/
- 2006-09-16 @ 00:10:38
Thanks for letting us know about the 'other' 9/11 anniversary. i too am an admirer of 'satyagraha' although i did not know actual term until reading this.
-
-
varshakale
- 2006-09-19 @ 06:55:27
Yes suzee. I feel 'satyagraha' is more powerful way of resistance then any violent method. It is strange coincidence that it came into existence on 9/11/1906.
'Satyagraha' is combinaion of two words satya (Truth) and agraha (insistance). This combination was not their earlier. It was specially coined for the novel method of resistance which Gandhiji first introduced in South Africa. -
-
-
- 2006-09-16 @ 01:21:45
Can any death be good? I do beleive that death can be a release from suffering and that the death of an evil person can be for the greater good. But beyond that death cannot be positive can it. Certainly the deaths of 9/11 have resulted in many more deaths.
Ghandi was a spiritual leader who inspired people to good. The problem with violence is it escallates and the more it does the more people get killed.
Power and violence are impotent in the face of non violent resistance, violence needs fear to be effective, Ghandi over came his fear to become powerful over the violence of the ruling powers.
India should always love him as a true hero.-
-
varshakale
- 2006-09-19 @ 06:58:50
Truly Gandhi did that and will be loved by all for long time if not forever.
-
-
- 2006-09-19 @ 16:12:44
Sweet if rather naive idea. The problem is that the opponent wont play by Queensbury Rules.
I wish there were more Muslims like Ghandi than like Maududi.
A war on terror is justifiable. A war on terror in name only, is less justifiable.
Political solutions were possible. Force were necessary. They dont come more necessary than 9/11.-
-
varshakale
- 2006-09-19 @ 18:43:00
Force always seem necessary and many times it is. However, military force can achieve goals temporarily and apparently then fundamentally.
Roots of violence are always so deep to be weeded out by miltary force exerted upon it in its reaction. I feel war on terror was shallow response to deeper issue. -
-
- 2006-09-19 @ 20:54:40
You make fair points.
As regards the war on terror. I feel the Bush administration was misguided to go into Iraq. But as regards Afghanistan I feel there was no other realistic option but to remove the Taliban.
X
What a good point to make. If the Americans especially put more effort into winning hearts and minds rather than bombing people we might get somewhere. I really admire Gandhi and his philosophy of ahisima so thanks and well reminded.