Gandhi's nonviolence movement and its violent consequences

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

Non-violence movement is a myth. A saint like Gandhi could not stop
the violent and bloody results of his nonviolent movement. Commenting
on the tragic events surrounding India independence, American
historian Arthur Herman opined that Gandhi should shoulder a large
share of the blame.

"However, the other person who must bear blame is Gandhi. ... Indeed,
Gandhi's responsibility may run deeper. His decade and a half of
defiance of the law through civil disobedience had bred an atmosphere
of contempt for social order, a celebration of recklessness and
militancy. This contempt ... by 1946 had sunk deep into the Indian
consciousness. The sad paradox was that the apostle of nonviolence had
consistently, if unintentionally, inspired violence by others. His
fasts became potent weapons not because of his moral stature but
because of fear that his death would set off riots across India. It
was violence, not nonviolence, that forced the British first to change
course, ... However, by encouraging others to see themselves in his
exalted image, Gandhi helped to spread the dangerous fiction that all
street action was soul force and vice versa." (Gandhi & Churchill,
2008)

His being murdered, however, stopped the violence, at least
temporarily. 聖人不死，大盗不止？

[niunian]

Nothing in this world is perfect. Everything goes to its opposite when
pushed to the extreme. The same goes with western democracy and the
American empire. Only the middle way is the way of heaven.

Hence, the 2000 years old middle kingdom has a lot to offer to the
future of the human civilization.

[rst0]

On Aug 23, 6:20 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Non-violence movement is a myth. A saint like Gandhi could not stop
> the violent and bloody results of his nonviolent movement.

"Non-violence" means to resist with non-violence. In no way does it
mean there won't be violence against them. Martin Luther King, jr.
advocated non-violence, but violence was used against Martin Luther
King, jr., and people sided with him. Many were killed.

Commenting
> on the tragic events surrounding India independence, American
> historian Arthur Herman opined that Gandhi should shoulder a large
> share of the blame.

Why? The other alternative was open-warfare with England, and that
could be long and costly. Many many more would have died.

>
> "However, the other person who must bear blame is Gandhi. ... Indeed,
> Gandhi's responsibility may run deeper. His decade and a half of
> defiance of the law through civil disobedience had bred an atmosphere
> of contempt for social order, a celebration of recklessness and
> militancy.

Well, that is what "resist" means, NOT to do as ordered.

> This contempt ... by 1946 had sunk deep into the Indian
> consciousness. The sad paradox was that the apostle of nonviolence had
> consistently, if unintentionally, inspired violence by others.

There are always those who wanted "an eye for an eye".

> His
> fasts became potent weapons not because of his moral stature but
> because of fear that his death would set off riots across India. It
> was violence, not nonviolence, that forced the British first to change
> course, ... However, by encouraging others to see themselves in his
> exalted image, Gandhi helped to spread the dangerous fiction that all
> street action was soul force and vice versa." (Gandhi & Churchill,
> 2008)
>
> His being murdered, however, stopped the violence, at least
> temporarily. 聖人不死，大盗不止？

There are many ways to attain their goal. Violence is one way.
Deaths many be much greater.

[rst0]

The Chinese civilization has nothing to offer.
Just be glad it is over with.

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

It is not about pushing something to the extreme. Rather, the non-
violence is in name only.
To the extent that such movement can be successful, the threat of
violence cannot be far behind. "However, by encouraging others to see

themselves in his exalted image, Gandhi helped to spread the dangerous

fiction that all street action was soul force and vice versa." In
addition, the subsequent violence could not be called off by the
leaders of the non-violence movement. They do not start it and they
have no control over it.

[ltlee1]

China can offer a lot to offer to the future of human civilization. But it needs to reframe/recast its success story to make it more attractive culturally and ideologically.

[Turiyan Gold]

George Orwell, author of the book _1984_ said to envision the future as a steel toed boot stomping on a mans face.

It may suprise some that Dr. Martin Luther King was in fact a Futurist. Futurism may be more commonly known as an art form, but it also has its own philosophy.

The main problem with Futurism, is that it always seems to end up leading to violence. MLK's dream was in fact a future (futurism) without violence?

Didn't work. Ghandhi was killed by his own follower. The result was that India divided into Pakistan and India, two nuclear powers.

They assassinated MLK not because he was harmless, they simply did not buy what he was selling. The riot that resulted burnt down Watts, which was never rebuilt.

Turiyan 天香香背男 Gold
Twitter: @tgold8888

[apple...@gmail.com]

The outbreak of the Wuhan Corona virus pandemic is clearly the consequence of the authoritarian control of China by CCP.

於 2012年8月24日星期五 UTC+8上午9時20分13秒寫道：