Gandhi Questions
Mr. J.
satyagrahi. Find at least three examples in the documents to support
his view.
2. Besides the personal danger that a satyagrahi might face, list
some other concerns one should have while conducting a satyagraha
campaign?
3. What did Gandhi mean by this statement, that the satyagrahi
"...never forget that he and the attacker are one"? Please be
specific.
4. Why do you think that so many Indians supported Gandhi's
satyagraha movement? Please be specific.
5. Which of the following statements is closest to your view of the
satyagraha?
a. I believe whole-heartedly in satyagraha. This type of civil
disobedience based on moral force not only shows great courage, but it
truly has the power to change the world for the better.
b. The effectiveness of satyagraha is relative, depending on the type
of opponent you're facing. In some circumstances this tactic would be
effective. In others it would be unwise and ineffective.
c. Satyagraha not only is foolish, it can be extremely dangerous.
Trying to fight bullets with non-violence is only asking for trouble.
The enemy won't be impressed and would welcome a potentially easy
victory against an overmatched foe.
Please explain your choice in detail! (For support, use information
from this handout, your readings on Indian history from earlier in the
week, clips from Gandhi on the “Salt March”, and/or current events).
Mike Stavrakos
risking danger for yourself through provocation without planning on
defending yourself. For example, when he was accused of inciting
violence in India, he pled guilty and asked for the highest penalty
without mercy. He knew what the government could do to him and he
accepted it for the good of the cause. Also, in the Dharasana Salt
Raid, 2,500 satyagrahis marched into their impending violent abuse
simply to make a statement, and without expectation of actually taking
over the salt works. Finally, Gandhi said about the holocaust and anti-
Semitism in Germany that if he were a German Jew he would stand up
against the persecution that was going on, knowing full well it may
get him killed, but with the assumption that others would follow his
example.
2. A possible concern of a satyagrahi campaign would be that if it
gets too large, the stress on non-violence may be lost in some areas,
and would instead give some an excuse to act violently against the
authority. If this were to happen, the government would be able to
crack down violently and also politically, saying the movement was
inherently or secretly violent. This would in turn undermine the
entire operation of a satyagraha campaign.
3. He meant by this that both the attacker and the attacked are
people, and in his opinion all people are connected and should show
love for each other. He then said about this statement that his
movement is not just the absence of violence but the presence of
intense love. I believe he meant by this that it is necessary to fight
violence with love because that is the only way a message will be
received that they didn't want to riot but to just have freedom.
4. I think that after such a long time of being persecuted and
disrespected by the British, they realized that they couldn't possibly
fight the intensive strength of the British army, so they were willing
to listen to Gandhi's teachings and his ideas for revolution.
5. I agree with statement B because I realize that Satyagraha worked
in India, but I don't think it is a perfect plan that would work in
any situation. For instance, in India, the British were occupiers in
India who relied on the country for goods and wealth and armed forces
(such as in WWII). This made them somewhat dependent on the trust and
work of the people, but in a situation like the holocaust in Germany,
where the Nazis had no problem with killing every Jew in the country,
sitting back and simply accepting whatever they did is not a plausible
strategy. It would have just made it easier for the Nazis to "purify"
their country, as they believed they should.
Erik Hotaling
because you must willingly submit your body to the violence of your
oppressor without resisting no matter what. An example of this is the
raid of the salt works at Dharasana the protesters were "bashed into a
bloody pulp" while "not one of the marchers even raised and arm to
fend off the blows". this shows the extreme bravery of the marchers to
disregard their own bodies to prove a point. Another example of
extreme courage is Ghandi himself. He was willing to risk being put in
jail abused and even killed to help his country and his people. He
said "I knew that i was playing with fire. I ran the risk and if I was
set free, I would still do the same...". This shows his indomitable
will to save his country form the tyranny of the British. However,
this courage is not easy and if one is nor courageous enough it can
ruin the whole process and example of when peoples courage faltered
was in the village of Chauri Chaura. Twenty-three policemen were
hacked to death and burned. This faltering form the path of
nonviolence is in some ways understandable however, it could have
seriously endangered their campaign. The violence got Ghandi
imprisoned and could have discredited their whole message. It is for
this reason the courage is necessary so that you message remains
constant and strong.
2. While satyagrahi can conduct an extremely powerful moral battle
against an oppressor it, because of it's nature an foundation of non-
violence, can set the people up to be basically slaughtered or, if the
oppressor has no concern for what other countries think or is isolated
it can have no effect. An other worry is that not everyone commits to
satyagrhi. If the movement doesn't have a strong enough leader or
following and their are people still committing acts of violence it
undermines the foundation of the protests and opens the door for the
oppressing country to crack down upon the people within the movement
saying that they prevoked the acts of violence. An example of this is
what happened in Chauri Chaura, protesters acted violently and the
British blamed Gandhi and imprisoned him.
3. When Gandhi says that the Satyagrhi and the attacker are one his
means to say that both are humans and are part of the world. If the
Satyagrhi can see this than they can justify not retaliating or
protecting themselves. It also gives them a reason to protest, to
teach the attackers that they are one with the satyagrhi so that they
can realize their wrongs and hopefully work to right their wrongs. If
the satyagrhi can have intense love for people that are oppressing,
beating, and imprisoning than hopefully the attackers can see this and
will lose their commitment and resolve to continue oppressing.
4. I believe that many Indians Indians supported Gandhi because of
their religious beliefs in non-violence. Also because they were being
severely oppressed and for them to violently revolt many people would
die. Gandhi also presented satyagrahi very well he was a great speaker
and a wonderful leader who committed him self to the movement more
than anyone else. This commitment caused people to love him so they
supported him.
5 I choose b, because you must be facing an opponent that is large
enough and important enough that other countries look at what they do.
Also this opponent must care and be influenced by other countries
opinions and the country must be a minority to the protesters. An
example of a situation where this was not applicable was Germany when
Hitler was oppressing Jews, Germany was relatively small, other
countries did not want to deal with it after world world one so they
did not pay that close attention to it, Hitler didn't care what other
countries thought or told him, and the Jews were not a majority or
large enough majority. There fore a satyagrahi campaign would not
work.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Kim Sass
1. It took great courage to be a satyagrahi because it's always hard
to do nonviolent acts. When Gandhi and his followers went to protest
the salt tax, they had to have great courage to stand in front of
people with weapons and be beaten without defending themselves. It's
human nature to defend yourself from an attacker, either by fleeing or
fighting back. Ignoring this human nature needs great discipline and
courage. But, sometimes people fall into human nature such as when
Indian protestors engaged in violent acts and killed 23 policemen in
the village of Chauri Chaura. By fighting, it made the satyagrahi look
bad in the eyes of the world, so even though the Indians were doing
what they thought was right, they were wrong. It takes courage to not
fight because you need to battle your mind into thinking that by not
fighting, you are accomplishing your goal. Not everyone is able to
have enough courage to battle their mind into thinking that by not
fighting you are doing something right. Finally, it takes courage
because when you fight your government it is like asking for death,
and it isn't easy to face your death. Gandhi wrote that if he were a
Jew he would stand up and question the government even if it meant his
death. It is very difficult to accept your death without fighting for
your life first, and satyagrahi accept their death without fighting
for their life.
2. As Gandhi wrote along the lines of, you play with fire when you run
a satygrahi campaign. This in turn runs the risk of looking bad in the
eyes of another countries if just one group of peoeple decide to act
violently. You can't control tens of thousdands of people, you can
only suggest to them what they should do. Gandhi was the leader, but
he had little control if a large group decided to act violently
instead of act nonviolently. If violent acts were to occur often, it
would make the whole campaign go to ruins, and there wouldn't be too
much Ghandi could do to stop it.
3. Gandhi meant that he and the attacker are intertwined because they
are both people, and people should have love for each other rather
than fight with each other. When the satygraha get beaten by an
attacker, the attacker must feel remorse because the satygraha is
showing no violence towards the attacker, but is rather showing them
love and mercy. The attackers would probably feel guilty about their
deeds later because how can you be proud to attack a defenseless
person who is showing you compassion? Gandhi wanted to say that it in
order for a change to take place, attacker and satygraha must become
one so that the attacker can see that he isn't just hurting rioters,
he is hurting people capable of emotions.
4. I think so many people supported Gandhi and the satyagraha movement
because the Indian people have acted with violence towards the Britis
before at the Mutiny of 1857, and it didn't work. The British were
just too powerful and had too many powerful people under their control
for the Indian people to fight properly. So, when the Indian people
were given a chance to fight the British in a different way, they took
the chance. The Indian people were tired of the British rule and the
unfair taxes, so they would do anything to have their freedom and
Gandhi's satygraha movement was appealing, so many people joined.
5. I agree with B. The only reason why the satygraha worked in India
is because most of the people in India sided with the movement, and
the British government wanted something from the Indian people, but
didn't get it because of the movement. The Iranians tried to have
peaceful protesting because of the Iranian election, but the people
protesting all got sent to jail and/or killed. There weren't enough
people to back up the cause and the government had no remorse for
killing thousands of people because the government didn't want
anything from its people. Plus, when Gandhi was protesting they used
metal bamboo sticks to hit the people. In Iran, the soldiers had guns
to kill people. They both had the same tactics, but because the
situations were different, there were different outcomes.
James
1. Gandhi said that it took great courage to be a Satyagrahi, and he
was completely right. During his life, he took many risks for his
country, all in the name of "seeking the truth." As a young man and
an emerging lawyer in South Africa, he organized one of his first
protests against the government for making Indians carry
certificates. He gathered people and had them burn their
certificates. A few months later, the government and Gandhi reached an
agreement on the certificates. Later in his life, he was willing to
risk his life and the lives of others during the raid of the salt
works. Even though they knew they were going to be met with harsh
opposition, he told them that the most important thing was to not
fight back, under any circumstance. As a result, they were beaten
mercilessly, but it helped them gain leverage against the British,
making it a success. He also wrote a newspaper article about Jews in
Germany, and said that he would rather die than have his rights
stripped from him, and after seeing what he did in India, i
wholeheartedly believe him.
2. I think that the biggest concern for a Satyagrahi campaign is the
theme of nonviolence. Even in some of his smaller-scale
demonstrations, the rioters got carried away and some turned violent,
completely destroying the purpose of the demonstration.
3. When he said that "he and the attacker were one," i think he was
saying that anybody at any point could be either attacking or
attacked. During their protests, the Satyagrahi were being attacked
by the police/military, but weren't they at the same time attacking
the system? Although all of his protests were (supposed to be)
nonviolent, they were all intentional attacks against the British
rule.
4. There are many reasons why many Indians supported Gandhi's
Satyagrahi campaign. One is that everybody was being affected by the
British rule, be it positively or negatively, and the vast majority
was experiencing the latter. Also, almost everybody wanted
independence, and they saw Gandhi as a way to get their freedom.
5. I agree with B. In India, the Satyagrahi campaign was a success,
but I think it could have easily gone the other way. Nonviolent
protests are only as successful as the people are committed to their
success. Also, it depends on the oppressor. For example, if the Jews
in Germany during the early 40's tried nonviolent protests, i dont
think that they would have had much success at all. Nonviolent
protests were also going on recently in Iran, and there wasn't much
success there either. I think it worked in India because the
government was much less stable, and more people with power were open
to change.
Sibtain Bokhari
saying "Even in the face of the fiercest provocation, he never lets
himself forget that he and the attacker are one". What this statement
conveys is that one should never forget who he his, no matter what the
situation. After the Salt March, the British soldiers stormed the
villages. They beat and arrested people, however no one resisted. They
were committed to Ghandi's ideal. Another example of how courage
played a part in satyagrahi is the Salt March itself. The people
walked the 240 mile journey without fear of what the British would do.
The final example i found that showed courage was when the people
stormed the salt factory. They did not charge at it, however they
walked right up to it. They went up in groups, and each group was
beaten. Although they say their fellow villagers beaten by the
soldiers, the rest of the people were not discouraged and continued to
walk up to the soldiers. This shows how courage was a big part of
being a satyagrahi.
2. While conducting a satyagrahi campaign, there are many concerns
that the people faced. Aside from the personal dangers, the groups had
to worry about what the British would do. The soldiers could have
charged the groups, they could have done many things. Also, the
movements needed a lot of support. Without the mob mentality, the
soldiers could have easily overrun the groups. However, most of the
dangers faced were physical dangers. Because the satyagrahi's believed
in morality over violence, they would not be overturned by beatings
and such. The biggest concern would probably have been the loss of
support.
3. What Ghandi means by this statement is that we are all people. What
i can interpret from this statement is that though there are two sides
in the battle, they are ultimately one people. This can be seen when
you look at the soldiers that would attack the satyagrahi. The
soldiers were not just British, but many of them were sepoys. This
means that both the sides were Indians. Because both sides were
Indians, then that means that both the attacker and he are one. This
is what is meant by Ghandi's statement.
4. I think that many of the Indians supported Ghandi because of his
political stance. Previous leaders tried to help the Indians, but
while doing so, they were still following the British rules. When
Ghandi came into power, he instituted a non-cooperation policy. The
Congress would no longer listen to the British government. By doing
so, the Indians started to openly express their resentment toward the
British government. They stopped paying taxes, and pulled their kids
out of British schools. To me, the main reason that the Indians
supported Ghandi was because he gave the Indians hope for
Independance. By openly refusing to comply with the British, Ghandi
inspired the people to do so also.
5. I agree with option B because that seems like the most realistic. I
think this because though a moral offense can be very strong, it is
not always the best option. It did work in India, however it may not
have worked. If the British wanted to, they could have killed all
those that opposed. However, they knew that if they did that, they
would be looked upon as harsh. That is why the Indians moral offense
was successful. However if Britain did not have anything to lose, they
could have easily quenched this moral movement. This is why i agree
with option B.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Sam
is when Ghandi organized the march to the salt factory. The leader of
the march Madame Naidu told the people that they cannot use violence
no matter what happens. The people continued to walk up to the guards
at the salt factory even thought they knew that they were going to be
beaten. That showed great courage. Another example is when Ghandi
voluntarily recieved the highest penalty and was put in prison when
during a satyagrahi campaign twenty-three policement were killed just
so the satyagrahi campaign did not look bad in the eyes of the world.
That took extreme courage. Lastly, its shows great courage to be a
satyaghrahi when Ghandi stated, " Even in the face of the fiercest
provovcation, he never lets himself forget that he and the attacker
are one.This is ahimsa, which is more that just the absence of
violence, it is intense love" This shows great courage because Ghandi
is turning non violence into love and attemped to bring people
together by this which is going against the views of many people at
the time.
2) The main concern that a person might have while conducting a
Satyagrahi moventment is that they may experience violence against
them and they will not be able to retaliate and also that their peace
will have not accomplished anything and they will just come out of the
campaign beaten and bruised.
3) What he meant by this is that when someone displays non violence
towards another person it is a form of love so if a person shows non
violence back against his attacker it is a form of love he is showing
him which brings the two people together. So they then are sharing a
connection that they would have not before.
4) I believe that so many Indians supported Ghandis stayaghahi
movement because for such a long time they had been oppressed by the
British government and not recieved the right in which they should
have so now that there was a new person coming along with new idea
they wanted to support him because it was a change from the British
rule and a chance for a new and better life if it was successful.
5) I strongly agree with option B. It did work in India but that was
because of the situation that was presented to them and the opponent
that they were facing. They had the world's attention at the time and
by using satyagrahi they were able to make the British look like the
tormentor and allow the world to favor independence to India. Even
though it did work there, in some situations it would fail. I believe
in situations where a minority were to be going against a majority
satygrahi would prove to be ineffective. Also in a similar situation
to the Rwandan genocide or where and form of genocide were occuring,
satyagrhi would not work because people would just continue to be
killed off.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Hannah
shown in the campaign against the salt tax when thousands of marchers
fearlessly approached the native police as one by one they got beaten
with steel poles. "Not one of hte marchers even raised an arm to fend
off the blows". Another example of courage is shown by Ghandi when he
was arrested for his sedition articles, and some of his followers had
engaged in violent acts. Seeing as this was partially his
responsibility, he asked for, and accepted the highest penalty that
could be given to him for leading these people in the wrong direction.
A third example is during the satyagraha campaign against the Asiatic
Law Amendment Act when he stood up against the government as a young
man and burned thousands of certificates on penalty of imprisonment or
deportation. This took courage because he stood up by himself, with
his supporters, to speak out against the government.
2. Some other concerns one should have while conducting a satyagraha
campaign are that your followers might be killed or badly hurt. When
conducting one of these campaigns, the followers do everything the
leader says, and typically do not stray from their instructions. The
leader is ultimately responsible for these people. So if many the
satyagrahi leader's followers are hurt or killed, people have the
potential to lose faith in their leader. Another concern would be that
the campaign could get too rowdy or out of hand, and people could
forget their duties to remain non-violent due to extreme passion
towards their cause/goal.
3. In his statement, "...never forget that he and the attacker are
one", Gandhi meant that, regardless of opinions and political or
religious differences, he and the attacker are both people and the
needs and concerns of all people are equal and should be considered. I
believe it is similar to the golden rule that we use today, which
states that we should treat others the way they would like to be
treated. If Gandhi does not want to be beaten, neither does his
attacker, which makes them one.
4. I think that so many Indians supported Gandhi's satyagraha movement
because of its ideals of nonviolence and love for everyone. I believe
that the idea of nonviolence is appealing because it spreads the idea
of fighting and getting what you want without hurting others to do so.
People know that they fought fairly and justly and that no guilt will
be associated with their success or non success.
5. My view of satyagraha is closest to b: "The effectiveness of
satyagraha is relative, depending on the type of opponent you're
others it would be unwise and ineffective." I belive that against the
British, this was more effective because it proved the point that
violence and unjust laws and taxes againts the Indians would not phase
them and that they would stand up against their violence. This would
probably be slightly less ineffective in cases such as war where there
are multiple or stronger opposing forces with weapons other than steel
poles, such as guns.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
John Li
satyagrahi. By definition, Satyagraha means "holding to this truth in
every situation, no matter how fierce the storm", which means that the
satyagrahi would solve problems without the use of violence, even if
violence or hostility is used against him. First off, in the Ghandi
movie that we watched, all those satyagrahis marched to the salt works
fully knowing that they probably wouldn't be able to take it over, but
rather, to make a point. Secondly, Gandhi began a satyagraha campaign
the "Black Act", which required the Indian people to register
themselves to the government and must carry a certificate at all
times. In Gandhi's satyagraha, he burned over 2000 of these
certificates, something that was both defiant and brave. Lastly,
Gandhi spoke about the discriminating laws against German Jews,
saying, "I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to the
discriminating treatment", and questioning that "can the Jew resist
this organized and shameless persecution?" If someone were to resist
and speak out about this discriminating treatment, it would be brave
and could set an example for others.
2. A concern about the satyagraha is that the movement loses its
stress on the non-violent portion of non-violence. It takes quite a
bit of commitment from each person to not respond to the violent
crushing of the satyagraha with more violence. If each person doesn't
commit to the nonviolence of the satyagraha, then it defeats the
"intense love" of the satyagraha.
3. "He never lets himself forget that he and the attacker are one.
This is ahimsa, which is more than just the absence of violence; it is
intense love". By this quote, he means that both the attacker and the
person attacked are equal parts of the universe. These two people
should be one in a utopian world, and they should love each other as
well.
4. It seems that so many Indians supported Gandhi's satyagraha
movements because of various reasons, including the fact that these
movements promoted ideals that portrayed the interest of the Indian
people and because they wanted to make a point against the British,
who had suppressed them for so long. For example, in the Salt Raid,
the Indians had been taxed unfairly for such a common resource, and
they refused to stand up for it. As a result, thousands of satyagrahi
followers contributed to Gandhi's cause, mainly because they agreed
with him.
5. I would have to agree with option B. The effectiveness of a
satyagraha is completely dependent on the people who are supporting
the satyagraha and the people that the satyagraha are going against.
In a situation like India was in, they needed to make a point against
the British, who believed that they were helping the Indians. However,
in a situation against dangerous foes like Al Qaeda, it seems that the
satyagraha wouldn't really be effective, mainly because their goal
isn't to keep America in power, but rather, to cause chaos in America.
In such a situation, the use of a Satyagraha would be completely
ineffective because these acts of nonviolence wouldn't do anything to
deter the extremists.
abol...@yahoo.com
own life to prove a point that may not even be seen. In the first
document there was the example that he organized a bonfire to burn the
certificates Indians were required to have. He very well knew that he
could be killed for this, along with his followers, but he did it
anyway and ended up making a compromise with government. The second
example of why it took courage was in the second document, where he
plead guilty for several violent acts he had not planned. He knew
there would be punishments for this, yet he was courageous enough to
actually ask for harsher punishments. A third example is in the third
document when 2,500 satyagrahi followers planned to raid the salt
works, and marched in non-violently despite the repeated blows to
their heads. This act was very courageous and made a huge statement to
people all around.
2. One's own life is not the only concern that needs to be taken for a
satyagrahi. Cooperation from the group of people participating is very
important. A concern would be that some of the other satyagrahis
wouldn't comply with the non-violent policy and they might react
violently. Once people become violent or defend themselves, the
message of satyagraha is lost. Also, there is a risk that the attacker
won't see any message or power in their nonviolent acts, and their
courage will then be somewhat ignored.
3. When Gandhi said that "he and the attacker are one" he meant that
they are both human, and should both have the same rights and values,
and that both attacking each other would be useless. What he is saying
by being nonviolent is he is showing love, and love is what unites
people. If the attacker decided to cease and not attack, he would be
stating his love, and would therefore unite him and the attacker.
4. I think people supported Gandhi and his satyagraha movement because
they were under severe oppression by the British and they wanted
change. It was clear that violent acts weren't going to work against
the powerful British army, and would just kill many people, so they
decided to go with something new. Ghandi's Satyagraha movement
provided them with the non-violent action that their religion praised,
and it also put out a more effective message to the world while
showing courage.
5. I agree with statement B because I think that the attacker the
Satyagrahis are facing plays a role in its effectiveness. I think that
it worked in India because they had a huge amount of support and
Ghandi was a strong and powerful leader of the movement. It also
worked there because the British were able to be influenced by what
the rest of the world thought of the satyagraha. I think that it
wouldn't have worked in other situations however, such as for Germany
with Hitler, or for Russia with Stalin. In Hitlers rule, he was the
dictator, and he wasn't very influenced by other's opinions on his
anti-semitic movement, and the same goes for Stalin. I think
Satyagraha would only be effective in situations similar to Gandhi's
where the oppressor is open to negotiation or other's criticism.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Shahrin Islam
--
To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
Kevin Xiao
did what was necessary to get his message across, even if violence
occurred. He was willing to take full responsibility for the violence
he caused and even asked for the highest penalty without mercy for his
actions.Gandhi and other followers displayed their courage when they
marched to the salt works at Dharasanal. Knowing full well that they
would be hurt and abused, they continued anyway and took the abuse
from the police to prove their point. In 1938, Gandhi demonstrated his
courage again by saying that if he was a Jew in Nazi Germany, he would
claim it as his home and refuse to leave or submit to punishment.
2. Eventually, the size of the movement can lead to become a problem
as not all followers choose to follow the exact orders and stray from
the goals.While Gandhi tried to enforce non-violence during the Salt
March, it took other members of the group to remind some people to
restrain themselves from violence. The British were hoping for a
violent reaction from Gandhi's followers but were disappointed when
they did not receive one. If there was violence, then the campaign may
not have worked out.
3. When Gandhi says "never forget that he and the attacker are one",
he means that both people are humans and by showing non-violence, you
are showing your respect and love for the attacker. By doing this, one
can change the attacker into an equal rather than an enemy. This
brings a connection between to seemingly different people and unites
them.
4. I think much of the reason that Indians sided with Gandhi was
because they spent a long time under oppressive British rule. They
wanted change and realized that in the past, violence only led to
retaliation from the British and more violence from both sides. Gandhi
offered a different and more peaceful path which must have appealed
too many Indians who were looking for change. His ideals of non-
violent protest was new and effective and drew in many new followers.
5. I agree with statement B because sometimes non-violence does not
always work, as shown by Gandhi himself. He said that although he did
not want to incite violence during some of his protests, but he had no
choice at the time. Non-violent protest only works to a certain
extent. It depends on how far the opposition is willing to go in order
to stop it. In India, the government was willing to have the police
beat protesters, but not go much further than that. The British had
still invested in India and could not afford to do anything too
drastic to its people. In Germany, non-violent protest would not be
very effective against mass genocide carried out by a government that
is specifically trying to eliminate a certain group of people.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Kai
to stand up to people without taking violent action. When Gandhi was
arrested and plead guilty to being responsible for provoking the death
of 23 policemen, he said that he would submit to, "the highest
penalty. I do not ask for mercy." At the Dharasana Salt Raid, people
were beaten with steel-shod lathis and took the horrific pain without
any fighting back. Also, Gandhi even mentions that if he were a Jew,
he would not hesitate to challenge the Nazi's for his rights and would
not be afraid to be killed. To be able to take pain and suffering
without any possibility of fighting back requires great courage. It
requires a selflessness that many people do not know. It took great
courage to be a stayagrahi because there would be nothing to defend
oneself from harm.
2. One should have many concerns. Among them would be concern for the
effectiveness of the campaign. If a government is not afraid to use
force, it may just assault the demonstrators in a show of force and
turn the demonstration into a shockwave of fear that rebounds back to
the people. Also, one should be concerned about the long term
consequences should they be jailed. Being on file as a dissident is
not convenient and could lead your family to harm should the
government being protested against stay in power.
3. Gandhi meant that the protesters should not demonize their
attackers. They should treat them with respect and understanding.
Gandhi says that "this is ahisma, which is more than just the absence
of violence, it is intense love." He is saying that by loving and
respecting each other and the people they are protesting against, the
satayagrahi shows that he simply wants what is best for everyone
including those he is protesting against.
4. The Indians had been sick of British rule and were looking for a
new way to go against it. They supported Ghandi because the movement
was a new idea and they felt that perhaps it would work better than
what they had been attempting. Acts of violence had been around for a
long time and had not changed anything. The most these acts such as
the Mutiny of 1857 had done was provoke more violence and death
without change. Gandhi's views were a fresh idea and Indians were
attracted to it because the methods they have been trying so far had
not worked.
5. I believe B. While nonviolent protest can be a powerful social
movement, it is not always the right tool to use. While it is great
for raising supporters and spurring social movements, satyagraha would
fail catastrophically in dictatorships or situations where the
government relies on fear. In these situations, the satyagraha
movement would only end in massacre by a government that could care
less. The resulting fear would strike the people brutally and hinder
any further resistance movement. Satyagraha should be carefully
planned and implemented to reach as many people as possible while not
turning into a horrifying gorefest that strikes such powerful fear
into people that further efforts at civil disobedience are discouraged
and dissolved.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Spattni
bravery to be a satyagrahi. First one must note that you must walk
into the fiercest confrontation without hostility, but with an intense
love. In a country where laws targeted certain ethnicities it takes
great courage and control to show no violence or aggression to the
wrong-doers. Gandhi displays this control and bravery when he starts
the burning of 2000 plus certificates, that degrade ethnicity because
of their religion and culture. To show complete calm and complete
composure when your followers commit a horrendous deed (Chauri
Chaura), to respond with no aggressive reaction, and to show an
apologetic love to the British government that is causing you all this
misery takes great courage. The most prime example of the courage
needed is Gandhi's protest of the salt tax. The amount of bravery that
must be mustered to walk towards a fierce opposition, knowing that you
will be injured, fatally wounded, or brutally murdered, and yet
display no resentment, hostility, or aggression is simply
unfathomable. But this is why such courage is needed to be a
satyagrahi.
2. When following a campaign of such risk and danger, not only must
one be concerned for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. If
you die because you did not fight back violently, you leave your
family fending for themselves. Your wives and children held
husbandless and fatherless, unable to support themselves, or if your a
younger boy, how are you to help your family if your out campaigning
against the most powerful empire on earth? Those who do follow such a
campaign run the risk of having your family arrested or murdered, just
like the congress leaders in India during the salt tax. You run the
risk of never being able to work again whether it be from injury, or
businesses being scared you'll attract the British. Many dangers face
a Satyagrahi, but even more for their loved ones.
3. In this statement Gandhi means that you and your attacker are the
same, you are both humans with misunderstandings and that violence
will any destroy. When two people are said to be one, you may there is
a connection and as Gandhi shows that connection is love. When he is
fiercely accused behind the Chauri Chaura events, he shows that they
are one by showcasing a connection to the British government which is
a accepting love. A love that accepts responsibility for his people's
actions, and proceeds to take the highest penalty that they can give,
because he knows that he and the British government are one, they are
connected.
4. I think many Indians joined Ghandi's nonviolent movement firstly
because of logic. To be nonviolent and peaceful provokes your
attackers, and when your attackers react violently they seem evil and
horrible. When this occurs there is uproar whether it be in your
country of the opposing country, because you have not done anything
while your attacker has responded violently. Also it united thousands
because they all wanted the same truth, independence from Britain, and
the love or ahisma kept them together through thick and thin. Everyone
was there disobeying for everyone.
5. I agree with choice A, because of the massive events satyagrahi can
trigger. In today's world the global community is closely knit
together, whether it be through economy or diplomatic relations. For
attackers domestic or international, when you are opposed by a group
that refuses to be violent, you have no choice but to react because
otherwise you appear weak. You seem unable to act when your people
protest or satisfy their needs. If you react you appear violent and
cause an uproar in the global community which is interconnected by
today's media. Just like in Iran the government reacted, appeared
violent, the news spread through media, Iran was condemned, pressured,
and received sanctions. Overall satyagrahi is an effective movement
that forces your opponents hand, gives you an advantage, and proceeds
to lead to massive events (partition, pressure, independence, and
freedom).
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Brendan
but it is a different type of courage. As reported by the American
journalist, Webb Miller, "times the spectacle of unresisting men being
methodically bashed into a bloody pulp sickened me so much that i had
to turn away. The western mind finds it difficult to grasp the idea of
nonresistance." What he is saying is that he cant even imagine how
much courage it must take to be beaten and intentionally not attempt
to protect oneself. Another example of this courage is when Gandhi
leads a protest in South africa about the India population having to
register with the government and carry a certificate that without they
can be thrown in jail. Not only does he not carry his certificate he
rallies the people to burn there certificates knowing full well that
he could be imprisoned or worse. A third example of the courage that a
satyagrahi must have is when Gandhi takes responsibility for the
atrocities committed in Chauri Chaura and then says that he will
continue his movement because he knows that he is doing the right
thing and that he would ratehr risk the occasional violence from his
people than face a system that he thinks has done irreparable harm to
his country.
2) In addition to the danger a satyagrahi might face personally there
are other aspects that could be detrimental to the movement as a
whole. A loss of the focus of the movement, namely developing from
disobedience to anarchy, if the goal of the movement is clear, like
Gandhi's dream for the independence of India from england, but the
opposite could result in citizens that are causing a detriment in
society for a reason that is irrational or unclear.
3) When Gandh says that "never forget he and the attacker are one" he
is saying that although the satyagrahi and whomever is attacking them
have conflicting views on one or several topics, it is important to
remember that at the end of the day both of them are just people who
are trying to get what they want out of life which is in most cases
the very basics of life. Shelter, food, safety, and love from friends
and family. Gandhi knows that by retaliating it just widened the gap
between people but by not allowing the differences to come between
people it allows for peace and friendship to be more easily
established.
4) I think that one of the biggest reasons why Gandhi's satyagrahi
movement appealed to so many indians was because he didn't focus on
one specific part of India, he treated India as a whole regardless of
religion or cultural background, because to him they were all indians.
This leads into what i think the second most important part of the
success of Gandhi's movement, that what the goal was to free India and
give it to the people to govern. He didn't have a goal of conquering
land or taking over a nation he simply wanted to give to the people
what was rightfully theirs, the ability to govern themselves.
5) The statement that i feel most closely matches my view on
satyagraha is b. I feel that it is very true to say that a satyagraha
movement's effectiveness varries based on the opponent you are
confronted with. The times that it would be most effective are when
the enemy has a need to look good in the eye of the world. Good
examples of this are Gandhi's work in India and Dr. Martin Luther KIng
Jr.'s work with the civil right movement in the US. In both cases the
oppressor at the time cared how the other nations of the world viewed
its actions. However when faced with an opponent that doesn't take
into consideration how its appears in the eyes of the world or has a
different set of moral values than the rest of the world that is when
a satyagraha losses its effectiveness. Examples of ineffective
situations for satyagraha would been currently in the darfur conflict
where no mercy has been shown to people who have done nothing at all
let alone protest. And in history with the systematic execution of the
Jews in Nazi Germany and other area that the Nazis took control of.
When faced with pure evil a satyagraha losses its effectiveness.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
alyssa norton
characterized by non-violent non-cooperation. He often said this
required great courage. There are several examples of this. On August
16th, Gandhi wanted to protest the Black Act which said that all
members of the Indian community in South Africa were required to carry
a certificate at all times on penalty of imprisonment or deportation,
so he decided that he would hold a giant bonfire to burn all the
certificates. This is an example of great courage because not only is
Gandhi putting his job as a lawyer in jeopardy, he is willing to risk
the consequences of his action. Another example of Gandhi showing
great courage while participating in satyagrahi is when some Indian
protesters engaged in very violent and brutal acts, and Gandhi took
responsibility for it. In an article he wrote he said, "I should have
known the consequences of every one of my acts. I knew that I was
playing with fire. I ran the risk, and if I was set free, I would
still do the same..". In this excerpt, not only is Gandhi willing to
take responsibility for his actions causing the violent acts but he is
willing to say that if he was given the opportunity he would have
still done what he had. This is an example of great courage because
not only does it take courage to take responsibility for other
people's actions when you think they are your fault, but it takes
great courage to be able to say you would do it again. Another example
of great courage, not just from Gandhi, but from all people that
practiced satyagrahi is when Gandhi protested the British taking
Indian salt. In order to protest this, Gandhi organized a large group
of people to walk 150 to the salt works at Dharasana and try to take
it over. During this Gandhi was arrested before he could reach there,
but the leader Madame Naidu told all the members not to use any
violence, even if they were met with violence. As the protesters
approached the salt works, they were beat mercilessly by the British
police, but not one person struck back. It takes a lot of courage to
walk up to a place where you know that you are going to get hurt, most
likely very badly, and still do it.
2. -I think a big concern would be sticking to what you are doing when
the times get tough. No matter what hardships the satyagrahi's face
they must stand by what they are doing, and participating in non-
violence. This could mean giving up being with your family, getting
seriously hurt, or just facing discomfort
-Another concern that is brought up with being a satyagrahi is the
fact that if you have a lot of people participating in a movement, any
movement, the purpose of the movement could be lost. I think Gandhi
was very successful in reassuring the satyagrahi's of what they were
protesting against, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't get caught
up in the protesting and not the moral.
3. I think that Gandhi is trying to say that the good guys and the bad
guys are the same, they are both guys. What I mean is that in the end
of it all, both the oppressor and the oppressed have families and
lives, are human, and to him every human is connected. It is important
to understand that the people on the other side of the story have
their reasons for doing what they are doing, and Gandhi certainly
recognized this.
4. I think that so many people followed the satyagrahi movement,
because they were fed up with the mistreatment by the British but also
knew that fighting fire with fire would not work and just become any
other protest in history. They realized that what Gandhi was saying,
non violence and non resistance was something new, something that
could actually make a statement. I also think that the Indian's
religious beliefs played a part in their protesting. For Hindus and
Buddhists, they believe that all people are connected and that there
should not only be an absence of violence, but there should be a
presence of intense love.
5. In my opinion, I agree with b. In the situation with India and the
British satyagrahi was so effective, not only because it frustrated
the British because they wanted a reaction out of the Indians but
still needed them for supplies and work, but because it made them look
bad to the rest of the country and ruined foreign relations with
countries. This is shown in the scene from Gandhi we watched in class
where the British prime minister was trying very hard to get a
reaction from the Indian protestors, but because of satyagrahi he
couldn't. But at times, satyagrahi can be foolish and dangerous, and
at times it was dangerous for Gandhi's followers. I think that
satyagrahi is most effective when the oppressors rely somewhat on the
people they are oppressing. This is important because if the
oppressors care about the people they are oppressing surviving, then
it won't be too dangerous for them, but in situations where the
oppressors don't care at all about the oppressed then they don't care
if they die, and therefore will have no mercy
sami
comes to the conclusion that it takes great courage to be a
Satyagrahi. Those who follow that path must take the abuse of others,
physical or not, while never raising a hand to fight back. One example
of this unwavering courage is in the Dharasana Salt Raid. 2,500 Gandhi
supporters marched towards the Dharasana Salt Factory, knowing full
well they would be met with beatings by the police. They allowed
themselves to be brutally assaulted by a wave of policemen without
even raising an arm in defense. Another example of courage needed in
the movement is Gandhi’s trial for involvement in the violence in
Chauri Chaura, in which twenty-three policemen were killed by Gandhi
supporters. Instead of defending himself, like most would in this kind
of situation, he took full responsibility for the actions of the men
and submitted himself to the “highest penalty.” Another example is in
when the Indian Satyagharis in South Africa participated in a mass
burning of ID certificates, to protest restrictions on movement. By
doing this in public, in front of police, the Indians openly placed
themselves opposite of the law, while fully accepting the consequences
of doing so.
2. Due to the nature of the Satayagraha, certain dangers come with it.
One of these is that nonviolent mass protests may put the police in a
position where they can openly massacre all participants in the
demonstration. Although there is a chance doing this may strengthen
the will of the movement, there is an equal chance that it may break
it.
3.I think Gandhi meant that he and the attacker are one because they
are both people and both children of god. By hurting a fellow man
unjustly, the attacker does as much damage to his conscious and karma
as he does to the other man’s body. In a broader scope, as Britain
punishes those involved in the Satayagraha, it hurts its own
credibility and moral ascendency as much as it hurts the Indian
people.
4. After putting up with Britain’s exploitation of India’s land
resources and ethnic divisions for so long, the Indian people were
already in a rebellious state of mind.
All it took was an inspirational man like Gandhi to unite all of India
to unite them, for the Indian people to form a mass movement against
the government.
5.I agree the most with statement B. Nonviolent demonstrations only
work in a democratic country like India where the government is
prevented from massacring the opposition for fear of losing public
opinion. However, in a totalitarian state, where public opinion is
much less influential, the government can easily destroy the
opposition through massacres, executions, and other fear tactics.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Aish
supposed to be nonviolent, violence is involved as the angered party
may resort to blows to try and stop the protests. There are many
examples of this fact. When Gandhi opposed the Asiatic Law Amendment
Act in South Africa, he faced imprisonment or deportation. When he
published "seditious" articles, he again faced charges with penalties
ranging from imprisonment to death. Finally, in engaging in these
acts, Gandhi faced the opposition of the people, the more radical of
whom wanted to use force to remove the British from India. The danger
in engaging in satyagraha was shown when Gandhi was killed by a
fellow
Hindu, Nathuram Godse. This exposure to such danger shows how much
courage it really takes to be a satyagraha.
2. One must always be aware of the general mood of the populace, as
stated above. In Gandhi's case, he faced opposition from both Hindus
and Muslims. This was because some Muslims felt animosity towards him
because he was Hindu, and some Hindus felt that he had made too many
concessions to the Muslims. Also, if the goal of the satyagrahi is
reached, in this case Indian independence, one must take into account
that a set of rules and people to govern a very large nation are
needed.
3. He meant that the satyagrahi and the attacker are both human, in
accordance with the old Indian saying that all Indians/humans are
brother and sister. This can even be seen in the way that Indians
refer to each other as bhai/behen (brother/sister) in Hindi. The
"intense love" that ties everyone on earth together seems to be what
Gandhi is referring to.
4. I believe that the satyagraha movement was successful because
after
all the brutalities committed by the British (such as the Jallianwala
Bagh massacre or the aftermath of The Revolt of 1857) the Indians
welcomed nonviolence. It was also a road to independence that
everyone
could participate in.
Prior to the satyagraha movement, there was also the immensely
successful swadeshi and boycott movement started by Bal Gangadar
Tilak
(Lokmanya Tilak), which played on the same sentiments of the people
and called upon them to boycott British goods.
5. I believe that B is the view closest to my view of satyagraha.
Obviously, the satyagraha movement in India was very successful, but
I
don't believe that it was the sole cause of the British to grant
India
independence. Several other, more radical leaders such as Subhas
Chandra Bose (who made an alliance with the Japanese army) were also
major factors in causing the British to leave. If it were not for
this
combination of Gandhi's satyagraha and Bose's more conventional
methods, the British would not have left. If only the satyagraha
movement had taken place, the British would probably have found a way
to force the populace into accepting their rule, and therefore I
believe that satyagraha be effective in some situations. In others, it
is ineffective. For example, Irom Sharmila Chanu, or the "Iron Lady of
Manipur" is a modern-day satyagrahi. She still refuses to eat,
protesting a law that confers special powers to the military in
certain disturbed regions of India. She is kept alive in a hospital,
fed through a tube. The lack of awareness that surrounds the issue
clearly shows that this instance of satyagraha has failed, causing me
to agree with view B even more.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Ryan
1. It would truly take great courage to be a satyagrahi, to fight
violence and oppression with nonviolence and love is a difficult
thing. To attend the protest at Dharasanal with full knowledge that
you will be beaten mercilessly but not raise a hand to defend yourself
is a brave thing. Not only to take the beating from your oppressors,
but to not lose your head when you see your friends and countrymen
being beaten just as brutally is an incredible act that goes against
all human instincts and nature. Ghandi even went so far as to accept
punishment for the violent acts of others at the riot of Chauri
Chaura, claiming to be responsible because he headed the movement.
Putting yourself and your family and friends at risk of imprisonment
and violence, and only reacting with civil disobedience and peace is
an awe-inspiring and courageous thing.
2. The unavoidable brutality that a satyagrahi might face aside, other
concerns that one of the satyagraha movement would have to take into
account are that they are endangering those that they care about with
threats of violence and imprisonment, and that their nonviolent civil
disobedience would not have an effect and that it is possible that
they are taking this abuse with no positive consequences or outcomes.
Another threat to a satyagrahi is the possibility of someone else in
the movement becoming violent and threatening the legitimecy of the
entire movement and sacrafices of others.
3. When Ghandi told his followers to "never forget you and the
attacker are one" he wanted to ensure nonviolence at protests by
teaching his followers that by reacting violently would in turn make
them no better than their attacker. By reacting with nonviolence, the
protester remains without sin, and hasn't stooped to the level of the
attacker. They are one because if the protestor acted violently, he
could be in turn deemed the attacker. Also the protestor can teach the
attacker to become one with the satyagraha movement, by showing him
that he isn't just attacking a protestor but a human. This also might
have root in Hindu beleifs, because all spirits are part of Brahma and
by hurting your attacker, you are hurting Brahma.
4. Most Indians supported Ghandi because of their past failed attempts
at violent revolt, their deepseeded religious beliefs, and their hope
in Ghandi. After the Mutiny of 1857 many Indians probably realized
that fighting British oppression with violence would not have a
positive outcome and they were willing to try a nonviolent way. Much
of the satyagraha movement is rooted in Hindu beleif and many Hindus
were willing to follow a path of love and nonviolence. Ghandi himself
also played a large roll in winning over the people of India, he did
so much to inspire love, by giving love, with his example of self
sacrifice, and with his great rhetoric.
5. I beleive that statement B is the most accurate. Although the
satyagraha movement worked in India, I beleive that was because the
British were not trying to erradicate the Indians, only oppress them.
In a situation like Nazi Germany, a Jew trying to fight the Nazis with
civil disobedience would have simply been killed. The effectiveness of
nonviolent civil disobedience is relative to the ruling government and
its motives.
Shannon
satyagrahi because you have to handle every situation without
violence, resentment, and hostility, despite if you are being attacked
or not. For example during the Dharasana Salt Raid in 1936 when a
group of 2,500 satyagrahi followers marched to defy the salt tax, and
many of them were beaten, nevertheless there was non-violence. But
sometimes the challenge of being non-violent is extremely difficult.
For instance, previously in 1922 some Indian protesters engaged in
violent acts, killing twenty three policemen. But that is a rare
occurrence and Gandhi was deeply disappointed but understood what had
to be done. But Gandhi extended outside of just India in his non-
violent resistance. In 1938 he wrote how the Jews should stand up for
themselves against the Nazis.
2. A concern for a possible satyagrahi campaign is if the crowds get
too large the authority over them and the rule by which they go by
could altered or unenforced. Which could result in violence and chaos.
That would then give a reason for the British to attack the
satyagrahi, saying that they were only defending themselves, which
would not help the satyagrahi cause.
3. Gandhi meant by that the satyagrahi, " never forget that he and the
attacker are one," is the fact that they are both people, but in
different situations and different opinions. But nevertheless people
need to show each other love, and we can only get there, in Gandhi's
opinion, without resentment and hostility to each other, which makes
sense.
4. Many Indians supported Gandhi because his form of protesting was
successful. He made the British look like the bad guys, which they
were, and fought for their rights and independence without violence.
5. I definitely agree with statement B because though I agree in
India's situation using satyagrahi was a good method of protesting, in
some cases the masses if joined together can have more power than the
current rule. But the British army was and is one of the strongest in
the world, and with the variety of different people and opinions o
what to do, they just didn't have the man power or the machinery to
overpower the British.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Amy
countless times where Gandhi and his followers had to be brave in
order to stand up for the greater good. During the salt march on the
Dharasana Salt Works, all the satyagrahi had to keep marching into
soldiers beating them with metal poles, and not run, fight, or even
lose hope in what they set out to do. It also must have taken
tremendous courage to take responsibility for the violence in Chauri
Chaura, whether or not he was actually responsible. He not only took
responsibility but asked for the highest punishment, which is
incredibly courageous and selfless. It was also valorous to write the
article defending Jews in Germany, even knowing what the reaction may
be.
2. One concern is the fear that it may just simply not work.
Nonviolence can be very good to portray the oppressor as the heartless
bully, but there is always the possibility that not fighting back
really does just get you crushed. There is also an extremely high
possibility, in fact almost a certainty, of some people using violence
and setting the cause back. When running a campaign of countless
people who are subjected to abuse of all kinds every day, someone is
bound to fight back, even provoke. There is another fear that maybe
the idea of being a satyagrahi will not appeal to the people. The idea
of being hit and not fighting back is certainly not a pleasant one,
and it needs many people participating in order for it to work. There
is the possibility that, very simply, no one would want to do it.
3. He could have meant several things. He could have meant that when
it comes down to it, every person is a person, and even the worst
people are good at heart. Every human shares a bond, and in that, when
being struck by another human, although that human is abusing you,
love can prevail, and love can stop you from harming another. He could
also mean that in being a satyagrahi, you are inflicting harm upon
yourself. Your abuser is the punishment that you bring upon yourself,
and the punishment you are bound to withstand until your needs are
met.
4. The Mutiny of 1857 was a violent response by the sepoys to British
rule, and it was met with harsh, crushing, torturous violence by the
British. This was not exactly positive reinforcement for violent
uprisings. On the other hand, Gandhi was a compelling leader and a
striking figure, and very easy to be inspired by. He introduced
something new, a new way of fighting back, which had never been tried
before. This way also united the people, no matter what religion, for
one good goal. The Indians’ drive for freedom, the violent responses
to violent uprisings, religious unity, and Gandhi’s presence, all led
to the huge popularity of the satyagrahi movement.
5. I agree with B. Every situation, especially ones this huge and
complex, requires a different solution. For dictators that are more
subtle and covert in their methods of oppression, a satyagrahi
movement would not showcase their brutality. It would, in fact,
encourage it. However, for a brute government like the British in
India, not fighting back let the world see how the British were simply
destroying innocent, nonviolent people.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Robyn
be a satyagrahi. This is clear in the document first when he explains
the very meaning of being one. "Satyagraha' means 'holding to this
truth' in every situation, no matter how fierce the storm... without
hostility, without resentment, without resorting even to violent
words, even in the face of the fiercest provocation." This not only
takes iron discipline, but it is a lifestyle choice that must ring
true down to his very core. Another example of the courage required to
be a satyagrahi is in The Great Trial when Gandhi takes responsibility
for the violent actions of protestors. "I do not ask for mercy," he
said. Although these protestors did not follow Gandhi's ideaology, he
put himself on the line for the highest penalty because some part of
him felt responsibility for inciting rebellion in them in the first
place, however peaceful it may have been. The Dharasana Salt Raid
document shows the pain one must endure to be a satyagraphi, the pain
that is endured without resistance. "Not one of the marchers even
raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like tenpins." The
courage it takes to protest peacefully, and the wisdom it takes to
withhold anger, the natural response to hostility and hurt, amount to
much more than the strength, force, and fury it takes to fight back.
2. Besides the personal danger that a satyagrahi might face, another
concern one should have while conducting a satyagraha campaign is the
opposition they are up against. The way the kind words and the pleas
for change are taken all depend on those interpreting them.
3. When Gandhi said to "never forget that he and the attacker are one"
he meant to never forget the common humanity between them. He meant
that the force that bonds all humans together, the things that all
humans want for, need, are common to both himself and his attacker,
thus he can appeal to his attacker on a higher level, with a common
understanding, rather than with guns and knives.
4. I think that so many Indians supported gandhi's satyagraha movement
because they were in desperate need of change and here came a wise,
convincing man who was a firm believer in triumph through love.
Gandhi's campaign defied no religion for it was nonviolent, therefore
free of sin and guilt. I also feel that the people were moved by
Gandhi's wholehearted devotion to his cause, and the selflessness he
displayed for it when he put himself on the line innumerable times for
the sake of it.
5. I feel that statement B is closest to my view of the satyagraha. I
think this because, when the oppressor (in this case the British,) has
something to lose, (in this case the goods and land that came from
India) the oppressor is more careful in how it handles the protests.
During the Holocaust in WWII, the Germans had nothing vested in the
Jewish people, so if they were to nonviolently protest, they would
violently be put down without a second thought. I feel that satyagraha
is only successful when there is incentive for peace, because one
cannot rely on the goodness in people's hearts, especially when they
have been calloused by times of war and unrest.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
bridget
great physical danger or even death by provoking someone with no plan
to defend yourself. This courage is seen when Gandhi decides to burn
all of the certificates that the Indians were required to carry. He
knew that he was risking imprisonment or deportation if he burned the
cards but he did so anyway to protest. He also showed great courage
when he decided to organize the salt walk. He knew that he was risking
being arrested but he thought that his cause was noble and he lead the
walk. Gandhi showed great courage when he wrote articles in the
newspaper that he knew would displease the government. The government
called these articles sedition and could have arrested him for them.
2. When leading a Satyagrahi campaign the leader not only has to worry
about personal danger but also danger to the people that he leads. He
has to worry that those who follow him will be hurt or even killed for
not fighting back. The leader would also have to worry about the
public opinion of the movement at all times because the public opinion
is how it creates change not through violence like other movements.
3. When Gandhi said “never forget that he and the attacker are one” he
meant that you can never forget that you are just like the person that
is attacking you, everyone is equal. You are one with your attacker
because you are both human and therefore you should not attack him
because you are the same.
4. I think that the Indian people supported the Satyagrahi movement
because they wanted change. The Indian people that that the violent
revolts and rebellions of the past had not been successful and are new
plan to become free was needed. They also saw that Gandhi’s movement
would make the rest of the world support them and not the British.
5. I agree with the statement that the effectiveness of satyagraha is
relative, depending on the type
of opponent you're facing. In some circumstances this tactic would
be
Satyagraha movement was very effective for the Indian people because
they were facing a very specific problem. The Indian people had no
fighting force and were facing overwhelming odds that to win required
the rest of the worlds support. If the same tactics were used in the
American revolutionary war they would not have worked. There were not
enough people in America at that time for such a movement to be
effective and the desire of the American people was more violent than
the Indian counterpart.
Emma Burke
that came with protesting. An example of this is during the Dharasana
Salt Raid were the 2500 satyagrahi were beaten beaten by soldiers.
Also, Gandhi defended the Jews that were being persecuted by the
Nazi's and faced unknown possible punishments. Lastly, Gandhi was
arrested for writing articles take were thought to incite riots. He
took the blame for Indian violent acts, which was another courageous
act.
2. Other concerns one should have while conducting a satyagraha
campaign are the environment, and the people on the other side of the
campaign. There is always a concern that the people will be fair-
weather fans of your cause. If the cause is unsuccessful, there is a
chance that people will not be whole-heartedly with the cause and
leave. Also, there is a chance that the non-violence will not be
carried out by everyone, especially when the population is so huge.
3. A literal meaning of this statement is that the attacker during the
Dharasana Salt Raids were sepoy soldiers of the same race as the men
they were assalting. The more abstract meaning of this statement is
that one should respect eachother despite disagreements, wven if they
are attacking you. If you reattack your attacker, how are you any
better than them?
4. I think so many Indians supported Gandhi's movement because he was
so wise and devoted to his cause. If a man can risk his own life for
something he must feel strongly about it. Also, he came about in a
time of unrest, therefore the people craved peace, which he offered
them.
5. I strongly feel that Satyagraha is an ineffective method for
fighting opposing forces (C). Although it worked for Gandhi and his
followers, it is very dangerous for it puts many innocent lives at
risk. However noble nonviolence may be, the bottom line is if you
fight bullets with words you are at the mercy of those holding the
guns, which is not a favorable place to be considering you are the one
opposing them.
On Apr 9, 8:08 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Megan
get a reaction, but the more badly you get beat the better for the
cause. For example his bonfire against the black act. He lit a bunch
of paper on fire, but the paper acted as a visa into the country, and
anyone caught without papers were thrown in jail. Also their was the
Salt Raid. Ghandi didn’t march seeing as he was being detained for
earlier satyagrahi, but his followers did and they were all horribly
beaten. Also ghandi must rely on others and that takes courage. He is
thrown in jail and he must rely on people to remain calm and peaceful.
Like during the great trial he talks about the “risk he was running”.
2) The worst thing that could happen to a satyagrahi would be fore
even one protester to fight back. This would give the government a
reason to fight and lose the sympathy vote. Another bad thing would be
if the government didn’t respond, or not enough people followed the
leader.
3) When Ghandi says that he and the attacker are one it sounds very
platonic in the sense that all people are connected so when you hurt
others you are hurting yourself, and vice versa. It would be easier to
remain peaceful when you are thinking of an attacker as yourself.
4) For starters Ghandi was and still is very charismatic. He loved
everyone so they loved him back. Its sort of like a smile is
contagious. Well people were tired of how things were and Ghandi
helped people see the impact that they could have on the world.
5) I would pick B. I believe that Ghandi’s non violent resistance is
ideal and it is effective most of the time, but you have to have a
government that cares what the world thinks of them, If a leader
doesn’t care about that then they aren’t going to care if the rest of
the world feels bad for the resistance.
fv
Ghandi said that to be a satyagrahi one must not be afraid of entering
conflict for the sake of those around him. Ghandi also says that a
true satyagrahi never lets himself that he and the attacker are one.
It would take great courage to practice this because remaining
peaceful and non-violent in a hectic situation could be very
challenging. Another example that expresses courage is when Ghandi
and his followers burned their certificates. This act would take
great courage because to be withou your certificate would be a serious
criminal offense.
2.Some concerns that should be held while conducting a satyagraha
campaign should inclue the concern that your own followers may become
violent. If your followers become violent then it ruins the campaigns
peaceful nature and also gives the force you a oppose a reason to lash
out at you.
3.By saying this Ghandi was inferring that you must remember that like
you the attacker is a human being who also deserves to be treated with
non-violence. To act out toward your attacker would serve only to
invite more violence from him.
4. I believe many Indians supported the movement because it gave them
a chance to show the British that they were serious through a form of
protest that had never before been seen. Also many people feared a
partition and the fact that Ghandi was against the idea of partition
attracted many followers.
5. I agree with statement A because satyagraha not only is a provenly
successful form of protest but it also suceeds through means that do
not require violence. Satyagraha is a form of protest that should be
utilized in all situations that call for protest because it relays the
true strenght, courage, and inpendence that its practitioners embody.