[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Gandhi and Arun Gandhi
Please help me understand these issues:
> "Not to return violence by violence but neutralise it by withholding one's
> hand and, at the same time, refusing to submit to the [aggressor's] demand
> [backed by force] is the only civilised way of going on in the world. Any
Is this moral force we are talking about instead of arms? Are we assuming
the same "selfish man" theory we used when calculating economics.
Are you as group saying its better for me to lay my life down if thats what
it takes for the nuclear powered nations to understand and in total
faith implement a non-violent world?
> I think this makes a lot of sense. The bomb has always been developed and
> used under a veil of secrecy. Things done in secret are usually bad, as
> Gandhi rightly pointed out, elsewhere.
Are we saying there can be a world with no secrets?? Not just between
two people but the entire world?
> I see the world in terms of equality of power and wealth 250 years ago
> (even though it was equality at a much lower level), and gross inequality
What equality are we talking about? Are we getting soft and rosy about
the past? Things have never been and probably ever be equal. If we
truly were sincere folks and worked for the welfare of all, solicialism
would not crumble. How can we be frank in saying capitalism works because
we all need to fend for ourselves and then say we trust the rest of the world
for our protection. Why dont we have hunger strike demanding an equal
economic lifestyle in the "Third world countries". Do we really believe
the rest of the world will take a hit on their growing economy just to
strike out every trace of child death from hunger and disease? Do we
think its not doable today?
Or do we take the moral stand on this, the elite to teach the right
way of life? Ask the world to disarm, to build a world Tagore described
as "that heaven of freedom".
Equality, socialism, non-violent democracy with no arms works when
the human race will universally agree on all these terms. Until then
each one of us has to protect ourselves. Maybe the nuclear option was
not required by India, but let that be a strategic decision, not based
on some flowery speach by Gandhi or his grandson that the rest of the
world does not truly live by.
I speak for myself: I'm tired of India having to take the role of the
moral leader. I am for it if we can use it to better our lives, but if
it doesnt, I am not for sacrificing our lives for the world to be
a better place (as per Gandhi, quoted in previous mail). For those who
quote such mails: please go convince your leadres on these issues first.
> Q Indian officials say nuclear capability is necessary to deter aggression
> from neighboring China and Pakistan. Aren't those threats real?
> A I don't think these days anybody is interested in capturing another
> country. That myth of history has passed. If we create good neighborliness
> and good relations with other people, we can live in harmony.
Wow! we can go ahead and totally get rid of all armed forces, police,
law and order enforcement, judiciary....
> We create these myths, we create these enmities, and we become pawns in
> the hands of both politicians and business people. We play into their
> hands by following them like sheep.
Some truth but wow!
> It's human nature to dismiss everything we don't understand as naive and
> impractical. But then it becomes practical. It becomes a way of life, and
> nobody thinks about it. Ultimately it's the responsibility of every
> individual to decide if they want to change or if they want to flow with
> the tide.
Like on a lot of other issues I agree with him, except I would PLEASE like
to see the rich, developed, nuclear empowered nations talking and taking
Gandhi has done a lot of good both for India and the world but lets not
assume everything he believed in is correct or applicable at all times
or even as if we have the onus to implement them for the world.