December 12, 2006
Gandhi's nonviolent principles show way toward peaceful world
From The Harvard Gazette:
The nonviolent principles of Mohandas Gandhi may be the only way to bring peace to the world, Gandhi's granddaughter said. Human rights activist and former South African member of parliament Ela Gandhi told about 160 people gathered in Harvard Law School's Pound Hall that violent victory sows the seeds of its own destruction. It is only through nonviolent resistance and dispute resolution, the focus of Mohandas Gandhi's Satyagraha philosophy, that the world can become a peaceful place, she said.
Susan Hackley, the Program on Negotiation's managing director, said Mohandas Gandhi's principles provided the foundation for later movements by celebrated leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Lech Walesa. "The history of the last 100 years includes some breathtaking success stories ... [by leaders who] brought about profound change without violence," Hackley said. "All of these leaders would no doubt declare they owe a great debt to one person who 100 years ago developed a method and a philosophy for dealing with oppression that showed them how to stand up to overwhelming force."
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 05:47 AM | Permalink











Comments
too silly to comment extensively.
surrice it to ote that this great pacifist suggested that Jews being taken to gas chambers should have used passive resistance. That of couse would make the job easier!
Posted by: fred.lapides | Dec 12, 2006 7:46:14 AM
Well, even eminent persons sometimes say things that make you scratch your head. As the Japanese say, even monkeys fall out of trees.
Posted by: JonJ | Dec 12, 2006 2:18:30 PM
fred lapides wrote: this great pacifist suggested that Jews being taken to gas chambers should have used passive resistance. That of couse would make the job easier!
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that if Hitler's victims had practiced non-violent resistance, things would have turned out worse for them? How much worse could it have gotten?
Or are you suggesting a third alternate history, in which the victims used violent resistance? Maybe things would have turned out differently in that case, but that's certainly not clear. I don't think the Jews had the numbers or the weapons or the public support to have maintained a rebellion against Hitler. Such a rebellion would have been crushed, and from there things would have proceeded as they did.
It's not at all clear that Hitler's victims could have done anything to save themselves. What would have made a difference is if the non-Jewish, non-Slavic German majority had said no to Hitler. I don't have any way of knowing what (if anything) could have led to such an outcome.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Dec 12, 2006 8:34:25 PM
Post a comment