He stated (and apparently believed) that the partition violence continued as a direct result of his inability to completely wipe out his own personal sexual desires. He had some serious sexual hangups.
I also believe that there is a case to be made than Gandhi let the better be the enemy of the good, as they say. I’m no expert on this, but there are pretty strong arguments that absent Gandhi’s obstinance, de facto Indian independence could have come earlier and more peacefully and, possibly, without partition. That’s not to say that Gandhi’s political genius was not crucial to what did happen.
But that’s basically how I view Gandhi as a flawed political genius. As a philosopher, I see him as pretty much a confused, self-righteous extremist.
Interesting points, cosmosdan. One remark about nonviolent resistance that made a deep impression on me, and has stayed with me for a long time, is the observation that we as a species are extremely new at using it.
For probably tens of thousands of years, we’ve devoted huge amounts of abilities and resources to coming up with more effective ways to defeat aggressors (and attack non-aggressors) by using violence and threats of violence. Various forms of combat, strategy and tactics, weapons technology, etc., are preserved and developed in the well-established institutions of standing armies, military budgets, law enforcement, and so on.
Nonviolent methods of dealing with conflict have never received anywhere near that amount of attention and social reinforcement. Naturally, at present they’re extremely underdeveloped and ineffective by comparison with violence. But that doesn’t prove that they’re inherently ineffective or futile.
I think part of the reason nonviolent resistance is so often automatically dismissed as “stupid” or “useless” is because it’s a scary prospect. We’re heavily programmed, and instinctively inclined, to defend ourselves violently against violent attack. The idea of simply resisting an attack without fighting back against it, knowing that physical harm and/or death is a likely result, is pretty damn frightening, and it’s no wonder that many people don’t even want to consider it.
However, in this modern world where the typical form of violent conflict is likely to be an unevenly balanced struggle between terrorist/guerilla forces on the one hand and state power plus civilian society on the other, I think we’re going to end up taking nonviolent methods more seriously. In a battle is between a militarily strong force and a militarily weak one, the only practical options for the weaker party are essentially nonviolent resistance or terrorism. We’re already getting a lot of people pointing out this choice explicitly—for example, advocating that Palestinians should adopt nonviolent protest (which a lot of them already do) instead of sending suicide bombers to blow up schoolbuses.
Interesting. I was aware that he tried unsuccessfully to be celebate several times.
Perhaps he belived that the answers could only be found by tapping into something greater than ourselves and that required discipline. The connection may not have been sex to violence but inspired solutions to discipline.
Also interesting but who can say at this point. It’s good to hear a less iconic take on him.
Can there be any other kind?
Hmm If it’s not a hijack then briefly elaborate, or perhaps suggest a book. Would you consider anyone who believed that some absolute truth existed an extremist?
In practice, British pacifist societies fell by the wayside for much the same reasons mentioned. They were wholly against fighting, and over time it became obvious that men, even in the new modern eras, had to fight to protect themselves.
C.S.Lewis, I believe, had a fantastic essay against the Pacifist society., 'Why I am not a Pacifist." I can’t find it online right now.
Good point about non violence being used so seldom, and how easily overlooked. Your point about the Palestinians was what I was thinking about. Both sides useing the violence of the other to justify their own so that it never ends. It’s also about truth and loyalty. If you condem violence by your enemy then you must condem it on your side as well. That means taking action against it. That requires courage as well.
In Iraq we accidently kill civilians but justify it by our good intentions. That recrutes more insurgents and the cycle of violence continues. More innocents die. If American civilians die we are outraged. The cycle of violence continues. In any war atrocities are committed by the participants on all sides which feed the fire of hatred and justified revenge.
Then again, this is not a thread about Iraq.
Any cruel dictator needs people to carry out his orders. In most cases they can find a few sick bastards eager to serve, but how do you motivate and entire army to commit murder against people who don’t resist?