Nonviolence guarantees no automatic and unfailing success; no method of conflict resolution does but it really works if used in right and ethical manner. There is the urgent need of making it conducive in larger public interest with refinement and application as per the needs of time and space. Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. Let us create the best one for you!
Would a society or community like to leave their fate in the hands of a leader for whom the realisation of independence is not an end, as was in case of Gandhi, but a means for the realisation of God? Can a leader like Gandhi be allowed to treat defence and protection of the whole nation as means to realise his own personal end: To achieve independence of India was not the central theme and ultimate goal of his techniques.
The use of non-violence perhaps is simple when there is only one opposing party confronting a Gandhian movement as was during the days of freedom movement.
That too must be alien or foreigner, a small minority, not residing in the country. There can be equal number or a substantial majority of adversaries standing against the satyagrahis. Similarly, there can be more than three or four parties to the conflict. One or two of them may not be believing in practicing non-violence. A country, divided badly into differing big religious, cultural or ethnic communities, when resorts to satyagraha movement may fall prey to separatism, partition or civil war.
It cannot be denied that even with his largely or partially known truth and non-violence and its practice in many areas, Gandhi could awaken and move the masses in millions. It could be possible only when repression and violence did not crush the movement. There should be some other factors contributing to the success of the movement, like the limits of a liberal government along with crises of great economic depression and the events of World War II occurring at the time of freedom movement.
There may be hundreds of Gandhian diehards committed to save and enhance the status of their leader and his non-violence.
In case the religious values are not common or not very effectively ingrained in the minds of the people, non-violent movement might either not happen or cause dissension or separatism, as it did in case of other communities particularly Muslims and Sikhs.
Treating the Gandhian non-violence of creed as a total reality or the only source of power is to do immense harm to the cause of knowledge. Every religion too preaches peace or non-violence as the acceptable way of life. Violence has no place in any of the religions as it can only result in destruction.
Nelson Mandela too proved the efficacy of non-violence in his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Violence cannot be contained through violence.
Certainly the proverb which says that a diamond cuts a diamond does not apply as far as violence is concerned. Violence can be checked only when it is countered through non-violence. He who lives by the gun will die by the gun.
Mahatma Gandhiji came on this earth with his message of truth and non-violence (ahimsa) at a time when the forces of aggression and violence reigned supreme on earth.
Non-violence is one of the divine qualities. The non-violent people are nearest to God. So, everyone should know what non-violence Related Articles: Essay on Gandhiji ‘s views on democracy and violence.
I established my first essay by choosing the 11th question “that [is] not merely prompted by, but [is] actually required for, the serious study and the attempted practice of . The very mention of the term ‘non-violence’ evokes memories of Mahatma Gandhi and India’s Freedom Struggle. Non-violence is a policy of using peaceful methods, as opposed to forceful methods, to bring about political or social change.
Violence/Nonviolence Violence is an unjust and unwarranted exertion of force or power. It is a tactic to abuse or violate another being. It is a tactic to abuse or violate another being. Many people have thought this notion wrong and used nonviolent methods to go against their oppressor and successfully overcome them. Gandhi overlooked many existing complex conditions. He at times allows the use of “violence,” but does not recommend the need of its preparation and training for its proper and effective use. The Government of India in as usual, kept military Forces in alerted condition. Otherwise how Gandhi could have permitted the use of “violence” [ ].