How was Gandhi’s attitude towards violence?
Whenever Gandhi valued a concept that he came across, he would adopt it completely and change his life in accordance to it(Parekh,2001,p6). This influenced many of his decisions; most notably his approach towards violence. For Gandhi, violence was a never a significant tool for bringing about change. This is depicted through his commitment to a life of truth, poverty, chastity and nonviolence(Brachamarya Vow). His attitude towards violence inclined him to make certain choices; from not eating meat to campaigning against untouchability. Despite agreeing that violence would be necessary when given a choice between violence and cowardice; he insists that it is less effective than non-violence in bringing about significant change. In accordance with concepts such as Ahimsa and Satyagraha, Gandhi emphasizes the significance of making your opponents violence visible so that the actual injustice is made apparent. Despite Gandhi never …show more content…
The idea was to confront the opponent in order to gain a response. Gandhi’s attitude towards violence was however not designed to avoid it altogether. Violence towards the opponent was always avoided; however violence done towards him or his followers(Satyagrahi) was extremely necessary. This goes back to the concept of ‘voluntary suffering’. Gandhi said that ‘the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause’. The significant difference here being that, a nonviolent activist whilst willing to die, is never willing to kill. This is why he identified three responses to injustice(p11). 1) Cowardly running away or accepting the injustice; 2) using violence and fighting with arms; 3) fighting back with non-violence. The last being the most effective and courageous in bringing about political/social
Whenever Gandhi valued a concept that he came across, he would adopt it completely and change his life in accordance to it(Parekh,2001,p6). This influenced many of his decisions; most notably his approach towards violence. For Gandhi, violence was a never a significant tool for bringing about change. This is depicted through his commitment to a life of truth, poverty, chastity and nonviolence(Brachamarya Vow). His attitude towards violence inclined him to make certain choices; from not eating meat to campaigning against untouchability. Despite agreeing that violence would be necessary when given a choice between violence and cowardice; he insists that it is less effective than non-violence in bringing about significant change. In accordance with concepts such as Ahimsa and Satyagraha, Gandhi emphasizes the significance of making your opponents violence visible so that the actual injustice is made apparent. Despite Gandhi never …show more content…
The idea was to confront the opponent in order to gain a response. Gandhi’s attitude towards violence was however not designed to avoid it altogether. Violence towards the opponent was always avoided; however violence done towards him or his followers(Satyagrahi) was extremely necessary. This goes back to the concept of ‘voluntary suffering’. Gandhi said that ‘the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause’. The significant difference here being that, a nonviolent activist whilst willing to die, is never willing to kill. This is why he identified three responses to injustice(p11). 1) Cowardly running away or accepting the injustice; 2) using violence and fighting with arms; 3) fighting back with non-violence. The last being the most effective and courageous in bringing about political/social