Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Besides the Tibetan struggle for independance from China, I wonder if the non violence which Gandhi and Nelson Mandela preached and practice is dead all across the world.

Wouldnt most of the conflict in many of all of the world hot-spots be reduced if not eliminated through a peaceful struggle and global diplomacy against occupying forces

KeithL wrote:Besides the Tibetan struggle for independance from China, I wonder if the non violence which Gandhi and Nelson Mandela preached and practice is dead all across the world.

Wouldnt most of the conflict in many of all of the world hot-spots be reduced if not eliminated through a peaceful struggle and global diplomacy against occupying forces

this is a retorical question my friend, i hope u know it...

raidah wrote:this is a retorical question my friend, i hope u know it...

your question is equally rhetoric !...

It was meant to provoke thought and provide insight as to why people prefer the "eye for an eye" approach rather than "turning the other cheek"

Mandela was actually the head of Umkunte we Sizwe (spelling?) which was the armed wing of the ANC and was responsible for guerilla attacks - mostly against infrastructure.

He was not a pacifist, but certainly is a great statesman and a paragon of restraint and peacefulness now.

Note that for most of the time he was imprisoned, he was considered a terrorist - famously Margaret Thathcher called him that - and this was the view of many South Africans.

Back to the original question - non-violence does not work if the other side doesn't care for justice. Tibet is a lost cause now - there is a train line into the region and the ethnic Han chinese will soon be colonising the region and native Tibetans will be leaving... soon the area will be just another part of China, a part of the most powerful nation on earth in a few years time.

Also look at Burma and the continued imprisonment of Ang San Su Ki - might is right it seems around the world. There is oppression in Chechnya, Uganda, Sudan and many more countries around the world.

Also note that Ghandi was not successful in avoiding all violence and conflict in India - the bloodshed that accompanied partition is probably worse than war!

Unfortunately might is right - those with might need to act justly and oppose oppressors. I shudder to think what the world would be like if no one opposed Hitler!

Cheers,
Shafique

we expect from each other to be civilized only because we r human and claim to live in civilized societies.
but we fight ad literam for a female,male, for a piece of land, for a better job=better food...exactly like wild animals.
if u take the time to watch documentary movies about animal behaviour, and than observe human behaviour...the similarities are amazing. it is called the instinct of survival.

thats why i love the discovery channel

MaaaD wrote:thats why i love the discovery channel

shafique
thoughts about gandhi's philosophy has 2 different versions...one paints him a saint in the same way mandela is...the other wishes that he didnt exsist(thankfully the latter is a miniscule portion...as every country needs a saviour and a leader albeit a reluctant one)
having said that , i do not think it was in the mahatmas control to haver stopped the bloodshed during the partition...even if gandhi had decreed that there be no bloodshed and only ahinsa(non violence) be the order of the day...do you think there was a rationality that exsisted when there was a divide taking place, splitting your home right down the middle...and for what...bcoz the East India Company one fine day decided to partition the lands before the relinquished control over lands that never belonged to them?...a natural progression between the hindus/sikhs/muslims did lead to the acts of violence...but it was innitially not directed at themselves...it was directed at the new landlords/zamindaars that took over the new grants...imagine having lands in lahore/shikarpur and being said...tomorrow you decide...you stay or you cross over to india...but you can NEVER come back...a days notice for a lifetime of accumulation and hard work...my great grandfather was among these people who had to decide and thus we lost vistually everything we had...to summarise the situation...this was merely a poking the fire situation from the East India company before they left our lands for good...devide even if you don't rule...

I wonder how many non-violent campaigns have actually managed to bring about change. And also, what exactly is the purposed of it? Is it to try and change the attitude of the violent people, or is it to cause non-involved people to become intrested in the cause?

Any historians/sociologists out there?

For sure it would be an ideal world if people could just sit and discuss any problems rather than resorting to violence. That is one of the qualifications I will have for anyone who wants to live on my island.

Constantine,

I agree with your points about the violence during partition - the point I was making was exactly that Ghandi's views and philosophy (if applied by only one side) would not have helped the situation. For the reasons you mention, the violence took place despite Ghandi's views and philosophy being known to the Hindus and Muslims of India.

The thread asks whether non-violence is dead - my contention is that non-violence in most situations is a path that is counterproductive and verges on the stupid. I have said this to Jehova's witnesses, for example, who say that even if their families are being killed in front of them, they would not fight back.

I also asked above a rhetorical question about what the world would be like if no one opposed Hitler with force. I was not aware at the time that Ghandi had actually voiced an opinion on this and also commented on the Holocaust - quoting from Wikipaedia:

In applying these principles, Gandhi did not balk from taking them to their most logical extremes. In 1940, when invasion of the British Isles by Nazi Germany looked imminent, Gandhi offered the following advice to the British people (Non-Violence in Peace and War):

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."
Even in 1946, by which time Gandhi had learned of The Holocaust, he said to biographer Louis Fisher:[19]

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
However, Gandhi was aware that this level of nonviolence required incredible faith and courage, which he realized not everyone possessed. He therefore advised that everyone need not keep to nonviolence, especially if it was used as a cover for cowardice:

"Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'" [20]
"At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets."[21]

mraph33 wrote:I wonder how many non-violent campaigns have actually managed to bring about change. And also, what exactly is the purposed of it? Is it to try and change the attitude of the violent people, or is it to cause non-involved people to become intrested in the cause?

Any historians/sociologists out there?

For sure it would be an ideal world if people could just sit and discuss any problems rather than resorting to violence. That is one of the qualifications I will have for anyone who wants to live on my island.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did a lot in the USA - non violent campaign.

shaf
i agree there...that non violence is not the answer always...and thus there are 2 school of thoughts about gandhi and his teachings...i sometimes do consider that strike a blow when pushed and have done so in the past whithout shame...the mahatma was unique in his thought process...but i do by no means think all his advice always fitted the situation at hand...perhaps his intentions would have worked in an ideal world...when people seeing the murder and pillaege they had done...would have fallen and submitted thier arms after seeing the slaughter...i consider him the philosopher...where as other leaders of our nation like neta subash chandra bose to be the real warriors...gandhi would have done well to have lived in a civilization such as the trojans and spartans...where philosophy was still sacricent...the more we progress into the modern era...the more we do not want peace...thats how it seems to me...the divide among nations and races has always been too strong...its just that now we have the complete means of actually annihalating each other totally...

mraph33 wrote:I wonder how many non-violent campaigns have actually managed to bring about change. And also, what exactly is the purposed of it? Is it to try and change the attitude of the violent people, or is it to cause non-involved people to become intrested in the cause?

Any historians/sociologists out there?

For sure it would be an ideal world if people could just sit and discuss any problems rather than resorting to violence. That is one of the qualifications I will have for anyone who wants to live on my island.

exactly, ideal world. non-violence is the combination of a large number of things/conditions. u need to have good genes (it is a proven fact that the environment can only attenuate or intensify what one brings with himself at birth.), be raised in a peaceful environment and family where problems are solved by talking about them, instead of using force of any kind. without some education a verbal solution is almost out of the question, cos one would lack the substitute for a fist, that is the proper language.

u asked whether we have historians here. im not one, but ok lets talk about history for a sec. i know ur question referred to smthing else, but just take a minute and think what u have been told during history classes...history is the synonym for violence. every nation had/has some issues with another one and we take pride in some battles, revolutions, conquests that out ancestors had. and what did they do? they killed.
if an everyday person kills another one, we say he committed murder and put him in jail, his family is doomed, etc. if a big leader, vizier, pasha, king, etc. chopped of the heads of many in some battle and led his troops to victory, he became national hero.

ok, back to 2006, in TV one can see nothing but violence...where from would ppl learn to be peaceful? and one more thing, the instinct of killing is within each and everyone. if u think im wrong and u would never ever be able...do u have kids? or smbody u love more than urself? what if their life depended on u?

We know a lot more (?) than 1-2000 years ago, but we remained the same beasts...

Raidah,

Actually it has been shown that otherwise peaceful and well-brought-up and balanced people can be made reasonably easily to condone violence on others - and in fact inflict pain on others.

see
http://www.ralphmag.org/milgrimZN.html

There have been follow up studies on this and analyses on how populations can go from peaceably living with others who are 'different' to actually killing their neighbours because of these differences. This happened in Nazi Germany, in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Uganda etc etc. Today, it appears that human life is not equal - look at the conflict in Lebanon and count the number of civilians killed on either side and tell me that the world equates the lives of Arabs with Israeli Jews?

The sad fact is that all human beings are born with innate animal instincts and that it takes outside 'laws' or 'morals' to regulate these instincts. That is why every society on earth has laws stating what is right and what is wrong. Why do we need laws, if not to impose restrictions on what people would otherwise do??

Cheers,
Shafique

I agree with you completely. And my history question was indeed a question - I wasn't trying to hint at anything. The point you raised about who is a national hero is definately interesting. In most countries, who is the "Father of the Country?" It is the one who led the country to its independence - usually through some war. (UAE I guess being one of the exceptions).

The constant broadcasting of violence is due to our desire to see it. Some like watching the violence on CNN some like watching on Animal Planet (as you said, much similarity)....and for those that want more grotesque videos, we have the internet. I actaully complained to Orbit a few weeks ago, because have an advertisement for American baseball which they broadcast....but what is in the advertisement, clips of fights between players. Its friggin baseball.....show sports!!!

agree Shafique , thats why i said previously that what we see in the animal world is what we r ourselves...sadly

Mraph - you say that UAE is perhaps one of the exceptions to the rule that 'fathers' of countries came to power/gained independence as a result of violence/war.

SecretDubai blog had a post on this subject a few years back:

The Great Battle of Deira
A short history of Dubai, Vol I, for the many UAE residents and UAE-curious who are clueless about the history of the Emirates. Given that most history books take the form of a Sheikhly hagiography, glossing over details unpalatable to their subject, some ignorance is perhaps excuseable.

Deira, for example, never used to be part of Dubai. It was only acquired after decades of raids and cross-creek warfare, as Adam Smith's 1981 book Paper Money reveals. Excerpt part 1 and Excerpt part 2.

The scene: Deira - that nightmarish winding labyrinth of gridlocked single-lane streets between the Creek and Sharjah - in the dusty, desert days of the mid-1900s. The hero: the white-robed Sheikh Rashid, possibly by this time riding a motorised camel rather than an Arab thoroughbred, but valiant nonetheless.

"Before the oil - the first strike was not until 1957 - Sheikh Rashid feuded with Deira, the rival village across the creek. The weapons used in this feud were the cannons from old ships, some of them hundreds of years old. The cannons were stuffed with rags and pistons from hijacked cars, and since cannonballs were in short supply, a nightly truce after sunset prayers permitted the combatants to comb the battlefields and retrieve the cannonballs.

"One day, in the pre-oil era, Sheikh Rashid accepted a dinner invitation across the creek, and then had his men kill off his hosts. In the best Middle Eastern tradition - and not unlike Richard III - he consolidated this vicdtory by marrying the thirteen-year-old daughter of the vanquished ruler of Deira to his brother."

The book goes on to describe Sheikha Sana as a "high-spirited woman who once shot her husband's fourth wife." She also built up a thriving taxi fleet.

from : http://secretdubai.blogspot.com/2004/09/great-battle-of-deira.html
(her page has links to scans of books detailing the above)

Actually, almost all the leaders in the Arab world came to power as a result of war/invasion/violence.

The rulers of Dubai won control of the region by fighting with the people who were here, and last century there were 'wars' between the ruler of Dubai and Deira (for example), where the Dubai ruler won.

Similarly the House of Saud came to power as a result of war fare.

cheers,
Shafique

Non-violent protest will always exist for those who choose to exercise it as a right. I was proud to march through London against the war in Iraq with thousands of others and I would do it again.

Sadly when politicians are involved it is only the election times which make them change the manifesto and often this is too little too late.

It is sad however when people are punished for expressing a view in a non violent fashion, such as the lady who stood on the lawn outside the houses of parliament on London reading out the names of the british soldiers who had been killed in service in Iraq - she was arrested and threatened with charges amongst others of high treason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Attitudes like this from those apparently in power make us all question the validity of government when it does not represent the interests and opinions of the people who elected it.

It is apathy which endangers progression.

shaf
nice post about the history of the emirate...

awesome post Shafique!!! Thanks for the lesson. I'm going to read more about it now!

murphy wrote:It is sad however when people are punished for expressing a view in a non violent fashion.

an even better example is Rachel Corrie god bless her soul :

http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

shafique wrote:Mraph - you say that UAE is perhaps one of the exceptions to the rule that 'fathers' of countries came to power/gained independence as a result of violence/war.

I think he actually was referring to the formation of the United Arab Emirates rather than the Emirate of Dubai itself.

MaaaD wrote:

shafique wrote:Mraph - you say that UAE is perhaps one of the exceptions to the rule that 'fathers' of countries came to power/gained independence as a result of violence/war.

I think he actually was referring to the formation of the United Arab Emirates rather than the Emirate of Dubai itself.

Actually I was.....but I didn't know the Dubai story either

Point taken Maad - but it is interesting to note that almost all countries seem to have been involved in wars etc for control of the land.

Look at USA, UK (ok, you have to go back to 1066.. but it was still invaded and poor old Harold took one in the eye), France (revolution), Africa (colonial invasion, prior to that tribal wars), Arabia, India etc etc.. all showing that might is right in terms of gaining control/ownership of land.

As for the Dubai story - all credit to SecretDubai, I just cut and pasted the story!

Cheers,
Shafique

MaaaD wrote:thats why i love the discovery channel

It's the ONLY channel I ever watch on TV...