In 2007 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recognizing Mahatma Gandhi's birthday (October 2) as the "International Day of Non-Violence." The resolution highlights "the holistic nature and the continued relevance of the Mahatma's message for our times, indeed for all times to come. It encompasses the rejection of violence against oneself, against others, against other groups, against other societies and against nature." This year, Gandhi's birthday is an opportunity for the U.N. to think deeply about how Gandhian peacemaking can be relevant to its work of engagement, mediation, and reconciliation.
Although Gandhi is popularly remembered as an ascetic who was deeply connected to India's villages ("a half-naked fakir" as Winston Churchill famously called him), his background was actually cosmopolitan and global. Born into privilege, Gandhi studied to be a barrister in London, where he first became interested in Hindu and Christian scriptures. After experiencing a racially charged incident on a train to Pretoria, Gandhi spent more than 20 years pioneering his satyagraha strategy in South Africa. When he returned to India, it was as a British-educated lawyer who had lived and worked on three different continents.
Such a background was critical in informing Gandhi's sensibilities as a Hindu. Indeed, more than any other public Hindu, Gandhi's Hinduism most resonated with the popular Hindu ethos of "many paths, one truth," an approach that reflected his own life story. Gandhi's conception of Hinduism as a unified tradition characterized by its multiplicity of approaches is pluralistic at its core. In acknowledging that individuals may take different routes to reach the same destination, Gandhi's Hinduism builds into its framework mechanisms for cooperation and reconciliation, for mutual understanding and respect. Furthermore, given the fact that Gandhi had a multi-religious upbringing, his conception of Hinduism was deeply shaped by other religions as well, most notably by the Jain doctrine of ahimsa, the Muslim tradition of zakat, and the Christian ethic of the Beatitudes.
Gandhi's pluralistic and creative approach to Hinduism is evident in his reading of the Bhagavad Gita, a pan-Hindu theological text that he wrote more about than any other subject in his lifetime. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna counsels Arjuna on the battlefield and tells Arjuna that he must fulfill his duty as a warrior and fight, even if that means killing his own cousins. In order to address the philosophical dilemma of transforming the Bhagavad Gita into a peacemaking text for the Indian nationalist movement, Gandhi opted for an allegorical reading rather than a literal one. According to Gandhi, the battlefield represents the struggle of good against evil. This can be construed in an introspective manner for the individual, but can also exist as a social paradigm for political change. Because the battlefield is only a metaphor, there need not be violent connotations in the Bhagavad Gita. In this manner, Gandhi's interpretation allowed him to creatively downplay the prominent role of violence that is unavoidable in a literal reading, thereby empowering him to promote his own vision of non-violence.
There are many who dismiss the efficacy of Gandhi's satyagraha movement by arguing that Adolf Hitler was actually responsible for ending British rule in India, not Gandhi. Furthermore, there were many eloquent Indian advocates for violent insurrection that Gandhi had to contend with in his life, most notably Subhas Chandra Bose. For Gandhi, though, non-violence was the only choice because he believed that the process was as important as the result. According to Gandhi, violent action, regardless of the short-term outcome, is destructive and becomes the very cycle of oppression and injustice it seeks to eliminate. By focusing on the Indian philosophical doctrine of karma, of action and causality, Gandhi argued that sustainable peace could only emerge through genuine peacemaking, for a violent process would ultimately result in a violent outcome.
As one of the most influential Hindus and peacemakers, Gandhi's approach to peacemaking is instructive for the U.N. in a number of ways. He demonstrated the strategic wisdom of creating pluralistic structures that build peacemaking into their frameworks. He showed how doctrines and texts traditionally thought of as antithetical to peacemaking could be creatively reinterpreted for the purposes of peace. He proved that communities with contentious histories could come together over their common goals of peace and prosperity. And he utilized the uniquely Indian ideas of ahimsa and karma to promote both the process of peacemaking and the goal of a sustainable peace.
Nigel Hamilton: The American Gandhi
RIP Mahatmaji
Having said that, I find it difficult to believe that his teachings and principles will stay steady in this day and age...I hope I am wrong but how do you reason with savagery and cruelty that is so prevalent nowadays ?
All I can say is that I am trying to follow it to the fullest extent possible..
Before I get a lot of hateful comments, let me say that I have not done a lot of research on his teachings and am no expert.
Peace.
BTW, He is referred to "Mahatma" in India, roughly translated as "Great Soul" and his birthday is a national holiday.
In Jainism, ahimsa is equivalent to non-violence which is not same as in Hinduism. In Hinduism it is permissible to eat meat (Ayurveda), kill animals for sacrifice (Mahabharata) and kill people to uphold Dharma (Mahabharata).
How can a religion which has full of references to ritual killing and sacrifice is a champion of ahimsa? If Hinduism teaches ahimsa then what is the need for Asoka to leave this religion and turn to Buddhism after the bloodshed he carried out during Kalinga war?
Ayurveda, one of the veda, has references to eating meat.
Gandhi’s address to Great Britain, 1940.
The man’s non-violence would have handed victory to Hitler and those who praise him dishonour the memory who all those who fought fascism.
‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446
If you did truly read and, understood his thinking through "My Experiments with Truth"/Autobiogrpahy, you would have provided the context. Oh, and you misspelled his last name.
"Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will."
"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
~ Gandhi
Two passages in the Bible that are always before me when I study the Gita. In Jeremiah [the prophet], he was afraid and lamenting about his family and other troubles, reminding God he was DOING HIS DUTY but others weren't. If they did right, they'd all be on the same side; there'd be peace and no fighting. God told him: (Jer 12:5) If you run with the footmen...."). Arjuna experienced this fatigue. New Testament, 2 Cor 10:4-6: "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, ...." These are those weapons the Mahatma lived with and used, and I believe Krshna was advocating as Christ did. These are the legal weapons enlightened people use. In a biography book I have, the author says Gandhi found the Old Testament boring, but the New Testament very spiritual (a paraphrase).
In short: India and China should it be kissing American corporations feets.
2) when do you think Gandhi died? and when did we know that the earth is round? - do you think you make any sense with this remark?
3) Please look at India's GDP pre-british rule and post british rule - then lets talk about corporations and power
4) please for gods sake - Learn to frame sentences correctly - reading some other comments and your comment again and again might help.
5) India not only gives cheap labour to american corporations but also giving access to 1 Billion people to sell their crap to - which is making a lot of money for the american companies who again pump the money in this market to create american jobs - now who should kiss whose feet again?
6)you have a lot of reading to do in global economics before you start commenting here again
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6121SZ20100203
-MKG.
I see this as a severe case of psychological distress and abuse also known as learned helplessness...I mean Indians under British rule were oppressed and many were shipped to places as far away as South America as slaves... what person in their right mind would go to such extent and help their "victimizers"...I mean accept an apology and move on, ya, but fight alongside your oppressor as a way of ending the oppression of Indians...? :|
Gandhi seemed too loyal to British imperialism, and truthfully I was oblivious to the history of Gandhi until I actually read books on him, and it broke my heart...terribly, esp. about the lower caste Hindus...I'd prefer him to fight for them instead...
Every human being is entitled to freedom, and every human should carry their head with dignity...if Gandhi was to fight with "machetes" as his followers did...would he still be revered by many people...I think he would be deemed as a freedom fighter of India and a national hero...however Gandhi may have led a peaceful march, but do not think violence wasn't part of the mix...sadly for Gandhi it wasn't Indians killing the Brits, it was Indians killing Indians...
Fav Indian writer Rohinton Mistry illustrates beautifully on paper - A Fine Balance.