4th Debate Championship - Page 2

Hello to all Debaters,

Welcome to our 4th Debate Championship at Debate Mansion!

Let's see our two teams debate on a statement-

"Principles of Gandhian philosophy are still relevant today"



Team "for" the topic-

Raksha
Diyafah
Coolgirl_13

⭐️

Team "against" the topic-

Cutefairy91
Kabhi_21
~sowmya~

Please refer to attached link for the rules
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/topic/456651

We will now open this thread on November 15th 2006 at 8:00 AM US-EST (6:30 PM IST). Only above (6) participants are allowed to post in this thread. If we see any other member posting in this thread we will trash that post. This thread will be locked on November 17th 2006 at 8:00 AM US-EST (6:30 PM IST).

Please PM me or Abhijit with any concern regarding Championship.

Good luck to all the participants! 👍🏼
Edited by sowmyaa - 17 years ago

Thanks for starting the debate competition. I will put forth my views 😊

With all my respects to the land of India and to Shri. Mahatma Gandhi, I will start the debate with my comments:

 

The whole life of Mr. Gandhi is a literature and a literature is never a waste. There is no person living on the earth, from whom you cant not learn anything. Shri. Gandhi left behind many ideologies and principles, which he showed through his own work. To summarise, Gandhiji's principles revolved around Truth and Non-violence and his ideologies were Sarvodaya and Satyagrah. So I will talk on each principle and Ideology separately:

 

Truth: Noone can deny that Truth is the highest moral principle of life. But it would be injustice to the great history of India, if we credit Shri. Gandhi for this principle. I genuinely believe that Shri. Gandhi is not the originator of the principle and hence even if it has the weight in today's world, he should not get the credit for the same. The principle of truth has been followed since ages from Shri. Ram, Udhishthir and many others, who have carried the principle from generations to generations.

Focussing on the relevance of the principle today, Truth is always relevant but the definition of truth seems to have changed in the modern day world. Today the world is run by either constitution or the rulers (in few parts). Hence the truth is what can be proved in the constitution or what is ruled by the ruler. So truth has become anything that can be proved. Hence the truth has as much relevance to today's world as much it can be proved.

 

Non-violence: The term Ahimsa was first introduced by Late Samrat. Asoka and it was taken to new generations by Mahatma Gandhi through his struggle for freedom. Though Samrat Asoka introduced the term, he never extended it to 'no self defense'. Mahatma Gandhi extended the term to 'No Self Defense' and there was a reason for this. India has been an agrarian country and was very poor to afford the arms to counter the attacks of British. Shri. Gandhi brought this concept to keep the moral of the people high for freedom fighting even without support of the arms. The only unconvincing factor for most of the Indians was the Principle of 'No Self defense'

Focussing on the relevance in today's world, We are seeing so much of divisions in the society based on cast, religion, colour and boundaries. To introduce Ahimsa in this society, we have to unite all people and remove the boundaries. The Principle that is relevant today's world is just Peace, which is a part of Ahimsa and can be achieved. But today we are self sufficient and hence if we someone attacks us, we can't just keep saying peace. We have to save our people first and then after the wars, the peace process can start again.

 

Sarvodaya: 'Sarvodaya' was the ideology introduced by Shri Gandhi meaning the welfare of all without exception. In other words "The good of each individual in society consists in his efforts to achieve the good of all." A Society is always described by its people and their culture. Ex: If you talk of USA, mind thinks Rich society, You go to Middle East, mind thinks of Oil wells, You go to South Africa, mind thinks of street robbery, You go to South Asia, mind thinks of Terrorism. So Each society has been known with the characterstics, which a handful of people possess. But if all the people think of welfare of all, the whole society will be known in one style. But with all the diversified people and selfish motive, it does not look as reality. It is relevant as far as a small section can use the Ideology.

 

Satyagrah: Defined most narrowly, it is a technique or tool of nonviolent action. This is one concept used widely during the freedom fighting struggle of India. The Ideology was derived by Mahatma Gandhi to fight against the injustice of the British Government. This Ideology is still relevant and is widely used in India to protest, as we have seen recently in case of demonstrations again reservation laws. But Satyagrah has its own limitations, as to the time it takes for achievement. In today's fast paced world, the ideology holds good but not perfect and hence we need to improvise on the ideology to get quicker results for justice and removal of exploitation. Also Satyagrah can be used only on Micro scale i.e. limited to a specific area, country. But talking of relevance to today's world, the tool can not be used on international level, where only talks and wars are the two ways.

Conclusion: Though the Principles and Ideologies can not be completely refuted, the face, definition of this Principles and Ideologies have to be changed to fix it in the modern society.

Edited by kabhi_21 - 17 years ago

Thanks for starting the competition;😊

Jessica Lal and the re-opening of her case

The protests against the quota issue at AIIMS

The protests against the verdict of the Priyadarshini Matto mureder case

These and many more incidents are all protests, yet, one very important point must be highlited in the following cases..

THESE PROTESTS WERE PEACEFUL

Now, lets take a look at another case;

The traders strinking in New Delhi against the sealing: The protests were not only violent, but they were useless too. Reason? The high court had already ruled that sealing must go on. The traders neither gained nething by such a protest, and they also caused a great number of problems for the general public. I myself was held up in school till SIX in the EVENING because of these worthless protests...perhaps if they had been a little more peaceful in nature,these protests would actually hav yeilded some results.

Living in an age war,crime and terrorism, the word PEACE seems long forgotten cropping up occassionaly in debates like these..but,isn't it a fact that everyone wants PEACE? Yes, Mahatma Gandhi changed the face of this nation with his ideologies of non-violence, but the truth is, these ideologies can work EVEN TODAY.

Why was the movie, Lage raho Munnabhai such a hit?Maybe it was made well, good dialogues, acting, but the real reason behind the success of this movie can be attributed to the fact that it touched an issue burning in everyones minds, but people were just not ready to come out with it.

Cases like the re-opening of the Jessica Lal murder case, justice delivered in the Priyadarshini Matto case and the peaceful protests against quota which evoked great sympathy because it was the POLICE which used unnecessary violent steps to curb a peaceful student protest all show that Bapu lives in everyone's minds and hearts till this day and his philosophies are as ideal and relevant in todays society as they were about 59-60 years ago.

Here goes mine!

Well...I believe that The gandhain Philosphy is still relevant in today's world!

Let's take the example of Saddam Hussain-He played with people's life.He was a cruel human being.He believed only and only in Destruction.So many times,His country men and women told him to stop it!..He was being the Ravand of the Ramayan.Believing only and only in Destruction,he conqured nothing good.What happened to him...A shocking punsihment for his deeds,A life sentence!

Was this right?Abosuletely right.This is the way to end the volience in my opinion.The person whom we called volience did anything,good to people!So there can be only 1 thing done...non voilence!

The citiznes of iraq were very much happy because the "evil got his punishment",Which means that they all wished for peace,justice and ofcourse non-volience.

Again.The same happened with his children!

Yep,there r destructions in this world...but also I believe there r ending soon...The peace process persiod will take a longet time.The end of saddam hussain gives us a light that there r chances that our world will dawn the peace on us!

Another one can be- lawyers!

I myself have seen mannnny lawyers who fight for truth  and justice not for money!These lawyers can be called god send people to give the innocent ones justice.Many of the lawyers I have seen do not believe in money,luxury..They believe in truth and justice.One day,I asked one lawyer,That"Many of the lawyers just save their clients because of the good amount of money they get?But u seem more interested in giving justice.That laywer said that We can get money only by going to the road of truth and justice.Being famous on the short cut way..we will not bring you immense fame.These money will only be "chand din ki chandani phir andheri raat.Money will not be a freind with you,if you chase behind it!I was struck..!Hats off to the lawyer who said like this!

Munnabhai!

After seeing Munnabhai,may of the people have truly changed.There were discounts on cinema tickets,books and other commodities after seeing that movie.That movie brought a big change in this materialistic world.Clubs of gandhiji,have made a huge impact on many of the people who may have done bad deeds in the past!I myself have seen in news where that movie brought a vast change in the society!

So,what I believe is YES!Gandhain ideology is still relevant today!In this 21st century!😃

Edited by diyafah - 17 years ago

[quote=diyafah]Here goes mine!

Well...I believe that The gandhain Philosphy is still relevant in today's world! We will see about that!

Let's take the example of Saddam Hussain-He played with people's life.He was a cruel human being.He believed only and only in Destruction.So many times,His country men and women told him to stop it!..He was being the Ravand of the Ramayan.Believing only and only in Destruction,he conqured nothing good.What happened to him...A shocking punsihment for his deeds,A life sentence! How do you know that he was a bad person just becuz sum ppl from 1 country who are biased said it.. thats y... whatz da proof..

Was this right?Abosuletely right.This is the way to end the volience in my opinion. You mean by killing a man would bring all the dead back. The person whom we called volience did anything,good to people!So there can be only 1 thing done...non voilence! Actually there was violence used in this.. They attacked Iraq and killed so many ppl... So howz dat Gandhi teaching... By killing ppl... 😕

The citiznes of iraq were very much happy because the "evil got his punishment",Which means that they all wished for peace,justice and ofcourse non-volience. No offence but do you live in Iraq how wud u know.. they just show sum part of Iraq n say the whole Iraq is happy But they arent...

Again.The same happened with his children!

Yep,there r destructions in this world...but also I believe there r ending soon...The peace process persiod will take a longet time.The end of saddam hussain gives us a light that there r chances that our world will dawn the peace on us! I dont see any light.. I just c destruction when they hang Saddam.. Cuz its not going to peace in Iraq...

Another one can be- lawyers!

I myself have seen mannnny lawyers who fight for truth  and justice not for money!These lawyers can be called god send people to give the innocent ones justice.Many of the lawyers I have seen do not believe in money,luxury.. Can u tell me an example of that lawyer plz.. They believe in truth and justice.One day,I asked one lawyer,That"Many of the lawyers just save their clients because of the good amount of money they get?But u seem more interested in giving justice.That laywer said that We can get money only by going to the road of truth and justice.Being famous on the short cut way..we will not bring you immense fame.These money will only be "chand din ki chandani phir andheri raat.Money will not be a freind with you,if you chase behind it!I was struck..!Hats off to the lawyer who said like this! Which Lawyer???

Munnabhai!

After seeing Munnabhai,may of the people have truly changed. Who changed??? There were discounts on cinema tickets,books and other commodities after seeing that movie. That movie brought a big change in this materialistic world.Clubs of gandhiji,have made a huge impact on many of the people who may have done bad deeds in the past!I myself have seen in news where that movie brought a vast change in the society!

So,what I believe is YES!Gandhain ideology is still relevant today!In this 21st century!😃[/quote]

Hi First of all I am going to introduce myself. My name is Amna and I think Principles of Gandhian philosophy are not relevant today. There are many reasons why I think that..

 

* Why did so many people die in Iraq??

Is killing peace keeping or nonviolence.. I don't think so, because so many innocent people died in Iraq. Like the way US Soldiers attacked Iraq n they were bombing there. You know what you all watch biased news which works for USA and obviously they don't want people to know the truth. How come they only say how many soldiers died how about the people the soldiers killed they must be in millions? And lots of people who are happy Saddam died ask yourself "Why are you happy"? There will be just more violence in the world by killing people. And like I said wait till they hang him and see the reaction in Iraq. The only reason they don't want the soldiers to come back to USA is because they don't want people to see that they lost and came back. The only reason they attacked it was for oil and power. And like they said it was for so called "Nuclear Weapons" and did they find any. NO. How can a poor country afford that?

 

* Why do people still kill people?

Like when you turn on the news the only thing you mostly hear is "An 7 year girl was found murdered… he is kidnapped.. A bomb blast killed 80 people.."

 

Here r sum examples:

 

Noida kidnapping may be an inside job, say police

 

Gallows for child killer

 

Dalit marchers turn violent, two injured

 

For Diyafah u were saying sumthing abt lawyers right.. Remember in LGMB one of the things he said was Lawyers arent gud for peace keeping..

 

This is all for now.. I will be back to add.

Thanks to all,who worked hard to put this together.

With seeking the blessings of our beloved Bapu, I shall jump right into what I am here for......


Are the Principles of Gandhian philosophy still relevant today??

Is the truth relevent?

Is the faith relevent?

Is humanity relevant?

IS GOD RELVANT?

Becasue Truth and Non-violence are the hallmarks of Gandhian doctrine.It is becoming clear that at this supremely dangerous moment in human history, of the endless bombings, of a Kashmir and a Lebanon, of the every irreasonable acts of extreme human behaviour, the only hope for mankind is Mahatma Gandhi's timeless principles.

Today we are living in a vicious cycle of threat and counter-threat.We have forgotten that the ultimate sufferers of the wars and violence are the innocent civilians.A pull of a trigger will ensure the wiping of the entire life from the face of earth and yet people talk about how relevant is non-violence to the today's world?

Gandhiji says-"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent".Violent and aggressive civilizations thrive momentorily but ultimately they met with a violent end.Talk about Romans,Greeks and even the recent British.But comparitively lesser violent worlds have lived longer.While it is almost impossible to expect a world minus violence, it is also suicidal to base our life on violence, dominance by terror and power by aggression.It will only hasten our slide towards obliteration.

There are umpteen number of examples that I can quote from the history as well as the present day world, how non-violence won over the rule of Gun.

In Sri Lanka till the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government kept fighting there were no signs of the conflict ever ending. Although a solution is still a mirage, they have moved towards a solution only after both the sides gave up arms and came to the negotiating table.

Nothing can prove the power of nonviolence better than the liberation of South Africa and the fight for civil rights in USA; both happening in relatively recent times, in the age of WMDs, in times when Gandhiji's relevance had begun to be questioned.

In the US too Dr. Martin Luther King fought against race and colour prejudice and got dignity and equality for his people by resorting not to bombs and bullets, in a country where belief in guns and bullets is only next to if not as important as God, but to non-violent methods of mass civil disobedience and passive resistance.

For their belief in violence neither Israel nor Palestine have achieved their goals.Kashmir will never find peace till guns and bombs are in use.

The much hyped 'War Against Terror' is going nowhere, with all the weapons at their disposal the American War Machine has been unable to curb the Al Qaida, has not been able to bring Osama Bin Laden and Mulla Omar to justice and is unable to locate Saddam Hussein, the Taliban are regrouping al Qaida functions freely and the most wanted three remain out of their grasps, so much for the power of violence.

What is unmistakable is the common thread of terrorism that binds New York, Mumbai, Malegaon, Varanasi, London, Madrid, Srinagar, Bali and many other places. The enemy is the same, whatever be their colour, composition, religion and nationality – harbingers of death and destruction who want to shed the blood of the innocent so that they can derive satanic pleasure.

The war on terrorism cannot be won till all those who love peace and harmony join hands and take on the challenge. A century ago, Mahatma Gandhi showed how a determined people can fight evil with satya and ahimsa. Satyagraha was a powerful weapon first against the apartheid regime in South Africa and then against the British in India because it was backed by the unity of the people. If the people join the war on terrorism in the same spirit and with the same determination, the world will be rid of terrorism.

Mahatma Gandhi maintained, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." If we believe that nonviolence is irrelevant we will leave behind a world on the verge of destruction caused by a mankind blinded by hatred and prejudice.

Cheers,
Raksha



Edited by raksha.l - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

 

Truth: Noone can deny that Truth is the highest moral principle of life. But it would be injustice to the great history of India, if we credit Shri. Gandhi for this principle. I genuinely believe that Shri. Gandhi is not the originator of the principle and hence even if it has the weight in today's world, he should not get the credit for the same. The principle of truth has been followed since ages from Shri. Ram, Udhishthir and many others, who have carried the principle from generations to generations.

Focussing on the relevance of the principle today, Truth is always relevant but the definition of truth seems to have changed in the modern day world. Today the world is run by either constitution or the rulers (in few parts). Hence the truth is what can be proved in the constitution or what is ruled by the ruler. So truth has become anything that can be proved. Hence the truth has as much relevance to today's world as much it can be proved.

Neither Gandhiji nor his followers ever claimed that the principle of truth has been originated by Gandhiji.But its an undeniable fact that just like Sri Ram, Udhishtir , Sathya Harishchandra and the other great people, Bapu based his life on the principles of truth.

To say that truth has no relevance to the todays world is like saying that oxygen is not what we should be breathing in the present world.Truth is as much relevant as God is to the present world.Just because some people argue against the presence of God, doesn't mean God doesnt exist.

To say that the meaning of the truth is decided by the constitution and the rulers of the world, is to say that what Saddam Hussain and Hitler did is truth.Truth is imniscient.It has no shape or form and hence cannot be changed by the mere humans.In the very words of Gandhiji himself-"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is truth"

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

 

Non-violence: The term Ahimsa was first introduced by Late Samrat. Asoka and it was taken to new generations by Mahatma Gandhi through his struggle for freedom. Though Samrat Asoka introduced the term, he never extended it to 'no self defense'. Mahatma Gandhi extended the term to 'No Self Defense' and there was a reason for this. India has been an agrarian country and was very poor to afford the arms to counter the attacks of British. Shri. Gandhi brought this concept to keep the moral of the people high for freedom fighting even without support of the arms. The only unconvincing factor for most of the Indians was the Principle of 'No Self defense'

Focussing on the relevance in today's world, We are seeing so much of divisions in the society based on cast, religion, colour and boundaries. To introduce Ahimsa in this society, we have to unite all people and remove the boundaries. The Principle that is relevant today's world is just Peace, which is a part of Ahimsa and can be achieved. But today we are self sufficient and hence if we someone attacks us, we can't just keep saying peace. We have to save our people first and then after the wars, the peace process can start again.

Again all the Gandhian principles were not INVENTED by him.Its just that he based his life one those principles and hence to the modern world they became more popular is Gandhian principles.Its just a matter of relatability.

I want to question the 'unconvincing' part of 'No self defense'.Its the people who resort to criticism of Non-violence, that make 'no self-defense' look like a means adopted by cowards.Again to quote his own words"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence"

So according to you, how are we to save our people first?Is it by resorting to attacks and other offensive means?Then can you assure PEACE?Ever thought of counter-attacks?With violence you are giving green signal to those who are just waiting to push that trigger in, of the nuclear weapons.So where does the PEACE figure after that?

An eye for eye will only make the world blind.Only the principle of non-violence will lead to the ultimate PEACE of the world.PERIOD.

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

 

Sarvodaya: 'Sarvodaya' was the ideology introduced by Shri Gandhi meaning the welfare of all without exception. In other words "The good of each individual in society consists in his efforts to achieve the good of all." A Society is always described by its people and their culture. Ex: If you talk of USA, mind thinks Rich society, You go to Middle East, mind thinks of Oil wells, You go to South Africa, mind thinks of street robbery, You go to South Asia, mind thinks of Terrorism. So Each society has been known with the characterstics, which a handful of people possess. But if all the people think of welfare of all, the whole society will be known in one style. But with all the diversified people and selfish motive, it does not look as reality. It is relevant as far as a small section can use the Ideology.

"Unity in diversity".Yes, that's the manthra for the present day world.Though we all are so different from eachother in terms of religion,economy,color,cast and creed, we still connect with eachother at the very basic level.And that common thread which connects us is nothing but the urge of the human being to be do good.Even though there are exceptions of this, but the majority of the human beings relate to the words 'humanity', 'morality',' truth','honesty' and the other basic values.

According to Gandhiji, as long as there are people who trust in the core values of humanity, there is no danger to the world.Its just that we need to see the relevance and incorporate it.Its the calling for the human beings to see the utmost neccessity of trying to evade differences and work for a common cause of equality of all the beings.

He says"You must not lose faith in humanity.Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of ocean are dirty, the ocean doesn't become dirty"

Originally posted by: kabhi-21

Satyagrah: Defined most narrowly, it is a technique or tool of nonviolent action. This is one concept used widely during the freedom fighting struggle of India. The Ideology was derived by Mahatma Gandhi to fight against the injustice of the British Government. This Ideology is still relevant and is widely used in India to protest, as we have seen recently in case of demonstrations again reservation laws. But Satyagrah has its own limitations, as to the time it takes for achievement. In today's fast paced world, the ideology holds good but not perfect and hence we need to improvise on the ideology to get quicker results for justice and removal of exploitation. Also Satyagrah can be used only on Micro scale i.e. limited to a specific area, country. But talking of relevance to today's world, the tool can not be used on international level, where only talks and wars are the two ways.

Talks at the international level?About what?I heard they talk about restoring peace, dont they?

Sathyagraha came into existence long before it was given a name.It all started in South Africa when Gandhiji used the truth as his weapon.Later Gandhiji coined in the word, so as to relate to the common folk of India and make it a weapon against British.

Sathya=Truth. Agraha=Firmness..Sathyagraha means truth displayed firmly, without compromise.

And it can indeed be incorporated at macro levels.What better example than its success in the massive India?

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

Conclusion: Though the Principles and Ideologies can not be completely refuted, the face, definition of this Principles and Ideologies have to be changed to fix it in the modern society.

Even you are talking about keeping the principles, though with little changes. That says it all.No one can deny the relevancy of the Gandhian principles.

Thanks,
Raksha
Edited by raksha.l - 17 years ago

Thanks to all the debaters for their points of view. During the discussion we have come across very interesting examples such as

1.     Two cases in India
2.     Anti reservation protests
3.     Anti sealing protests
4.     America and Iraq war
5.     The dalit killing in Maharashtra
6.     Liberation of South Africa and
7.     Fight for Civil rights in USA

So I will talk on all this examples and further more on other examples as well.

First two are the cases taken from Indian territory, The case of Priyadarshini Matto and Jessica Lal. While the verdict is given in one case the other is reopened for scrutiny. In both the cases the murderer was aquitted and then peace march was taken on streets by handful of people and the cases were restudied by the government and reopened. Definitely people and Media were the most important tool in this. Now we are argueing here without the complete facts with us. Do we know what witnesses and proofs were considered before and after the acquittal. No, we have only the information that is passed to us by the Media.
Though this two are supposed to be real culprit, suppose one fine day an innocent person is arrested for similar charges. In such charges sympathy always follows the injured party, the case is fabricated and the person is given a sentence. Since there is sympathy for the injured and the witnesses and proofs are fabricated, no one of the above people will take peace march or tell to reopen the case. So is not this Injustice?? Is this the victory of truth?? We have to answer many such questions based on the power of media and its use.

The next case is Anti-Reservation protests and I will club Fight for Civil rights in USA along with this. I am an active member of Youth for Equality, which is the major contributor of Anti-Reservation protests. Youth for Equality took the step of non-violence not because of the way of Shri. Gandhi, but because it is not feasible at this point of time. This is the first phase of revolution. Most of the protesters are Professionals like Doctors, Engineers, who like to have a professional behaviour than the wild one. But whether it is correct to say that Government heard to us. No. Some people seat on Hunger strikes and some got injured with lathi charge and what not. But no minister came to support because no party can afford to go against OBC. It was only with Supreme Court's orders, that the government became soft. But did that serve the purpose. Supreme Court had given time of 45 days for the submission of the grounds of reservations, which are yet not submitted. Legally, Reservations are allowed for betterment of deprived people and hence there is no question what the Supreme Court ruling will be. But why such constitution was made for divide the people on castes. Basically it talks of deprived people then why politicians divide it on cast?? Are not there people in general category who are deprived??? Well with all peaceful marches and hunger strikes, nothing could be achieved in this case.
The fight for Civil Rights in USA was based on Ahimsa. But do you think after getting the rights people follow Ahimsa??? Do you think they have achieved the equality in the society??? Yes the gaps have definitely reduced but is it because of the thoughts of the society or because of the laws that were made to benefit the deprived once??? Still the mentality of the people has not changed and this has been proved on times and instances. It is only the law that gives equal rights and not the society in USA.
If we consider the above two cases, they are exactly opposite. In one society the fight was for equal rights through laws of reservations, while in other society the fight was for equal rights through laws of anti-reservation. So which one of this is the truth. Reservations or Anti-reservations.

Talking of the Anti Sealing Protests, The protesters could not save because they were wrong and wrong can never win, whether you protest by Ahimsa or Himsa. But the question is whether they were the only one who were wrong?? If the Supreme Court says that the Sealing must go on for unauthorized construction or use of properties, then they must punish the Government administration first for allowing this construction. Here the Supreme Court is implementing the law, which is their work. Now Law does not see humanity and how many people will be unemployed because of the sealing. So what is the truth here Is it Law? Or Is it Humanity?

The War on Iraq was called for destroying the nuclear weapons in Iraq. Have they found the nuclear weapons yet?? No. So what was the motive. It was clearly the Oil wells as the agreement with USA on subsidized oil rates was about to end. Do you think the trial on Saddam is fair?? In Tamilnadu, whoever is CM makes the cases against the opposite party open and tries hard to prove the cases. This has been happening for the decades. So once the case is in hands of your enemies, Do you consider the case can be fair??? Who is UN to decide how the president of Iraq should govern in his territory??? If Saddam is killer, then Bush is also a killer. Will he be convicted for this?? There has been lots of peace march all over the world to stop the Iraq war, Did it stop???? The news confirms that Over 2 lakhs of people have died in Iraq since the war and still the numbers are increasing every day. Is that what is good picture of Iraq today as the media and US is claiming??? One of our friends was deputed in Iraq for a project and He had to sign the deed for not disclosing any information to anyone. Why was the deed signed if everything is fine in Iraq??? So many questions to unearth

The Dalit killing in Maharashtra was such inhumonous act. But the Media sold it as killing of Dalits. Why??? If it were some upper caste as it is claimed, would it be humonous act??? This division has to be killed before getting the peace talks. There has been violent protests as there were no results. And now High Court ordered the government to inform on the status of the case. But in case of Mumbai Bombings, nothing has come out and because there have been peaceful protests, noone is worried. What does this signify??? It is surely not a good trend but that is what works in today's world.

The Liberation in South Africa has the same story as in USA. But South Africa is one of the world's part which is not safe because of street robberies and murders. So has the society civilized????

Now I will talk of a broader case, Narmada Bachao Aandolan. This protest is completely peaceful and is going on for decades. The protests are for the rights of Poor agriculturists, whose lands were taken by the Government. We all know the status of the case. What the court has done is put the stay on further construction. But was that the purpose of the protests?? No. the purpose was to get fair remuneration to the agriculturists and that to fast so they can survive. But it has taken ages and still the verdict is not in their favour. In fact, the government does not consider it as major issue. Why is gandhian principles failing here??? Why are the people not getting sympathy of public??? And In reverse public protests against Amir Khan who supported the Aandolan. Why did this happen???

In Srilanka, the talks in LTTE and government and their fights are going for ages. But noone knows who is right. Do anyone know??? Do people think forgiving the terrorists and let them attack us till they feel sorry is a right process???

Conclusion: Peaceful protests and Peace talks is a major tool but sometimes You have to take the arms to help yourself. If you use arms does not mean you are not right and If you are doing peaceful protests does not always say that you are for truth. It is not practical to use the principles of Gandhiji all the time in this modern world.
Edited by kabhi_21 - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: raksha.l

 

Neither Gandhiji nor his followers ever claimed that the principle of truth has been originated by Gandhiji.But its an undeniable fact that just like Sri Ram, Udhishtir , Sathya Harishchandra and the other great people, Bapu based his life on the principles of truth.

 

To say that truth has no relevance to the todays world is like saying that oxygen is not what we should be breathing in the present world. Truth is as much relevant as God is to the present world.Just because some people argue against the presence of God, doesn't mean God doesnt exist.

 

To say that the meaning of the truth is decided by the constitution and the rulers of the world, is to say that what Saddam Hussain and Hitler did is truth. Truth is imniscient. It has no shape or form and hence cannot be changed by the mere humans. In the very words of Gandhiji himself-"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is truth"

 

The truth is the Jalianwala Baug, The truth is the Dandi March, The truth is the Chale Jao nara, The truth is taking the nara back after violence at one place, The truth is the division of India, The truth is the division of people. This are all the truth but it has different facets. Have anyone ever thought, in all the attacks made by british the innocent followers died, while Gandhiji did not? The british could have killed him long before if they thought that he was a threat to their ruling in India. But they never killed him till the last, The truth is that British Government never feared the ways of Shri. Gandhi. And That is the truth, which many people can not swallow but it's the truth and yes Even if you are a minority to think that way, the truth is the truth.

 

He did create panic when he appealed to people not to use british goods, But he showed helplessness by withdrawing just because of one incidence in a small place. After that British Government never panicked of Non-violence movement.

 

Today in USA, protests against Iraq war are going on because of the death of soldiers who belong to USA. If the Iraqi people had done peaceful protests, noone would give a heed to them.

 

 [QUOTE=raksha.l]

 

Again all the Gandhian principles were not INVENTED by him. Its just that he based his life one those principles and hence to the modern world they became more popular is Gandhian principles. Its just a matter of relatability.

 

I want to question the 'unconvincing' part of 'No self defense'. Its the people who resort to criticism of Non-violence, that make 'no self-defense' look like a means adopted by cowards. Again to quote his own words"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence"

 

 

So according to you, how are we to save our people first? Is it by resorting to attacks and other offensive means? Then can you assure PEACE? Ever thought of counter-attacks? With violence you are giving green signal to those who are just waiting to push that trigger in, of the nuclear weapons. So where does the PEACE figure after that?

 

An eye for eye will only make the world blind. Only the principle of non-violence will lead to the ultimate PEACE of the world. PERIOD.

 

[/QUOTE]

 

An eye for an eye will make the world blind. I would say "A greeting for an eye will make you blind and the other person ruler, as you are helpless now" It will surely lead to peace in the world with all the evil bodies ruling the world. Quoting his own words "Koi Ek gaal per mare to apna dusra gaal aage karo" This actually means that Let the other evil guy feel sorry for hitting you but you don't hit back. It is definitely not cowardice, because you are firm on your stance. But you can spread love and peace by winning hearts of the people and not the sympathy of the people. What this act achieves is win the sympathy of the evil person.

Rather than getting sympathy of the person, I would hit back and win hearts of our people, for whom I am defending. In my view, Non-violence and violence has to co-exist. If peace prevails all over, earth will be a heaven. Even the gods could not create heaven out of the earth as they have to keep the balance on earth.

 

 

[QUOTE=raksha.l]

 

"Unity in diversity".Yes, that's the manthra for the present day world. Though we all are so different from eachother in terms of religion, economy, color, caste and creed, we still connect with eachother at the very basic level. And that common thread which connects us is nothing but the urge of the human being to be do good. Even though there are exceptions of this, but the majority of the human beings relate to the words 'humanity', 'morality',' truth', 'honesty' and the other basic values.

 

According to Gandhiji, as long as there are people who trust in the core values of humanity, there is no danger to the world. Its just that we need to see the relevance and incorporate it. Its the calling for the human beings to see the utmost neccessity of trying to evade differences and work for a common cause of equality of all the beings.

 

He says "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of ocean are dirty, the ocean doesn't become dirty"

 

 

[/QUOTE]

I will use your sentences. You said that Majority of the human beings relate to the words  'humanity', 'morality', 'truth', 'honesty', and the other basic values. Then Gandhiji said "As long as there are people who trust in the core values of humanity, there is no danger to the world." So which one of the statements is true. Both the sentences can not go together. If we have majority of the people with core values and that is why we connect, then why we still don't see any peace in the world.

Ocean having a shark will be clean but not safe. You have to either catch the shark and kill it, or become victim yourself.

 [QUOTE=raksha.l]

 

Talks at the international level? About what? I heard they talk about restoring peace, dont they?

 

Sathyagraha came into existence long before it was given a name. It all started in South Africa when Gandhiji used the truth as his weapon. Later Gandhiji coined in the word, so as to relate to the common folk of India and make it a weapon against British.

 

Sathya=Truth. Agraha=Firmness. Sathyagraha means truth displayed firmly, without compromise.

 

And it can indeed be incorporated at macro levels. What better example than its success in the massive India?

 

[/QUOTE]

What massive success in India?? A tool can be used but it has to bear fruits as well. Many Satyagrahas happened, but did not threaten British Government in any kind. Dandi March was the most famous Satyagraha, where Gandhiji claimed salt which came from own land, without any price. Now was it a fight for truth?? If you do similar satyagrah today, would you have not to pay to Tata or other salt companies?? If british government invested for machinery to make better salts, what right they had to claim it free. If it was not produced by the British, did the public of India actually got the salt free after the satyagrah???

 

Effectiveness of the tool is considered by results and not mass following.

 

 

Originally posted by: raksha.l

Even you are talking about keeping the principles, though with little changes. That says it all.No one can deny the relevancy of the Gandhian principles.

Thanks,
Raksha

I did not talk of keeping the principles. I talked about not refuting the principles. I believe Non-violence and violence have to co-exist. I believe in truth, but in today's world truth is what can be proved. You will get the same answer from all the lawyers.