Mohandas Gandhi
Is Gandhi’s non violent approach and gentle pacifism possible in today’s world?
Violence seems to be ever present in our changing society. From early Revolutions to World War I and II, to the modern day war on terror, we seem to resort to violence for change. Do Gandhi’s ideals have any place in the political conflicts of today’s modern world?
I think that Gandhi’s non violent approach to conflict resolution could be possible, but it would be very difficult to achieve because it would require patience and understanding between leaders. The default emotion is anger when when there is a disagreement between two people/leaders/countries, and that is where violence comes from. So talk it out, people. That being said, maybe it is a little ridiculous to think that all change can be made without the involvement of violence in some way or another.
I hate to be the pessimist here BUT…I think that Gandhi’s non-violent approach to conflict resolution would NOT be possible.The reason I believe this isn’t possible is because violence is so effective. For example, if I tell someone to give me their lunch money with a raised first and I get the demanded money, subliminally I remember that that approach was successful for future reference. In comparison Countries do essentially the same type of concept when they want something.
We would have had to start implementing this system from day 1. I believe that in order for this type of system to work, everyone would have to conform to it which would be extremely difficult if not verging on impossibility. Just as there are laws in our society that are meant to be followed and there are consequences for disobedience, people will still always rebel against the law.
I agree with Ghandi a no-violence approach to things would make a better world and at some point could be possible. But only if everyone thought that way and not everyone does. I think it all depends on what you consider violent. To people in middle-eastern countries chopping off people hands and war is not violent because thats just what they grew up with and what they know. In a society like ours we know that hurting people is violent. But what do we consider violent? To some people violence can be a mere push to others it would have to be death. In the end I don’t really beleive in either side. I think it is possible if people wake up and realize things and mature but it isn’t possible at the same time beuase violence is a part of human nature and it is almost a natural instinct.
I think that Ghandi’s approach to non-violence is a very positive act and that there is always the possibility that it could work, but today, I feel that it would be very hard to accomplish. Everyone has different views as to how things in this world should be dealt with. Some think like Ghandi, others do not. Some feel like using physical force and causing wars are the only way to solve problems and we cannot change that as everyone is entitled to their only opinion and ways of dealing with things. Other people have tried influencing a non violent, peaceful world before and it has only gotten worse. For example, John Lennon tried to enforce peace worldwide, but he was unfortunatley assisnated. You need EVERYONE in society to work together and agree that the world can be a non-violent place, and right now, we cannot enforce that.
Ghandi’s no violence would be the best thing this world could ever have. Unfortunately though this is almost impossible in today’s society. The non violence would only work to change small things now a days. We have too many people that are all for violence. The people who try to change big things don’t go for non violence options. Thats the main reason as to why it wouldn’t work. No one would use it in todays society. With every genteration those who commit violence are getting younger and younger. Soon nothing is going to be non violent. Would it make the world better if that was possible? Yes. Non violence would be the best answer for our society but, it just doesn’t work anymore.
I disagree with what most people commenting above me are saying. I believe that the non-violent approach in our society would work if a well known world leader used that approach to solve problems and/or conflicts. Once that world leader accomplished that feat, others would follow. Non-violence is cheaper than violence in the long run because you do not have to pay for the military to do your dirty work. Our world runs on money, so if a leader showed the world how cheap and beneficial non-violence is for solving our conflicts, other leaders and countries would follow suit and use non-violence instead of the alternative. Not only would this save money, it would also save the hundreds of innocent lives that are lost every year to solve our problems.
Ghandi’s non-violence approach would, for sure, be possible. It would, however, take a long time and a lot of change for this to happen. Many of today’s leaders would have to change their methods and thought proccess before this could be a succesful method. I think that by forming the united nations where all of the countries’ leaders can discuss, we have already taken a small step into becoming more peaceful and talking things over instead of just going to violence to solve our problems.
Unusual acts of opposition are what seem to make the headlines nowadays. Maybe not the non-violent aspect of Ghandi’s methods, but the fact that it’s an unusual approach are what would make his methods effective in our modern world.
Getting into specifics, no one would notice if he did a hunger strike these days. Living on a media-driven, semi-civil continent, non-violent approaches are typical. It’s acts of great sacrifice that catch the world’s eye. The assassination of someone standing up for a cause brings that cause press, good or bad. Although any press is good press if a cause wants worldly attention.
Gandhi’s policy of non-violence would be possible for most situtations. The deciding factor in whether it would work or not is how reasonable the opposition is. It worked for Gandhi in India because the British Empire is, contrary to popular belief, quite reasonable. To put a modern perspective on this, the Arab Spring events in Egypt and Tunisia were possible mostly without violence due to the fact that the leadership of these countries actually, at least somewhat, cared about their people. In Libya this was not possible, Gaddafi’s insanity ensured that any attempt at non-violence would be crushed. Violence was the only option in this case. To conclude, Non-violence is absolutely possible in many situations, but it’s effectivness is entirely reliant on the mentality of the opposition.
I do not think that if they we tried to use Gandhi’s non-viloent would be possible in todays society because no one would be able to give up guns and weapons now that we have had them for so long. We always protect ourselves, and sometimes to protect ourselves we need to use violence. I do not think that it would be effective at all. It would work in some sitauations but not in all so I doubt it will work!
Ghandi’s policy for non-violence would work for many of the worlds political situations in todays world. Although it is a violent world, if everyone or some people participated in a peacefull protest such as Ghandi did, the woulr would be able to resolve problems in a much more peaceful and politically correct manner. Although the peacefull protests may work there will always be the dictators and violent overlords that will always use violvence, and against violence there will be deaths if you use a peacefull protest, which i extremly unfortunate abou the world but is a truthfull fact.
Honestly? No, I don’t really think so. On a smaller scale, for sure, but on a national or international scale? Our society is not patient enough as a whole to commit to a non-violent approach so that it will work. Even if we attempt to protest peacefully using non-cooperation approaches, I don’t think it would last. And our governments would not tolerate it. Nowadays, we have to start an uprising on Facebook to get anything across. Maybe that would be the equivalent of his non-violent approach today.