Quote:
White Beard said: I'm arguing that Gandhi's methods forced the British to grant India independence likely before India was ready to be independent. Maybe if more time was given to build up a strong Indian state that represented all Indians, things would have gone smoother. However, I'm just speculating.
I am not a scholar on this so I will admit that that may well be Whitebeard. Reading about Gandhi, I note he has said some pretty outlandish things (about the second world war for instance), which I find it would be difficult to get on board with. In any case, I do not think he is perfect...
Still, I would wonder where this kind of criticism you are proposing is merely speculative.
In general, to be realistic and practical, any work will do some good somewhere, but it will also do harm somewhere. Hence I think practicality or work can't be valued for it's own sake exactly, and can't be overlooked by principles or ideals either. To consider any practical matter in balance with principle at the same time, would be pragmatic in the classical sense. That is how I would lean on being practical anyway.
I understand for instance, that it might be ideally asked; "what harm of consequenses can be mitigated" and precisely as you say, we cannot be too idealistic. Unfortunately lists of priorities in principle of how it is possible to achieve a revolution or independence, are usually pretty short, and short sighted. History proves that revolutionary causes which may be right in some ideal sense, are wrongly or unjustly carried through, ultimately to the point of corrupting any ideal once held, in many cases. We are very critical of this in the 20th and 21st centuries.
But I don't think principles are impossible to find in some basis, and something we can assume a general skepticism towards. To use non-imposing and yet practically effecient principles as means of achieving India's independence, as Gandhi did, indeed for the first time in history with such impact, seems pretty laudable to me.
Perhaps all acts and works have their consequences in some sense. I would observe that this is a general statement. And so you have these general questions; is the internal violence in India, subsequent to independence, Gandhi's fault? Or did this violence occur because of Gandhi's "idealism"? And in what ideal circumstances would India have been "ready" for its independence? This is begging the question on idealistic terms, of this generality (of being practical) I'd say.
I would say compared to principled pragmatism, these objections could pretty easily just seem like deflected apologetics for western involvement. You or anyone over here could say "India was not ready for independence", because "look what happened". Look at these consequences of Gandhi's actions, or of a nation he established that was irresponsible. Well, I'd argue the interconnecting threads of cause and correlation here are complex, and maybe not ideally reconciled in this general way.
Maybe Westerners have no business with criticizing internal problems of India, or its conflicts with Pakistan, even if they may be presenting humanitarian concerns? Maybe we already wore out our luck and welcome with intervening? We do not seem to be in the place to be suggesting our own idealism, of global peace and democratic justice, at this point today in any case. Doing the best we can to mind our buisness is also an ideal. I think that could lead to a better world. We could learn a thing respecively from Swaraj, or Indian self rule; to let things be, in principle, even if they are not ideal.
Gandhi was in some ways imperfect, and not any saint. Respective to anyone or any circumstance, we can always be critical, or seek the possibility of a better circumstance in ideal, but the question is, on what basis do we suggest this ideal critique of justifications? It is easy to rationalize what could have been different, but where is the practical principled basis, or where is the tested result? That is what Gandhi has going on in his favor.
Gandhi had said:
Quote:
"My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God."
Of course Gandhi had his ideals, and they were not just "pure" or "saintly" by nature, but that is no conclusion in itself. I think it would be typical fashion to attack the man's principles and ideals, just because they perceived as conditional, when they were indeed conditional, embodied and worldly, and effective and non-violent in demonstrated ways.
Gandhi fasted unto death, on many occasions, in protest, and in the end that included to protest religious violence in Insia. He was eventually murdered by Hindu extremist.
I came across these words elsewhere online.
Quote:
The way the teaching (of Gandhi) is imparted is (sometimes in India) not as of what Gandhi was - a clever politician who made idealism pragmatic but as a saint who stood by his principles of love and peace.
Maybe there is a problem with an image of Gandhi, that leans too much to canonization. I can understand a critique of the kind of liberal idealism in America that glorifies Gandhi to saintliness, and I can indeed see how that opens up a possible question of Gandhi's ideals themselves, but not just by some simplistic objectification. If Gandhi was conditional, he should be criticized conditionally, according to the situation. To start with, if he had an ideal, there is the possibility and tested result that it was practical and principled, even though there was this violence and even though Gandhi himself was murdered. It was no failure.
In Gandhi, I would argue there is a demonstrative route of balanced and interlocking practice and ideal principle.
Appreciate the exchange and debate; Kurt.
|
Wow, love the dialogue guys..
I would just like to comment, every saint was/is a sinner, every 'hero' has made mistakes..I don't think we should let those mistakes take away from the ideas or actions they did which influenced society in a positive way.
What MLK did was amazing, if not essential, to win the fight for the problems which were occurring in that day in age. The same goes for Gandhi...the contributions to positive societal change are real.
In response to OP,
I think we could make a strong argument that reducing/eliminating poverty could effectively reduce violence..sure, this would take a fundamental change in the way society currently works. But I believe poverty and inquality are very important factors to consider when it comes to mass violence.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|