This is topic Gandhi & Non-Violent Methods... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=032473

Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
 
So I was thinking about Gandhi the other day, about how he managed to free India from a controlling outside country by using non-violent methods to achieve his goals. A lot of people I talk to like to use Gandhi as their point that a non-violent revolution is possible if not the only correct way to change a government, some of these people also go so far as to say that all wars are unnecessary and evil.

However, when I stopped to think about this, I truly believe that the only reason Gandhi was successful is due to the fact that he was dealing with England. Once England understood that they had no control over India, they moved out and let India have control (granted this was after a few bloody incidents and a whole lot of political arguing).

The point I am getting to is that I can understand taking a non-violent point of view if you are dealing with a “civilized” country. However when routing out a despotic government whose point of view is to “slaughter any infidel” (infidel of course being anyone who doesn’t think you should be in power), or to kill anyone who is a non-conformist, then how exactly do you expect non-violent methods to work?

And secondly how do the people win freedom from these governments if not by the barrel of a gun?

[ March 08, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Chaz_King ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

However when routing out a despotic government whose point of view is to “slaughter any infidel” (infidel of course being anyone who doesn’t think you should be in power), or to kill anyone who is a non-conformist, then how exactly do you expect non-violent methods to work?

The goal is to break a government's will to kill. Even Gandhi acknowledged that his methods would not work against a madman whose goals included genocide already. However, against someone who is merely willing to kill to achieve a goal, you can -- if you are willing to die in enough numbers -- create a pile of bodies high enough that he loses his taste for the massacre before he runs out of people to add to the pile.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Harry Turtledove did an excellent riff on this in a short story where Nazi Germany was not stopped, and troops were sent to take over the British holdings in India. Ghandi repeated the same tactics but didn't get quite the same result...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oddly, I suspect that Gandhi's tactics would have worked quite well on Hitler, actually. Pol Pot, not so much -- but Hitler, yes.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
In the story, never got that far. A local Axis commander handled it with quick and brutal force.

As I recall, Ghandi exhorted his followers to stand against the Nazis peacefully but firmly, and they were cut down. Ghandi was rushed to safety (against his wishes) and reassured his assistants that at least when the story of that atrocity hit the world, the world would respond. Oddly enough, the radio news never mentioned it...

When he finally confronted the local leader he discovered he had found an enemy with no need to be liked or respected, only feared.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I agree with Tom. Gandhi’s techniques were, in fact, used against Hitler in two limited situations and they were successful in both. They were never attempted on a larger scale, though.

Edit: It’s not necessary that the opponent want to be liked, only that he is more interested in successfully running the country than killing as many people as possible. If killing people is the goal, rather than the means, non-violent resistance can’t work. If it’s the means, then non-violent resistance on a large enough scale can make it an unsuccessful means.

[ March 08, 2005, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Um...do you really think that if Poles or Jews or Gypsies or any other group had tried peaceful resistance to the Camps, SS forces would have been restrained, compassionate or even vaguely moved?

Say what you will about Nazis generally, the SS were the rabid ones.

-Trevor
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Again, you are making the mistake of think non-violent response is designed to invoke compassion or be emotionally "moving". It isn't.

And no, I don't think the Jews or Gypsies could have done it on their own. However, if a significant portion of the German people had supported them, it would have been a different story. Part of Hitler's success was to play segments of the population off against one another.
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Please enlighten me - what is the purpose of Ghandi's protest technique?

And had the German people resisted Hitler's urges and urgings, a great deal more would never have come to pass.

-Trevor
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
To the degree that Gandhi's methods worked on the Nazis, it was only because German&Japanese intelligence&diplomatic services were trying to foment an Indian armed rebellion against the British in the midst of WWII.
Gandhi was too politically aware to be tempted by the false promises, too militarily canny to fall for the bait.

Conservative elements of the BritishEmpire wanted to keep India after the War. However, Gandhi's suppression of the separatist elements* during the War -- as well as the Indian soldiers supporting the Allied cause -- made it impossible for those Britons to successfully argue that the Indians weren't capable of governing themselves after WWII was over.
In fact, Gandhi's demonstration of the ability to maintain civil control over the incredibly diverse Indian populace without British backing, and Indian support during the War were two main reasons used to argue that GreatBritain owed India its independence.

* Especially those separatists who advocated the use of violence during this low point of Britain's ability to project power into India. Which included a significant portion of Ghandi's inner circle. Chief amongst those being his close advisor JawaharlalNehru, who would later become India's first PrimeMinister. And father of PrimeMinister IndiraGandhi and grandfather of PrimeMinister RajivGandhi.

[ March 08, 2005, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Trevor, the purpose is always to make it more difficult for the oppressive government to continue on its course than it would be to give in. That can include embarrassing them in the court of public opinion (if they care) or it can include enough people walking off their jobs that the infrastructure can’t function or it can include a lot of other things. But it’s not about appealing to the oppressors better nature, it’s about making it harder for them to continue doing whatever it is you want them to stop doing than to quit.
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Then I will conceed that had the German people joined and participated in such non-violent actions, the protests might have won the day. Of course, had the German people opposed Hitler's plans, a lot of things could have been avoided.

But without the support of a large number of the German people which likely would not have happened without the presence of mass media and near-instant communication, smaller groups of protestors would have been butchered, making little or no impact.

Although I don't know about the "if you're willing to sacrifice enough people" argument. The lemming approach to life has never had much appeal for me.

-Trevor
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
When cast in that light, the peaceful non-violent protest is really no different than any other form of protest, save the lack of violence and a willingness to jump on the pyre.

-Trevor
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
The German people is one thing, but I don't think any non-German group could have made passive resistance stick. There's just a limit to how many massacres people will stand for.

On the other hand, Hitler would probably be reluctant to order the massacre of ethnicities he identified as Aryan. That's why he used the silk gloves in Norway and Denmark, compared to his approach in France and especially Poland. So the question is, would any part of the Indian population fall into the 'Aryan' compartment of his mind? As I recall, the higher castes were of generally Aryan descent, using the word in the sense of 'group of people who migrated out of the Iranian plateau' rather than its nasty 'Good White Folks' meaning.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
When cast in that light, the peaceful non-violent protest is really no different than any other form of protest, save the lack of violence and a willingness to jump on the pyre.
Yep.
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Hypotheticals - I am of the opinion that there is very little impact non-violent protests will have on someone who doesn't mind wasting the bullets to kill you.

It really depends on how integral you happen to be to the process.

-Trevor
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
As Tom said, if you're working with someone who doesn't mind killing as a means it requires people willing to be slaughtered in pretty large numbers.
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
You mean until the occupying force is too tired to operate a bulldozer?

-Trevor
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
If necessary, yes.
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I'll go ahead and concede philosophical differences.

-Trevor

Edit: For misspellings.

[ March 08, 2005, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Gypsies who are of Indian descent were hunted down, rounded up, and exterminated without exception and without mercy, KoM. While due to their belief in racial casting, the Nazis might have been willing to treat the most "Aryan" of the Brahmin-class as merely second-class citizens to help "justify"&enforce the caste system, the rest of the Indians would have been treated as third-class citizens, as slaves, or as candidates for extermination.

On the main, German regular army soldiers did not directly participate in concentration camps or the death camps of the FinalSolution. The generals and GeneralStaff made it clear that such duty "demoralized good German soldiers" in opposition to the posting of regular army personnel to such positions.
The task was left to the SS (composed around the initial core of the lowest dregs of German society), mostly to supervise the WaffenSS (foreign-citizens who swore fealty to Hitler to become soldiers in support of the Nazi agenda) who carried out the actual tortures and murders both in the concentration and death camps, and in the already conquered territories.

[ March 08, 2005, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I'm aware of the Gypsies; however, while of Indian origins, they are not Aryans. (Again, please note that I am using this in the original sense of 'an ethnic group' as opposed to Hitler's 'People I Approve Of'.) Before the war, Hitler was reasonably friendly with the Iranian regime, partly because he wanted oil, but also partly because they were Aryans. Indeed, this is where we get the word, Iran.

As for the Waffen-SS, while certainly not a mother-in-law's dream, and responsible for a fair amount of atrocities, they worked mainly on the front lines rather than the camps.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Yes, if by "mainly" one means a majority of WaffenSS followed behind the battlelines for the purpose of committing genocide. However, the minority of WaffenSS who did work the concentration and death camps also composed the majority of all such personnel. The camps were run with a remarkably small number of soldiers.

As for Iran, Hitler promised the Russians the eternal friendship of Germany; even though MeinKampf specificly stated a main goal of Nazism was conquest of Russia for the purpose of obtaining raw materials and Lebensraum (living room) for continued growth.
Even though Stalin and Hitler worked together to divide&conquer Poland, Hitler turned on Stalin immediately after WesternEurope was conquered (or under friendly fascist regimes) and GreatBritain's offensive capabilities appeared neutralized.
When treaties are ignored at the first convenient moment, how long do you think that a few words spoken by Nazi diplomats to Iran would have lasted once the Allied resistance fell.

[ March 08, 2005, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
This isn't trolling, I swear--I'm genuinely interested.

How would, say, a woman living under Taliban rule best incorporate a non-violent philosophy into rebellion against Taliban rule?

Or, say, a member of an opposing faction living under the rule of Saddam?
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
If I understand the approach properly, she would line up to be disciplined. Once beaten and or similarly chastised by the men in her family, she would have to stand back up and do the same thing again.

And every woman would have to do the same thing, again and again until the men realized it was easier to change social custom than to wear out their arms disciplining their women.

The same in Iraq - people would have to volunteer to be tortured and executed. People would have to jostle and elbow each other for space in the lines to the mass graves.

And eventually the leadership would realize they're running out of bullets and people to rule.

As I say, I'll concede philosophical differences on the matter.

-Trevor

Edit: Whoops - for misspellings.

[ March 08, 2005, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
aspectre, I think you have your facts wrong here. The Waffen-SS were in fact involved in real combat against Soviet units; the whole reason they were raised in the first place was that Hitler was running out of Germans. They were often much more lightly equipped than their German counterparts, and hence relegated to flank guard and anti-partisan duty; but their primary task was combat, not genocide. This is not to say that they wouldn't burn down the occasional village if they thought they could get some Jews that way, but it wasn't their main focus.

The SS-Einsatzkommando are another matter, to be sure; but they were Germans. The SS was a big organisation, and while thoroughly nasty, not completely dedicated to killing civilians.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
If I understand the approach properly, she would line up to be disciplined.
Why on earth would she do that?

I would think she would very carefully find others who share her goals and decide together what would be the most effective way to meet them.

Trevor, you clearly don't understand the approach. Willing to be killed, yes. Passively volunteering for it, no.

[ March 08, 2005, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I often find that people who make a big deal out of other people's willingness to kill for what they believe in tend to undervalue someone else's willingness to die.
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Tom - I don't know if I undervalue someone else's willingness to die. But at the end of the day, I'd prefer to help them than to volunteer myself. And if I'm willing to kill and they're willing to die, sounds like all parties involved get what they want.

Although I suppose I should point out anyone willing to kill is usually willing to die for their beliefs. The rarity is someone willing to die but not kill for their beliefs.

Dkw - at some point, the issue will come up. Or perhaps I am still too literally interpreting Ghandi's wall of silence.

-Trevor
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I think you are perhaps confusing "pacifist" with "passive." And I'm not strictly talking about Gandhi.

Here is a link to some people doing non-violent organizing in Columbia.

Here is where Rosa Parks was trained in non-violent direct action before she decided not to give up her seat on the bus. Interesting how most of our school textbooks make it sound like that was a spur of the minute thing because she was "tired" that day rather than a deliberate provocation.

Here's another group that has a presence in Sri Lanka.

Guatamala
 
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It's entirely possible.

-Trevor
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
The WaffenSS was finally thrown at Russian combat units because the German assault stalled due to attrition of German regular army soldiers. Before that point, the WaffenSS mostly carried out ethnic cleansing while providing muscle for occupation of newly conquered territories.
It was only after the Allied counterattacks began pushing back the German conquest that the SS and WaffenSS became more coordinated/integrated with the German regular army as part of Germany's attempt to hold off the inevitable defeat.

[ March 08, 2005, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Again, I think you are mixing different parts of the SS, here. Genocide was the task of the Einsatzkommando. Such of the Waffen-SS as were foreigners were intended as combat troops from day one; that's how they recruited, "Fight the Bolshevik menace!" Indeed, just look at the name. Means Weapon-SS, or less idiomatically Fighting-SS.

I'm not going to argue any more about this, because it's a semantic nitpick peripheral to the thread.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Yeah. And Nazis never lied and recruiting slogans are always fully truthful. "Weapon"? Good grief, the Nazis renamed the boys of NaziYouth social&indoctrination clubs as "Werewolves" when they wanted more bodies for the meatgrinder.
One shouldn't even need to make comment about SS "StormTroopers" as a name for a bunch of cowardly punks who made their reputation by gathering into rat packs to trash neighborhoods and beat up individuals who opposed them.

[ March 08, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
quote:
Although I suppose I should point out anyone willing to kill is usually willing to die for their beliefs.
I don't believe this.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
And I believe it's a buncha horse puckeys.

If that were true, eg ol' Dubya&Cheney&Rumsfeld&Rice and their supporters would be in Iraq insteada sittin' here in the US pounding their chests about how brave they are to be willing to sacrifice others' lives.

If that were true, eg ol' Osama woulda blown himself up rather than use "Muslim"clerics* to recruit gullible suicidal narcissists afraid of goin' to the Muslim suicider's Hell by convincing them that killing others along with themselves is a surefire way of earning the "martyr"dom guarantee of Paradise.

* Any true Muslim cleric would have told those boys and girls to go see a psychiatrist or religious equivalent.

[ March 09, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2