Posted on 06/17/2004 3:24:49 AM PDT by razoroccam
Beware of Gandhi
Mohandas Gandhi, better known as Mahatma Gandhi, would have been celebrating his birthday on October 2nd. The American reader may well ask, so what? Read on.
First some background. Gandhi was a practicing attorney in South Africa when racism led him to return to British India around 1915. He immersed himself in efforts to win India’s independence from Britain by non-violent methods. Along the way, he helped emancipate millions suffering under the caste system, and by his conduct exemplified promptness and austerity. He also laid the foundations of socialism and indirectly contributed to the creation of Pakistan.
Lets start with India’s freedom struggle. With terrorism and war on everyone’s minds, doubtlessly there are some who pine for non-violence. However, before we start adopting non-violence as course 101 in military school, we should examine its track record. Except for the civil rights movement in US, non-violence has never worked. One of the biggest misconceptions is that India gained independence because of Mohandas Gandhi. Far from it – it was World War II’s violence that exhausted the British to the point that they could not sustain an empire anymore. India would have become independent, Gandhi or no Gandhi. Even if one were to assume that India obtained independence courtesy Gandhi, consider that it took him 32 years. Contrast that with the five years it took America under Washington’s army to achieve the same goal. Another unappreciated facet is that for non-violence to work, the opponent has to respect it. The British, despite all their colonial faults, did that. Can you imagine how long Mohandas Gandhi would have lasted in front of Hitler, Mao, or Saddam Hussein?
So on Gandhi’s birthday, as we wage a war on terrorism, let us not forget that by and large, non-violence does not work and when it does, it is under special circumstances. The war on terrorism is not one of those special circumstances and we have to be resolute and determined.
Another aspect of Gandhi was his concept of self-sufficiency. His theory was that if Indians made everything themselves, they would not have to import anything from Britain, thus depriving the English of trade and tax revenue. The problem is that no country is completely proficient in goods and services. Free trade allows each country to excel in an aspect and to leverage its expertise. But Gandhi did not see it that way, and his vision was further propagated by his anointed successor, Nehru. India thus embarked on a socialist path after independence. To judge its effect, it would suffice to point out that South Korea, a country that took the capitalistic route, had a per capita income lower than India in 1947. It is eight times that of India today.
So on Gandhi’s birthday, as Americans loose jobs in this global economy and start considering erecting trade barriers, remember India’s failed experiment with economic populism and socialism. Free trade does not mean unequal trade, such as that we have with China that has artificially kept its currency low. Free trade does mean honest and fair trade and we have to enforce all aspects of it.
Finally, let us address the creation of Pakistan. Despite Gandhi’s assertions that British India would be divided over his dead body, the opposite took place. This at the behest of Mohammad Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, and Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. The former was also a lawyer in India who disagreed with Gandhi’s method and detested the personality cult surrounding him. He was particularly infuriated with Gandhi’s blind affection for Nehru. Jinnah came to the conclusion that the partiality shown to Nehru was due to the fact that Gandhi and Nehru were both Hindus, whereas he, Jinnah, was Muslim. He decided that Muslims could not get fair and equal treatment in largely Hindu India, and that a new Muslim country would have to be created. The rest, as they say, is history.
The American reader should be well aware that India and Pakistan are belligerent nuclear neighbors quite capable of annihilating large portions of each other. With nuclear proliferation and nuclear winter important concepts, surely the reader will appreciate the importance of the dispute between the two countries.
So as we approach the anniversary of Gandhi’s birth, let’s remember his policies and their consequences. And as our own elections approach, let us pay attention to the policies of candidates and stay away from personality cults and false patriotism. After all, eternal vigilance and freedom of expression is the hallmark of democracy.
Author Germs of War (Booksurge.com)
And what's become of Pakistan? A gem amongst filth?Is that what you're trying to imply?
(Sometimes I reply like an idiot, apologies for my earlier nonsensical reply).
That was a fantastic article. It was very informative and very relevant given the attitudes of the left in this country.
"What's so great about America," by Dinesh D'Sousa quotes one of D'Sousa's highschool teachers for perspective on India's struggle for independence: "If Hitler had ruled India, Gandhi would be a lampshade."
Who's Dinesh?
Just today, in my Civ 3 game, the Gandhi double-crossed me, and launched sneak attack when he was supposed to be allied with me against the French. But I showed that bastard not to mess with the Might Aztecs. HA! And him and his Frog friends learned the taste of Aztec Uranium!
Author, and former senior policy advisor to the Reagan White House.
Also, arguably one reason to claim Ronald Reagan as the first Neocon. D'Sousa wasn't even a citizen when serving under Reagan.
Loose jobs?
"...one reason to claim Ronald Reagan as the first Neocon...."
I think it is widely acknowledged that Norman Podhoretz is the first neo-con. But we could count Reagan as the first neo-con president. And "W" as the second.
I believe that over the years I have developed an understanding of the central idea that makes America great, and I have seen the greatness of America reflected in my life. At the same time I take seriously the issues raised by the critics of America. I know that they are on to something as well. In recent years my enthusiasm about America has been shaken by the experience of parenthood. As the father of a seven-year-old girl, I have come to realize how much more difficult it is to raise her well in America than it would be for me and my wife to raise her in India. We are constantly battling to shield our daughter from toxic influences in American culture that threaten to destroy her innocence. And even as I seek to insulate her from those influences, I am not sure that I can. This is a battle that I know I might lose. Why, I sometimes ask myself, do I stay in America?
All generalisations are false, including the one I hold in my mind after reading this. ;)
hiss = his
Next week, on U-62, he's back! And this time, he's mad.
Gandhi II!
No more Mr. Passive Resistance. He's out to kick some butt.
This is one bad mother you don't want to mess with.
"Don't move, slimeball."
He's a one-man wrecking crew. But he also knows how to party.
"Gimme a stake, medium rare."
"Hey! Baldy!"
There is only one law--his law.
Gandhi II!
I thought Irving Kristol was the first neocon. I thought it was an insult directed at him on a TV chat show.
Forget Hitler, imagine what would have happened to Ghandi if India were a French colony.
LOL! That was the first thing I thought of too. "UHF" is a classic.
UHF is soooooooooo underrated.
Ghandi's idea of passive resistance was sometimes to offer yourself up to be shot rather than being dragged away to the same result.
As far as Jews went, he realized they would be killed by Hitler or Arabs anyway, so he offered this suggestion: stand up and volunteer to be killed or punished, and the Jews would have "world opinion" behind them (dream on, Ghandi, we're talking about Jews here). Unfortunately for the Jews, if they followed that advice they would all be dead; half by Hitler, and the other half by Arabs.
Ghandi, of course, would never have termed this suggestion as mass suicide, as it would be immoral, but the result would be the same.
He claimed that voluntary suffering would bring more joy in the end than pain, but what did Ghandi really know of that kind of suffering? He wasn’t up against a Hitler or an Arab nation. He was intellectually wrangling with the reasonable and tired British. For 32 years, I might add! The fact is, the British made many improvements to the infrastructure of India, none of which the natives wouldn’t accomplished on their own.
Another contradiction in the familiar Ghandi profile is evidenced in one of his letters that if ANY justification for war could be had, it was against Hitler. But, he also says in the same breath, war is never acceptable. Um, just to make things clear, I guess.
Ghandi in fact was a war hero himself, hence his initial popularity. Regardless of his later teachings, he did in fact know there's a time to - if not accept war - join one. He didn’t consider war to be as immoral as cowardice.
So, the typically pacifist Ghandi profile is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. You’ll never be able to convince a pacifist that Ghandi wasn’t the saint he was made out to be.
Excellent point. Non-violence only works when your opponent has a conscience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.