THE COMPLETE BLOG ON MAHATMA GANDHI

By Y V Satyanarayana THIS ARTICLE IS intended to explore Gandhi's technique of conflict resolution and his vision of an ideal society. I have also made an attempt to analyse and compare the vision of Marx and Gandhi about the future of mankind. Since Marx and Gandhi are the outspoken champions of the interests of the down-trodden and exploited humanity, who fought in their own way against social suffering, political subjugation, and economic exploitation, it is quite natural for them to have some similar views, if not identical ones. They are not only concerned for the poor and oppressed humanity, but also revolutioned the character of philosophy and brought it to the realm of social action. The history of mankind shows how great men have always struggled and fought against the prevailing social evils and human sufferings. Of such great men in human history, the 19th century produced two outstanding personalities-Marx and Gandhi. The great men while being products of history also ...

Unlike the Arab-Islamic world, other colonised peoples have reacted to oppression by looking forward, not backward, writes Abdel-Moneim Said* I hope the reader will bear with me as I continue to discuss the problem of terrorism in Arab and Islamic countries. I stress, here, that I am speaking of Muslim human beings, not Islam. I am also speaking of all people who have fallen victim to terrorism everywhere in the world, whether in Islamic or non-Islamic countries. So if I bring up the London underground bombings, for example, that is not to attribute any greater value to that tragedy than those that struck Sharm El-Sheikh, Riyadh, Bali, Casablanca, Baghdad or anywhere else that has experienced mass murder and ritual executions perpetrated in the name of Islam. Our ultimate purpose is to find a remedy to the terrorist phenomenon and such a remedy will remain out of reach until we identify the causes. Specifically, we must determine whether the phenomenon is a product of a sense of inj...

In my opinion, non-violence is not passivity in any shape or form. Non-violence, as I understand it, is the activest force in the world. Therefore, whether it is materialism or anything else, if non-violence does not provide an effective antidote, it is not the active force of my conception. Or, to put it conversely, if you bring me some conundrums that I cannot answer, I would say my non-violence is still defective. Non-violence is the supreme law. During my half a century of experience, I have not yet come across a situation when I had to say that I was helpless, that I had no remedy in terms of non-violence. Take the question of the Jews on which I have written. No Jew need feel helpless if he takes to the non-violent way. A friend has written me a letter, objecting, that in that article I have assumed that the Jews have been violent. It is true that the Jews have not been actively violent in their own persons. But they called down upon the Germans the curses of mankind, and they ...

- By V. S. Thyagarajan September 11 precedes October 2 only by three weeks but, as dates that symbolise events, they have nothing in common. The first is known for the unprecedented terror and violence unleashed on thousands of innocent people, while the other is a date etched in history by the apostle of peace-the Mahatma. As the years go by and generations change, doubts begin to creep in is October 2 still relevant and does non-violence still have meaning in a world deeply divided by conflicting ideologies and religious fundamentalism? Since Mahatma Gandhi's name and philosophy of non-violence are inseparable, there is an attempt to reduce the scope of the tenets of non-violence to the period in which Gandhiji live and context in which he fought for the freedom of the country. But September 11 has brought back into sharp focus the relevance of non-violence to a world in which the United States, the only "super power", found itself vulnerable for the first time in it...

IF ONE does not practice non-violence in one's personal relations with others, and hopes to use it in bigger affairs, one is vastly mistaken. Non-violence like charity must begin at home. But if it is necessary for the individual to be trained in non-violence, it is even more necessary for the nation to be trained likewise. One cannot be non-violent in one's own circle and violent outside it. Or else, one is not truly non-violent even in one's own circle; often the non-violence is only in appearance. It is only when you meet with resistance, as for instance, when a thief or a murderer appears, that your non-violence is put on its trail. You either try or should try to oppose the thief with his own weapons, or you try to disarm him by love. Living among decent people, your conduct may not be described as a non-violent. Mutual forbearance is non-violence. Immediately, therefore, you get the conviction that non-violence is the law of life, you have to practice it towards thos...

Ravindra Varma All human beings do not think alike or feel alike. They have therefore no escape from having to encounter differences. Differences can lead to intolerance, intolerance can lead to confrontation, and hostile confrontation can, does often, lead to conflict. The objects that set one on the path of confrontation and conflict are therefore very important in understanding 'conflict'. So are the means-tactics and instruments that one uses to engage in conflict. Both these affect the individual as well as the group or society in which, or on behalf of which he or she wants to engage in conflict. They act and interact on the individual as well as the institutions that he fashions or lives under, and the "forces" that they generate and employ for bringing about change or resisting change. The problems that arise from these inter-relationships cannot be solved by saying that conflicts are inevitable in the life of the individual and society. Science and tech...