Former Senator, occasional actor, and potential GOP presidential contender Fred D. Thompson recently delivered a radio address titled “Gandhi’s Way isn’t the American Way” (mp3 here; transcript here).
 |
|
To Be or Not To Be, That Is the Question |
..At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”
<
p designtimesp=”10563″>There’s an old saying that had the Brits been Nazi’s, Gandhi would’ve been a lampshade. Macabre as the humor might be, it underscores a key reason for Gandhi’s success with passive, non-violent resistance – it depends on your opponent’s moral code as much as your own. The problem here however, paraphrasing Thompson, is that Gandhi’s enemies aren’t America’s enemies.
<
p designtimesp=”10565″>Still, Gandhi’s direct statements about the Jews was a bit startling to me and worth some googling around…
<
p designtimesp=”10567″>Another They’d be dead but at least they’d have the moral high ground…guy who was also likely surprised by Gandhi’s determination to prescribe his strategy to the bitter end (well, for the Jews at least) was one Louis Fisher. He asked Gandhi to clarify his position which he did rather unequivocally –
Louis Fisher, Gandhi’s biographer asked him: “You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?”Gandhi responded, “Yes, that would have been heroism.”
<
p designtimesp=”10574″>
_1.jpg) |
|
If Nature made it, it’s gotta be Good, right? “Charles Darwin found the grisly life histories of Ichneumons incompatible with the central notion of natural theology…“ |
They’d be dead but at least they’d have the moral high ground? That’s comforting. Clearly we’re speaking of a rather different brand of “heroism” than the 300 Spartans – it’s not death that separates the two but rather, the preceding act of physical surrender.
<
p designtimesp=”10586″>It’s clear that when considering the age old problem of mind-body duality, Gandhi entirely favors the mind at the expense of recklessly discarding the body. Sticks and stones may break his bones but homey’s still not gonna give you the time of day and that’ll make you, his enemy, sad. Eventually. But perhaps only after 6 millionth casualty. Or if you run out of sticks & stones.
<
p designtimesp=”10589″>”Evil” in his sense thus comes from too much application of volition via the body and not enough going with the flow of nature. And in this orgy of nihilism, Gandhi found nobility and a “joyful sleep” which he implored the Jews to partake in –
…suffering voluntarily undergone will bring [Jews] an inner strength and joy….if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving..to the godfearing death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.
Lest we accuse Gandhi of anti-semitism we must first note that, in a manner echoed by our modern day Mel Gibson’s and Michael Richards‘, Gandhi assures us that not only does he sympathize with the Jews, but that some of his best friends are Jewish –
My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution.
<
p designtimesp=”10598″>
 |
|
…didn’t believe Ichnuemons existed in Human Nature too… |
Further, his commitment to lying prone at the wolf’s maw wasn’t unique to the Jews — he had a similar prescription for the whole of continental Europe engulfed in WWII –
“I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions…“If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman and child to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.”
Oh yeah. Let the Gestapo torture & kill you but refuse to owe them allegiance. That’ll show ’em. Needless to say, you can put me on Fred Thompson’s side on this particular debate.
Still, the world does occasionally need Gandhi and his modern-day sign-toting adherents…. Putting aside their well-intentioned blinders towards human nature, I agree that peace more than has its place as does a firm aversion to the carnage of war. I just wish they’d put more energy into getting their message in front of these guys first.
Gandhi was a fool. His stupid policy of non-violence played into the hands of the Brits. No wonder they were happy to hold him up as a shining example of Indian heroism. Ugh, to think that Indian schoolchildren even today are brainwashed on a steady diet of pro-Gandhi propaganda.
I don’t espouse violence for the sake of it, but Gandhi’s espousal of turning the other cheek is just insulting to millions of people throughout history who have had to fight and die in order to overthrow oppression.
Thanks Vinod for shedding light on the foolishness of Gandhi! Can you please work on exposing the naivete of Martin Luther King. As they say, if the US Government were the Nazis then Martin Luther King would end up as a burnt toast.
Well, I think part of the reason Gandhi’s policy of ahimsa is so all-pervasive in his world-view is because it ties into his sprituality.
For somebody who believes that violence is morally wrong no matter the cause, ahimsa is not just a moral high ground, it is bad karma in the rebirth cycle. If death is not something to be avoided or to be afraid of, and this life decides what happens after death, it would be the logical conclusion to make this life the best lived-life you can.
I believe that would be very hard to do consistently and require tremendous courage.
Well, what exactly were the peace protesters protesting? Going after OBL or the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq? My guess is the latter. Thompson again lumps the two together. Thompson asks, “At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?”
The point at which it is ok to fight them is when they pose a real, credible threat, which Iraq never did.
The point at which it is ok to fight them is when they pose a real, credible threat, which Iraq never did.
We are fighting them over there so we dont have to fight them here.
There is one problem with ‘having to fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here’. They wouldn’t have come over here to fight us! And 9/11 was an inside job, the Iraqis, Al Qaida etc. had absolutely nothing to do with it. About half of the ‘terrorists’ that allegedly died, flying planes into buildings or crashing, turned up alive and well not long after their names were published, protesting that they hadn’t been in the USA, and obviously had not flown planes into anything, as they were very much alive.
And they’re still looking for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that was supposedly the cause of attacking that country. They never existed, it was clever propaganda to get the masses to agree with attacking Iraq.
Tough one – I agree that Gandhi benefitted greatly from the nature of his opponents. Leave aside the Nazis, even the Belgians had bloody hands in the Congo. The Japanese were barbaric in China, the Philippines, and Korea.
Just as protestors can understandably ask, “What gives one man the right to order thousands of others into battle?” you could also ask, “What gives one man the right to order thousands to commit collective suicide?” as would have been the case if the Jews heeded his advice. Just as Gandhi argued that Britain had no place in India, so Gandhi’s pacifism had no place in Europe.
While Gandhi was able to use shame against the British, and benefitted from British exhaustion after WWII, he had zero luck with Jinnah. Jinnah saw a goal, and was not won over by appeals to Hindu-Muslim amity. Same tactic, different opponent, different result.
As a good Bengali and Netaji supporter, I can’t agree with GandhiJI about the higher morality of self-sacrifice but I’m with the skinny guy on his ideas about sleeping naked with the girls. (Wait till the DA hears about that!)
It’s one thing to acknowledge how puny Satyagraha seems in the face of the concentration camps, but it’s quite another to suggest that Mohandas Gandhi is of a class with Mel Gibson and Michael Richards. The comparison is simply bizarre, and seems to be more about your anger at Gandhi than about anything substantive.
Gandhi, The Jews And Palestine
Well, the Jews have been there, done that, so to speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada
I think Gandhi’s point was that showing allegiance to the oppressor = taking action on their behalf. Laying down and dying with no allegiance means at least you don’t actually collude with your oppressor. Attempting to prolong their lives, many Jews ended up literally digging their own graves before being pushed into them. It’s a grim choice, but a Jew who refused to collude when called from the ghetto, and shot on the spot, was in many ways fighting more than surrendering.
“Well, the Jews have been there, done that, so to speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada“
slightly off-topic, but “masada” was one of the best tv mini-series, in my opinion.
I don’t get the mandatory ji suffix and the Mahatma prefix. Gandhi was a man, not a God. Call him Mohandas Gandhi and let’s leave it at that.
Pish posh. Of course you didn’t. 😉
What Gandhi said was his opinion not an order.
I agree with Mr. Kobayashi. Gandhi’s ideas of non-violence may not have applied to conventional wisdom in the case of European Jews. But then what you’re witnessing here is a conservative hit job in progress. Take a few ambigious quotes and quote them out of context and implicitly suggest he is an anti-Semite. He did not preach anything different to the Jews than what he preached to the Indian people.
Pssst. “Gandhi was a fool†belongs to Nas Uncle. Biters make him grumpy.
Good point Nina.
These quotes go to show that Gandhi was a philosopher in addition to being a human rights activist. Philosophers don’t always take into account the reality of the day because they are talking about metaphysical ideas that are spiritual goals that can’t be grounded in reality. We are all therefore free to reject this philosophy just as we are free to reject existentialism or any other philosophical outlook. Rejecting Gandhi’s philosophy, or parts of it any way, is not inconsistent with accepting his accomplishments as a human rights activist.
Whatever the merits of the arguments for or against Gandhi’s position on the Nazis, it has exactly zero relevance to the so-called “war on terror”. As people have pointed out above, the Nazis were a real threat, at least after their invasion of Poland.I think even linking the Gandhi position to Fred Thompson’s speech is a huge logical boo boo. We can expect the likes of Fred ‘greatness of America’ Thompson commit such elementary errors (indeed one can argue that politicians literally depend on such willful errors for their bread and butter) but to fall for it ourselves would be abandoning independent thought and letting others frame the issues.
Typo: should be likes of Fred ‘greatness of America’ Thompson to commit such elementary errors (indeed one can argue that politicians literally depend on such willful errors for their bread and butter)
I hate these typos, (this is what happens when you try to type while watching cricket): should be it has exactly zero relevance for the so-called “war on terror”
Gandhi is really just a straw man in Thompson’s argument. Even for Gandhi to be relevant in such a discussion, the terms would have to be reversed — not what would Gandhi suggest Americans do to tin pot dictators abroad, but what should the Iraqis do in the face of American occupation? Ol’ Fred should stick to his day job, offering up pithy bourbon-soaked bits of Tennessee wisdom on Law & Order.
Didn’t Subash Chandra Bose (I refuse to call him Netaji) beg Hitler for help. Besides he was always on the run, which implies that he didn’t have balls.
If Gandhi was a fool then Bose was a coward. Gandhi was way more courageous and intelligent than any of his contemporaries.
Gandhi had a certain worldview as a philosopher, and the opinions he expressed were completely consistent with his philosophy. I think it is too much to expect a certain philosophy to be applicable without change in every context.
I do not think anyone who puts up a poster saying ‘what would Gandhi do’ means that the US should dismantle their border security mechanisms and invite the Al Qaeda to come over and blow things up. That would be an absurdly literalist interpretation. But the US can certainly take something from Gandhi’s philosophy of treating the enemy with love and dignity by cutting down on the demonization of the Islamic world and offering better treatment to the prisoners at Gitmo.
As for accusing Gandhi of anti-semitism based on these remarks, well, what can I say: if the gun don’t fire, you just hit him with the butt.
“If Gandhi was a fool then Bose was a coward. Gandhi was way more courageous and intelligent than any of his contemporaries.”
both were flawed and sometimes naive men who had good intentions and different thoughts about how to achieve their goals. there’s no need to devalue either of their contributions (or those of others of that era) because they chose different routes. for bose, the british were the reality, not hitler, hence his misguided attempts to seek help from germany. for gandhi, the british were the reality, not hitler. for the jews, hitler was the reality, not the british (except in Palestine). i think gandhi’s attitudes towards palestine should also be seen in light of the ground realities of india and his attempts to prevent a split of india. same with his advice to indians in general and hindus in particular. it stemmed from a mix of belief in ahimsa and being philosophical and a down-to-earth practicality and reality. whether you agree with it or not, is another matter.
I think the point hasn’t been emphasized adequately enough that Gandhi held these views all-round and not just with respect to the Jews. One time someone asked him if he would ever, under any circumstances, commit violence – like say if someone was about to rape his niece or something. Gandhi’s response was that under those circumstances he would have no choice but to kill his niece! (Since he had to show compassion towards the wrongdoer). This is about the only time as far as I can recall that he agreed he might have to commit a violent act. I don’t think it is out of line to call this type of thinking utter foolishness, in fact, evil. Any ideology pursued in the extreme is evil and this is no exception. Many lives were actually lost because of Gandhi’s stubborn insistence on non-violence. Of course, he was interesting and unique and inspiring in many other ways.
Before asking, “what would Gandhi do”, I would like someone to explain why the question is relevant in this context. I think Preston is right. Iraqis should be asking themselves this question (at least those participating in armed resistance). I also think that a non-violent resistance against the occupation along with non-cooperation is a far better and indeed, moral method. In fact it can be argued that it was the non-violent protests led by grand ayatollah Sistani that compelled the U.S. to hold elections in the first place (I’m not going to go through the details here).
I think the survival of the fittest applies here to some degree. Before independence, there were a lot of different kind of Independence movements in fashion. Some people were trying to use armed rebellion and had very limited success (they did provide a lot of stimulus though, like Bhagat Singh), some were working with English in government, considering themselves as opposition, but English hardly gave them anything substantial.
Gandhi had its own way of opposing British , just like others. But it was more suitable for Indian independence movement because of the nature of his opponent as well as number and position of Indians in British Rule. And it worked beautifully, despite some stupid decisions (like taking back andolen after Chauri Chaura) he still was very instrumental in getting us Independence. He made us pay a big price for it in terms of partition (which a lot of people believe was actually good for India in log run), but he gets the MVP for independence movement nonetheless.
Does it make him universally applicable, hell no! Specially if your oppressors think that you are vermins.
If he was doing the same thing in Nazi Germany, he would have been nipped in the bud and converted into soap long time before he could become a great man, just like Bhagat Sing was killed before he can become a great leader (he was already a legend though).
On the side note I have a feeling if he was alive at the time of later wars with Pakistan, he might have caused India a lot of grief.
some quickie responses…
thank god the US Govt weren’t/aren’t Nazi’s.
The focus isn’t on the [collude / don’t collude] decision but on the choice he advocates earlier. How about not laying down in the first place?
the quotes are neither ambiguous (“offer themselves to the butcher’s knife”) nor out of context (Follow the links and see for yourself.)
This is the essence of the mind-body duality problem. SOME – but certainly not all – philosophers avoid the body (and thus, as you point out, reality).
Fred Thomspon et. al. didn’t introduce Gandhi into the debate, the anti-war activists did. They asked “what would Gandhi do?” Fred’s responding. If there’s a “logical boo boo” – Thompson’s pointing out it’s on the side of the activists / Gandhi.
I have a hard time believing that regardless of which society one is in, the “suffering is good for the soul” mentality is positive.
Because I am a bengali, my parochial sentiments urge me to not converse with you but do something physical. Sometimes, actions speak louder than words (that’s giving away my biases).
Whoever engages in the tired debate of Gandhi/Netaji fail to see the positive things in either of them. It is neither Gandhi’s nor Bose’s fault, it’s our jaundiced eye. Both gave up their lives for the country.
But what do I know? My guess is both of you are way better than Gandhi and/or Bose. Show us the path. Should Indians run away to Amrika?
Gandhi was a humanist. Yes, he used shame and guilt of his opponents. But he could connect to the masses, and Indians could see him as one of their own, and he was used by other politicians. His ideas were incongruent with the self-interest inherent in the idea of nation-states (which got reified afer World War II; we have hindsight bias). The idea of India is far greater the narrow notion of a nation-sate.
I think it was Gandhi who said, “If Bose was here, this partition wouldn’t have happened.”
He did not, on the contrary he was opposed to partition. Gandhi being responsible for partiion is an RSS/Hindutva propaganda, Please read history. If not for Gandhi and Nehru, India would have been broken in to tens of small countries.
Fred Thomspon et. al. didn’t introduce Gandhi into the debate, the anti-war activists did
If they did, then it was a mistake. But Fred’s response is equally a mistake. As Preston said (and I am inclined to agree), the question is far more relevantly asked of the Iraqi’s who are fighting the occupation (not the one’s fighting each other).
naiverealist’s assertion that many of India’s freedom-fighters were cosmopolitan humanists at heart applies more to Nehru than Gandhi (not that it does not apply to Gandhi), note the italicized part in Nehru’s “tryst with destiny” speech: Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.
We might go a little tangential here, so wouldn’t argue too much on it. I am not saying he was an outright supporter of partition, but considering the amount of power he had over Indian masses, he didn’t do enough. He concentrated more on stopping violence and riots, but got played nicely by Jinnah.
Hmm..I think it is Vallab Bhai Patel you should thank.
They did. And Fred has all the right in the world to respond.
and on that issue, as noted in the last line of the post, there’s whole hearted agreement… 😉
Take the quote for instance from a neocon blog no less which you quoted with reckless abandon.
The entire sequence goes like this (courtesy one Mr. Orwell)
You conveniently left out the remaining part of the conversation making him seem like an anti-semite. Hence, ambigious quotage.
You don’t lay down. You don’t cooperate. Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance. That means if your opponent has overwhelming military might, you “offer yourself to the butcher’s knife” rather than carry out their dirty work (ie, give them your allegiance) in fear. To forget Gandhi’s central political philosophy of resistance really is to take his quotes above out of context.
They did. And Fred has all the right in the world to respond
You missed my point. I did not say that Fred had no right to respond, but that his response was logically mistaken (as was the original argument of the activists; and sure, they also had the right to link Gandhi with “the war on terror”).
Harry Turtledove’s alternate history tale “The Last Article” describes a Nazi invasion of India and the reaction of the Germans to the non-violent resistance and pacifism of Gandhi and his followers.
I was reading by and saw this comment by Divya. I thought I should respond to it. It is not true that Gandhiji would have killed the person who was about to rape his neice. In his book “My Experiments with truth”, Gandhiji has specifically stated that violence in any form cannot be justified, even at times when not involving in violence may cost us our lives. So the statement that someone raping his/her neice was justified by Gandhiji in resorting to violence is just plain lies. Please do not fool us here.
Divya Said:
I think the point hasn’t been emphasized adequately enough that Gandhi held these views all-round and not just with respect to the Jews. One time someone asked him if he would ever, under any circumstances, commit violence – like say if someone was about to rape his niece or something. Gandhi’s response was that under those circumstances he would have no choice but to kill his niece! (Since he had to show compassion towards the wrongdoer). This is about the only time as far as I can recall that he agreed he might have to commit a violent act. I don’t think it is out of line to call this type of thinking utter foolishness, in fact, evil. Any ideology pursued in the extreme is evil and this is no exception. Many lives were actually lost because of Gandhi’s stubborn insistence on non-violence. Of course, he was interesting and unique and inspiring in many other ways.
I don’t understand all the hate and bitterness directed towards Gandhi. He may not have been perfect, but how many other leaders (historical or current) can anyone name besides Mandela to be in his leauge.
Divya sez:
Divya, do you have a link to a refernce where Gandhiji’s (Dr. C, the -ji is a sign of respect, not a sign of Godhood, and I don’t think anybody is forced to do it) response to rape? It seems very different from what I understand of his world view. His stand was ahimsa at all times. I can see Gandhi placing himself between his neice and the rapist allowing her to escape or something like that.
Philosphy/Sprituality is only foolishness if you subscribe to it without believing. Gandhi believed in his philosphy and advocated it, but if you didnt belive in the spritual concept, it would be wrong to follow it.
Vikram – Please do not assume that I am out to fool anyone. There’s no need for malice. Besides I can just as easily accuse you of not only foolishly treating his biography like the gospel truth but also trying to fool us into believing it.
So your comment was based on a reading of My Experiments with Truth? Dig around some more and you will find a lot of stuff that doesn’t gel with his autobiography. There is a very interesting collection of letters between Gandhi and a bunch of people he sought advice from around the time he was in a dilemma whether he should kill this baby calf that was in great agony and had no hope for survival. He mulled it over for several days while the calf lay in great pain and eventually did kill it. I respect him for that.
RSS/Hindutva propaganda on Gandhi is quite successful, its the same with anti-Muslim propaganda. I think anti-Gandhi, anti-Muslim propaganda was part of larger hindutva ideology followed by RSS/BJP/VHP etc. At one point I myself believed it and voted for BJP in 98 parliament elections.
Vikram, I would like to add further that Gandhi was honest to himself and he was honest about his opinions on Jews, Nazis, violence etc. Anybody who read his Autobiography will know that.
Gandhi’s policies are very powerful IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT. I advocate violence as a form of getting rid of terrorism and the Red threat in India. A Superior battleforce is the best way of getting rid of unwanted elements who have no fear of the system.
However, the PALESTINIANS COULD USE A GANDHI. I support Israel in its actions in Gaza to root out Mortar Launching Militants and this gives them the moral high ground, just like Munich did for “Wrath of God” operations. However if the Palestinians did the whole non violence thing and Israel supposedly being a civilized nation would have no excuse whatsover for military operations and hence would come under scathing criticism which would “hypothetically and hopefully” force it to vacate areas and give it to the Palestinians. The one thing that they claim stops them now is the fear that militants could use it as an attack base.
Venu – I spent 10 minutes searching for the link to reply to Vikram, before even reading your comment, but couldn’t find it. In any case that was just meant to highlight the ridiculous heights he went to with his belief in ahimsa and there is plenty of evidence of that even without that example.
Som I’ve been reading all the New York Times news items and statements on Gandhi from 1940 to 1946. It gets with Vinod’s points. At one point, he even criticises the US for fighting the Japanese. There is clearly a break within the Congress party vis-a-vis Gandhi’s policies, with a lot of senior leaders endorsing the British stance. Interesting times.
You can access the NY Times archives from you local library site. e.g. this one from the Santa Clara County.