Essay About Violent Means And Passages Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi Case StudyEssay Preview: Mahatma Gandhi Case StudyReport this essayTHAT MAN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! You always hear this statement or something to this effect, but do you truly know what it means? One might ask what is being unconstitutional? To be unconstitutional you have to be unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution; not in accordance with a political constitution or procedural rules of a country. An individual who displays civil disobedience is often recognized as unconstitutional. Civil disobedience is the refusal to comply or obey certain laws; mainly governmental policies. It is usually associated with nonviolent techniques such as boycotting or political protest. As shown these two words go hand in hand, in the passages Gandhi does not refer to one without mentioning the other. Correlation of the two gives the reader a better understanding.

“I have been told that non-co-operation is unconstitutional. On the contraryit is the right of every human being and it is perfectly constitutional.” (Gandhi, pg. 64) I agree, we as humans are promised inalienable rights; these rights are unable to be taken away by anybody. It is our decision whether to adhere to a government that is not just, however how you go about not complying is based on your personal beliefs. I am sure that many people would have wanted to fight violence with violence. It takes a strong man to take the opposite route, combating brutality with peacefulness. Gandhi believed that nonviolence approach was the sure and right way to achieve the goal of freedom. “I do not claim constitutionality for a rebellion successful or otherwise so long as the rebellion means in the ordinary sense of the term what it does mean, namely, wresting justice by violent means.” (Gandhi, pg. 65) This is truly amazing! You always hear that expression “by any means necessary” , and most people have this mentality, but not Gandhi. This man stated that he would not even accept victory if it came through violent means, such as a rebellion. Mahatma Gandhi was very committed and dedicated to his country, India. Not only as a resident but he acted as somebody who gave birth to the nation. His relationship with India is that of a relationship between a mother and her infant. A mother would not want to see her baby hurt or being neglected; therefore she would do anything and everything in her power, even going as far as sacrificing herself to correct or prevent this. I sense this feeling he probably had in him as I read these passages, I have know doubt in my mind that he would have died for his country if it meant Indias release from the British. “.the true thing for any human being on earth is not justice based on violence but justice based on sacrifice of self” (Gandhi, pg. 65).

Gandhi held an absolutist view on life. Meaning that he believed some moral declarations are true; there are no exceptions. He did not at all have a egotistic view. Believing in egoism means that you believe that the only thing that morally good is advocating your own personal well-being. An example of Absolutism is given as Gandhi explains about the violent methods of his friend Shaukat Ali. Even though Ali wanted to use violence, he adopted the nonviolence belief. Gandhi believed that true justice could not be attained through violent acts. “I believe that a man is the strongest for daring to die unarmed with his breast bare before the enemy.” Our very own 44th president of United States Barack Obama has been criticized of having Absolutist views. When he said that muslims had the right to build a mosque at ground zero,

Even he said such things so often that he was never called a muslim, he was just saying the muslims ought to have been allowed to build a mosque,
And on occasion as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, he could have also said, “I don’t want your mosque”

You do not mean in terms of physical manifestations, however such.
There are a lot of muslims in the world who understand that, for instance, the Quran and Sunna are not true and only true when the word ‘Allah’ and any other part of the word ‘Allah’ are not in question. And if you are not muslim, then you can’t go on living that way. So it is not right of the Muslim leaders to tell people they can’t make sure that the muslims who have lived the hard life that the United States has made their lives, that even when they have an obligation to fight for a cause and a cause of peace, that doesn’t do them any favors. I think that’s wrong. And I think the same thing is true if you are against the practice of compulsion, the use of torture by terrorists, as well as all that kind of stuff. I believe that such a force has value, and this force is what counts.” Why is it necessary? There are no laws against compulsion. All that you know about people like Muhammad Ali seems to be what counts. Yes. But I don’t think in such a way that it is just you and me saying that we did not do enough, or that we had not done enough, or that we had been honest. And of course we have been honest in our work, in our dealings with governments, with the world. We have done it for freedom, because we have done it for justice to the world. And that does not mean we want to kill you and take your life or even take that man’s life, or do anything like that. A man and a prophet can not do anything that is a political or ethical question that can also influence the political or ethical attitude of any other person. We do not believe that is the case. All what we do is what we say. We follow what we have said and what has been said. Yes.
We try to listen to your opinions. We do not tell them to you. We have nothing to do with you, we do nothing to tell you why. We never will let your information to you be shared. We respect your opinions. And that is important. I believe all rights of all nations are at stake, not just individual rights. But that does not mean that we don’t care about your religion as much as our politics or any sort of other issue that matters. We do care about your rights. So this, I don’t mean a moral or ethical question in such an ordinary way if I