Essay About Mohandas K. Gandhi And Practice Of War

Gandhian Pacifism
Essay Preview: Gandhian Pacifism
Report this essay
Gandhian Pacifism
Pacifism is opposition to the practice of war. Many pacifists have a commitment
to non-violence in general in society, making a commitment to achieving ones goals only through
actively non-violent resistance or non-aggressive means. Among these pacifists, there may also be
differing views as to what constitutes violence.
There are several different varieties of pacifism including those who believe killing is
always wrong, those who believe that any kind of violence is wrong, those who argue that
personal violence is always wrong but political violence is sometimes right, and those who justify
some person violence but reject war as always wrong. Mohandas K. Gandhi believed in the
doctrine of Ahimsa, which stands for non-killing. He believes no form of violence is acceptable.
A more peaceful way of life is dreamed about by everyone but it seems almost impossible to
achieve. In his essay, Gandhi says that to reach this level which he considered bringing offense to
no other person, keeping pure thoughts especially with your enemies, and not resenting your
friends or enemies actions, you must continue this practice throughout your life, you cannot
simply achieve it in one day. Gandhi believed in not only spreading this as a practice but lives his
life based on this doctrine. Non-violence looks good on paper, and seems like it would function
well, there would be less blood in our world, and instead more conversations, more peace
between people and nations but would this really hold up completely today?
In the most recent war Afghanistan what would have happened if the president had
decided to practice pacifism and do nothing in return based on our beliefs that war is always
wrong? Was this even an option for our country? Our president as our leader decided to act
accordingly in response to the events going on to protect our nation. Many people think he made
a good decision. What if he was a pacifist? He would not have handled this situation the way
that he did. His beliefs would have, according to Gandhi, been to not act violently and let our
attackers have this burden on their souls. Would this have really worked? Do you think that the
Afghani nation wold have just backed off had we done nothing? There is really no way to tell the
true answer to this but, this would show weakness of out nation to do nothing about the damage
they caused to our country. They may have even decided to continue attacking our country
because we would seem to be weak and an easy target, had we not protected ourselves and taken
a stand.
One writer, Douglas P. Lackey, tries to understand what Gandhi is trying to say about
peace and nonviolence. He states that Gandhi believes “By acting nonviolently, pacifists not only
purify their own souls but also transform the souls of their opponents”(160). This was known as
the “sacredness of life” defense, which basically believed that by sacrificing one life many could be
saved, but Gandhi feels that this still does not save souls. If people are being saved but through
violence then nobody is really saving their souls (160). He believed that the killer would be
perverted by this act, and it would remain on his soul. Lackey examines this in another sense.
“The system of values professed be Gandhi must be kept in mind when considering the frequent
accusations that nonviolence alone does not work”(161). The practice of nonviolence did not
prevent previous wars from occurring. On the other hand, “the soul of the satyagrahi will be
strengthened and purified by nonviolent struggles, and in this purification the Gandhian pacifist
can obtain spiritual victory even in the face of political defeat”(161). So basically speaking we
should let our enemies suffer the ultimate consequence of carrying this burden they brought on
themselves. Would we even consider, today or even before today, giving up all of our freedoms,
rights and privileges to obtain peace with our souls, and let our nations fall to other nations who
dont regard their souls? Based on the facts that none of our leaders have fallen to other nations I
would say that we are not willing to cleanse our souls and let our nation be taken over.
Another issue that Gandhi has to deal with is the “relationship between violence and
coercion”(161). Coercion is” the practice of compelling a person to act by employing threat of
force. Often, it involves the use of actual force in order to make the threat credible, but it is the
threat of further force which brings about the cooperation of the person being
coerced.”(Coercion) Due to the fact that coercion is forcing someone to do something they feel
threatened to do, it also constitutes as an act of violence. Gandhi once used “a fast unto
death”(162) to threaten authorities to back off, which eventually they did for fear his death would
bring