Gandhi Answer 1 (B) Answer

Gandhi Answer 1 (B) Answer 2 (B) Answer 3 (B) Identify some event Gandhi describes in his Autobiography where you can claim that on the basis of the evidence Gandhi himself provides, Ahimsa was NOT the only means for the realization of Truth. Based on the readings of the book, Gandhi an Autobiography, the Story of My Experiments with Truth, there is evidence from some of the incidents that took place in his life, that Ahimsa was not the only manner in which he realized the truth.

Sometimes the best teacher can be your internal values. This is what happened when Gandhi's guilt made him understand the Truth about that he ate meat from his parents. Eating meat is a sacrilegious event in Hinduism, but Gandhi was convinced by a Muslim friend of his to eat meat in order to be a stronger rebel.

He was convinced of this, but he also realized that he could not tell his parents that he had started eating meat as they would not understand, and would be hurt by Gandhi's conviction. Therefore Gandhi hid the facts from his parents, and learnt that it was one of the most difficult things to do, and decided to refrain from telling them. It was not the philosophy of non-violence, but hiding the Truth, that made him realize its importance.

This is analogous to the situation where one doesn't know the importance of light until he has been in the dark; Gandhi too learnt the importance of Truth the hard way and not through violence or nonviolence. Another incident that was out of character for Gandhi, and was a situation where he had to use violent means was when he struck a young man, seventeen years of age with a ruler.

Although he says that he regrets it, it was use of himsa against the young chap that Gandhi had to resort to in order to discipline the boy. (Johnson, 2006, p. 179) Although he says that the youngster forgot his corporal punishment, Gandhi became a better teacher as he understood that himsa did not yield any results as the boy didn't seem to have improved at all.

Yet another incident that proves the fact that Gandhi did not learn the Truth only from Ahimsa was the incident where Gandhi was promoting the goodness of sanitation, the women said that they had no change of clothes, and hence could not wash the clothes that they had on. It was incidences such as these, and the interaction with people that made Gandhi realized how they were actually living and made him understand the truth about their conditions. (Johnson, 2006, p.

255) Therefore, Ahimsa is not the only way and there are many more ways in which Truth can be deduced and these include the absence of truth, hiding it as well as learning about it from mere life experiences. Answer 1 (B) Q. How do you think Gandhi would reply to your claim? Gandhi was a firm believer in the importance of Ahimsa as a means of learning the Truth. Therefore, I have claimed in the earlier answer that Ahimsa is not the only way in which people realize the Truth.

However, Gandhi, if he were to enter into discourse with me, would try and convince me that Ahimsa indeed was the only way in which Truth could be learnt.

Firstly, the fact that he was eating meat against his parents' wishes and then his guilt caused him to change his ways is Ahimsa, as he realized that going against his parents' upbringing was himsa (Nietzsche, n.d.) as he realized if they found out that Gandhi had been eating meat it would be violence against them as they would be inconsolable. Therefore it was the thought of having violated his parent's trust that he realized the importance of truth.

Additionally, after he read Henry Salt's, 'A Plea for Vegetarianism' he understood that harming animals was immoral and was convinced of his error, vowing against eating it for life. (Nietzsche, n.d.) For the incident where Gandhi hit the boys in the farm for misconduct, it was his spirit of Ahimsa that led him to curtail his urge to physically abuse them again, after he had hit one of the boys.

If he had not hit the boy, chances are that he would not have realized how wrong using violent means felt. Moreover, when he did strike the boy, he came to understand that violence does not beget any good. It marks deterioration or stagnancy, hence losing its objective in the first place. (Juergensmeyer, 1984) Moreover, Gandhi would have responded by saying that these were the initial phases in his life when he was experimenting with different methods of dealing with situations.

Had he not learnt by his actions, the lesson of Ahimsa would not have been so thoroughly embedded in him as it was after he went through those times in his life. The broader purpose of narrating the incidents in his book was to reflect upon how violence does not enable anything to grow or to flourish. Truth, therefore is learnt through kindness and by showing respect for other people.

Had he not shown respect for his parents or regret for slapping the boy, Gandhi would not have been able to realize the truth about Ahimsa through himsa Answer 2 (a) Q. Drawing both on what Gandhi said and what Gandhi did, (a) Construct the strongest argument that Gandhi's Satyagrahas were "de-ontological" (ends in themselves -- to be done regardless of consequences). Satyagraha was a means to fight for the truth. According to Gandhi's vision non-violence was the only way in which people could solve their problems amicably.

The rationale behind Satyagrahas was that both parties should seek the truth and eliminate any falsehoods from their own and the other party's arguments. This process would have to be a continuous process where, on finding out the truth about each other, both parties had to take a different stance and then go over the process of separating truth from lies and then accept only the true points from the stance and then reach a joint conclusion, and a similar view of elements.

Gandhi's Satyagrahas were de-ontological as he defied all odds and went ahead in the pursuit of truth and harmony, doing them regardless of their consequences. He realized that the true purpose of life was the realization of truth with Ahimsa and the only way that parties could come to a dialogue was sans aggressiveness.

According to Erik Erikson in his book: 'Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence ' (Erikson, 1969) Gandhi's dictum was that means are ends in the making, implying that Satyagraha too was an end in itself as it forced the two parties to think over their stance and revise their view point continuously, making the struggle for truth, truth itself.

The entire process of Satyagraha therefore entails that two parties look for the truth and then regardless of what happens, they eliminate the falsehood and accept only the truth in the argument, and therefore if need be follow a third stance, and keep on doing so until they reached the same conclusion, as truth is one and only one.

The Satyagraha's (Juergensmeyer, 1984) require shifting stance, which is a process for truth, and therefore when the parties agree on the truth, they are using the process as a means which is an end in itself, therefore non-violent routes have to be followed regardless of what the new situation may entail. Gandhi also implies that you also need to know why you should do something right, along with doing it in order to internalize the values being taught to you. (Juergensmeyer, 1984, p.

20) in this regard, then, Satyagraha as the process becomes an end itself as the end does not matter as much as the process of getting there matters. And as truth becomes apparent the stance of both conflicting parties evolves. One example of the Satyagraha protest that Gandhi got involved in was the protest for the rights of the untouchables. In this regards, he went against Dr.

Ambedkar's demand for a separate electorate for the untouchables as he felt that the process would not justify the result and that the protest in itself was a needed process that would raise awareness among the society. In this regards the Satyagrahas were de-ontological. Answer 2 (B) Q. Construct the strongest argument that Gandhi's Satyagrahas were "teleological" (means-to-an-end -- to be modified or abandoned if unsuccessful in attaining their goal).

The Satyagraha requires that the parties change their stance once they find out the truth and incorporate what they have learnt of the Truth in their new stance. It is indicated in the search for truth, that once a party finds the truth in an argument, it is bound to hold on to it and to make sure that they use it no matter what the consequence.

Which is the reason why the Gandhi-Irwin pact materialized, and Gandhi abandoned his civil disobedience movement for a pact with the British Government, and took part in the Round Table Conference. (Juergensmeyer, 1984) According to Gandhi's philosophy, the religious factualist becomes a religious innovator. This is where the facts of religion merge with contemporary concerns. Religion in turn is the codebook for moral conduct, and by introducing the element of fasting in the Satyagraha, Gandhi mixed this religious element with Satyagraha and the Satyagraha then became a search for Truth.

In a similar vein, the Gandhi-Irwin pact was established, where Gandhi agreed to abandon his disobedience movement which was held to protest against the British Government heavily taxing locals living in the coastal areas on producing salt among other injustices which Gandhi felt were unacceptable. This example goes to say that for Gandhi the Satyagrahas had a particular goal, and if it was accomplished, then the movement could be abandoned.

Additionally in 1946 he went to Bengal to declare that unless the riots ended in the area he would fast till death, and when conditions improved the fast ended. In the same pattern, he did not celebrate independence and instead fasted to stop riots, and ended only when the leaders on both sides assured him that conditions would improve. This instances go to say that the movements had a purpose in mind and to this end these protests were carried out. Answer 3 (a) Q.

Drawing on Gandhi's definition of the successful outcome of a Satyagraha campaign make the strongest case that the 1931 Gandhi-Irwin pact illustrated the outcome of a successful Satyagraha campaign. The Gandhi Irwin Pact was signed by Gandhi and the then Viceroy of India in 1931. Gandhi was an influential figure of the time, and had much popularity among the common Indian masses, being known for his search for truth and his adamancy in keeping fasts for several days at an end until the truth was reached.

It came after Gandhi boycotted the Round Table Conferences, and the Indian National Congress refused to participate, where only the Muslim League and the Britishers had entered into talks. However it has to be noted here that the hunger strike came about after the Congress had conducted a civil disobedience movement and the British realized that any pact without the participation of the Congress would be futile, as they were the representatives of the larger Hindu population.

The Gandhi Irwin Pact was conducted as a result of the successful civil disobedience movement that broke carefully selected laws, such as selling salt illegally and selling contraband salt as well as the Khadi movement, where it was man against the machine. That is the reason why the British realized that if it formed any pact with the Muslim League it would not be representative and would not be popular among the majority of people, and for that purpose the presence of Gandhi was an important factor.

The reason why the Gandhi Irwin pact came into being was the Satyagraha as can be illustrated by the fact that the first demand of the pact was the discontinuation of the disobedience movement and the participation of the congress at the Round Table conferences. As a part of the pact, the British agreed to free political prisoners who had not been part of violent activities while Gandhi and the Congress discontinued the Civil Disobedience Movement.

Participation by the Indian National Congress in the Round Table Conference was required and the British agreed on restoring captured property for the Satyagrahis. Given the fact that the once condescending British granted these concessions to the Congress, things started improving and for the subcontinent, their dream of independence seemed to be nearing reality. If the Civil Disobedience Movement had not occurred, and the Congress had accepted the small grants in legal representation, the British would never have realized the power and influence that the Congress and the Hindus exerted.

Therefore it was necessary for the movement to have occurred, to make it evident to the British that the Hindus were a force to reckon with and that no change could be made in India without their consent. The disobedience movement also enabled the British to understand fully the extent to which the congress could go and therefore they returned all the confiscated property as well as allowing people living along the coast to collect and sell salt of their own means.

Therefore it was the result of the disobedience movement allowed the Congress to gain some leeway with the otherwise unbending government. (Sonnleitner, 1985, p. 10) Answer 3 (B) Q. Make the strongest case that the 1931 Gandhi-Irwin pact illustrated an unsuccessful Satyagraha campaign. The 1931 Gandhi Irwin pact was a weak agreement that disregarded many of the demands of the Congress and did not yield any useful results as it stemmed from a Satyagraha campaign that had served to offend the British, who in turn refused to give in more than they had anticipated.

(Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal, n.d.) The Satyagraha or the civil disobedience movement that took place to boycott the British and their laws, culminated in the Gandhi Irwin pact and this in itself is an indication of it being unsuccessful. The disobedience movement was against the law of that time, which was taken as a signal that the locals were amateur politicians as they were resorting to protests rather than dialogue, indicating to the British Government that the locals were not yet ready to govern themselves.

It indicated how when locals themselves were bent upon breaking the law, that they probably could not be trusted to participate in the government. This is the reason why the British only ceded to some of their points, with modifications of their own such as releasing political prisoners who were not accused of violence, whereas Gandhi had demanded that all of them be released.

While all of their property was returned and the ban on Congress was lifted the civil disobedience movement came to signify the illegal measures that the party could resort to, and in that case made it difficult for the Congress to be taken seriously as a political party.

(Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal, n.d.) The reason for why the British did concede some of the points include the reasons that while the Viceroy was disgusted at the ungainly sight of Gandhi, there was pressure on the Labor government to keep things intact in India and to avoid such mass protests in the future.

Therefore the disobedience movement only served to destroy the image of the locals in the eyes of the British so that they were then given only a few points that they had to suffice on, and these were indeed not sufficient. However, if they had behaved rationally, and participated in the Round Table Conference they would have been able to have gained more advantage in political terms.

This advantage would have been in terms of better explaining their position to the government, as well as securing their demands for a more local representation. Additionally, the British would have taken them as stable, mature politicians. Moreover, many of the Congress leaders including Gandhi would not have been jailed at such a crucial time, and could have asked for a better deal instead of freeing political prisoners. Instead, they gained futile favors in negotiations seeking release of prisoners, an event that could have been avoided in the first place.

Answer 4 Q. How would Gandhi respond to the following hypothetical question from the Oakland, California Chief of Police (following the violence accompanying the removal of Anti- Wall-Street protestors from their encampment) "When one begins a non-violent campaign in a city like Oakland, one knows that such a campaign increases the likelihood of violence -- from the police as well as from the protestors.

Knowing this, must not people like you, who initiate nonviolent campaigns, bear some responsibility for any violence the campaign may generate between the Satyagrahis and those confronting the Satyagrahis Gandhi will try and defend his stance on the Satyagraha movement and will indicate that the campaign that is being carried out has a certain purpose and a certain mission. And this mission is the struggle for truth and the struggle to get to that destination is arduous work.

Foremost, a non-violent campaign is just that, a movement without physical harm caused to any party. It is in fact a battle of intellect where each side should try and seek the truth. Even on part of the authorities that the Wall-street protesters are up against, these authorities should not out rightly dismiss them; instead they should see what the protesters are standing up against and search within themselves for answers.

(Sonnleitner, 1985 ) If things are allowed to continue the way they are without any argument or disagreement of any sort, chances are that the society will not progress and things will not evolve, especially in so far as the social order is concerned.

If on the other hand, one party protests non-violently while the other party, taken by surprise reacts in a violent manner, things start getting worse rather than better Therefore both parties should be peaceful and non-violent in order to be able to conduct a dialogue and to be able to agree in peaceful conditions on how the things should be. This brings us to the question of whether the campaigners are seeking violence as they move to the streets and disrupt the normal.