Live-Wire
"I would rather like Hitler than Gandhi" ; "If Gandhi was the apostle of peace, why didn't he win a Nobel Peace prize" ( Sui Ki won one doing similar things in another country ???)
Ill talk about the above comment (sent by Ashish), in two lights one being affection and other being our desire, let me choose a common platform to form a analogy. Ill choose " morality " for that we must understand what do we mean by "morality" and its implications on the world surrounding us.
Is our morality a mere affection, an affection caused by our society and family.. and which makes us form "pseudo-us". If thats the case our behavious is affected and an affected behaviour is unwarranted.
This affection guides our beliefs, our actions and our self. It might lead to us becoming "Hitler" or "Gandhi" but again, they were not absolute they were also affected individuals (again an assumption but a reasonable one) .
If the need to choose "Hitler" over "Gandhi" is indeed our desire then this desire is our choice and in no way be attributed to any other entity. ( we might differ on this, anyways our desires can also be affected, but for now lets not worry about that)
So how do we look ourselves and how can we we find a rationale in others' behaviour and our expectations from them. Be it Hitler, be it Gandhi every one is moral/amoral in his/her affected self.
The idea here is to understand if our morality should be governed by society or it should stem from our urge, an urge or desire to respect humanity. As Manish loves to put it as " All men may not be equal, But they are equally men".
I leave you with many open ended questions here ... and expect some insights on the same.
posted by Mudit @ 2:53 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ooops... I just did an "Itty" on the blog ...( I was only trying to correct one spelling)
Neways,
'I'd (rather) worship Hitler, not Gandhi'
Well, Mudit gave an interesting turn to the issue. What I was really hoping to discuss was an article which was recently published in TOI. (http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?msid=874907)
Saying that, it doesn’t mean that I give any credit to TOI for highlighting this issue, nor will I give any personal recognition to the all India gossip journal, TOI. But it still jars in the ear. As usual, TOI says nothing. It doesn’t tell us why (or how) the young India has forgotten about Gandhi? Or why did this person compared Hitler to Gandhi, and found Hitler better? Or even why should we consider otherwise?
Why should I like Gandhi? Just because 50 years ago a bunch of politically motivated people gave him the title of “the father of Indian nation”, or because he gave us a slow and steady non-violent freedom movement, saying what Indians wanted to hear .. "..don’t need to work hard or shed your blood, Freedom will come one day !!" (because it will become more expensive for British to rule you than what they will get from you).
Did Gandhi gave India what it is today? What could have happened if Gandhi wasn’t there? (I’m pretty sure India would have been a free country any which way).
The more I think about Gandhi, I realise that; apart from being called as (one of) the greatest HR mover of the past century (who convinced the country that his path for freedom struggle is better than the revolutionaries, and still, couldn’t keep congress united, let alone India); he stood for peace or “shanti”. He is believed to have given 600 million people a nation through non-voilent struggle, but still, couldn’t win a Nobel peace prize. Aung San Suu Kyi got one "for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights", without even winning a war. (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1991/index.html)
Funny isn’it .
I need some answers this time ...
Guys, this is democracy, you have freedom of speech. But "Political Correctness" so to say should also be taken care of. As this is a public blog not a private one.
As ashish pointed out, I would soon remove introduction of SKS, cause that was also "Politically Incorrect". Might have consequences.
Cheers..
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
:-)
popcorns are ready, lights are switched off, room is filled with a blue hue of the moniter.... hands carefully on the mouse; my heart might just skip a beat..
ps: manish's exams are getting over today. guys watch out..
hi!
my first post on the blog. i'll be signing as axay..will be very irregular and well, rest you guys find out...
hitler, was god! his mom's one mistake wasnt enough. there was an oppurtunity. somewhere else, it was all there for the taking. the crowd just pushed hitler to the corner where it lay..
consider this, i would actually worship hitler more than gandhi. and for the fact, i did tell this to all those who would hear me. gandhi's victory was a fluke (as the blog has heard before from ashish et al.) and hitler's defeat ....
but that aside, why i would choose him, because he moved in to do for the masses what the masses failed to do unto them. What he did was not right, but everyone was waiting for it. he killed millions. and that certainly was not what i'd "claim" to like. but deep down, the possibility was always there. hitler was a mere means of natures forces taking shape. ...
and gandhi.. he did what he did. then waited for others to react. there were hundreds of ppl all around.. gandhi's own following wasnt that large probably.. par anhon mein kana raja hota hain.. all these ppl saw that there were different means to get to the goal. and ganshi's success was due to his lucky presence at some flarepoints.. those removed, his career might be a very different thing. then again, credit is due to him full time for what he actually did do...!!
for now, i still choose hitler, possibly because i prefer the swastik too.. or because i too find non-violence.. a lil too weak and suceptible ..
cheers.. !!
axay
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Let me light my lamp", says the star, "And never debate if it will help to remove the darkness"
- Rabindranath Tagore
Well... Clearly, I’m not a very good debater like Mudit. I rarely use the words “premise, argument or conclusion” ... I never try to summarise my arguments in a 1000 word essays ... I would rather think about the issue, do a bit of research, find some insights, ask myself (and others) a lot of questions ... the questions in which, arguably, the essence of the debate lies ... And Finally, unlike what a polished debator would do, I can never just argue and move on to the next debate, next arena, and new competition. I persist with them ....
If I was a good debator, I would deal with the issue in abstraction right from the beginning. But since I’m not, I try to attach the issue to reality, ask a few practical questions, and, based on the answers, form the bias of my learnings. I would abstract only when I have been with the issue long enough to be able to put forward a just and practically relevant theory.
Obviously I never won a debate....
Neways, I did a bit of research on the last topic off my “personal time” (a concept hardwired in every Consultant and the founding stone to the principle “Time is Money”)... Its a very good read....
Here is where Hitler and Gandhi come from ...
In the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s the people of northern Europe, southern Africa and Asia were in despair. They had no leaders. They were defenseless. India had been taken over by the British Empire and now the 600 million Indians were under the rule of the 100 thousand British soldiers there. In Germany there were six different political groups; nobody knew what to do. These countries were in shock, they need a change, but more importantly, they needed a leader. Mohandas K. Gandhi was a law student, born and raised in India, but schooled in England. Early on in his career he returned to his birthplace and attempted to practice law there, but he was very unsuccessful. A few years later he moved to South Africa, and again attempted to set up a law practice there. But South Africa was now in British control and the Indian lawyer was subjected to a lot of racial prejudice. Almost immediately he was abused because of his heritage and his law practice went down the drain. Gandhi began to notice the awful discriminations that all Indians suffered from. In 1894 he began a movement that would shape the way that Indians are viewed even today. He began to take charge; he began to lead his people. Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau, Austria in 1889, about the time that Gandhi was realizing his mission in life. Like Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hitler was very smart as a child. Being the son of a public servant, he was able to attend the best schools and was able to partake in any extra-curricular activities he desired. All his father wanted was for his son to follow in his footsteps and attain the rank of public servant or even better, but the boy was very stubborn and when his father refused to let him chase a career as an artist, he decided to stop doing his work, and his grades began to fall drastically. When his father died he quit school and for the next few years lived off his family’s money. He did nothing but read books, draw pictures and daydream all day long. When he was 18 (in 1907) he moved to Vienna, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and tried to get into an art school there. But unfortunately for the world, he failed his entrance exams, twice. His mother died a few years later and he inherited quite a bit of money, so for the next part of his life he lived quite comfortably in Vienna as an artist. Around this time Hitler became very interested in politics. He joined the military and became a Social Democrat. He developed a huge hatred for Jews and Slavs and became an extreme nationalist. He recognized that no form of government could ever last as long as the people of all different nationalities were treated equally. When the war broke out in 1914, Hitler immediately volunteered. He was accepted and served as a messenger. But Hitler was too smart to stay as merely a messenger. His knowledge of war and his extreme military tactics helped him to achieve the rank of corporal. After Germany’s defeat in World War I, the country went into a state of turmoil. When Hitler recovered from the shock of having lost the war, he joined a small political group called the German Workers Party. He quickly gained rank and changed the name of the political group to the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. The NSGWP was soon to take over the title of Nazis. In May of 1929, the NSGWP had only about 3% of the Germans following them, but by the time Hitler took over in 1933, around 35% of Germany were backing the Nazis. In 5 years Hitler had taken over the NSGWP and Germany. Hitler rose because Germany needed a leader, and that was exactly was he offered them. Hitler and Gandhi both gained the respect of their people in very short periods of time. They both even used some of the same techniques. Both Hitler and Gandhi knew that writing and having his thoughts and ideas published was very important, but the only way to really get the peoples attention was to go out and speak to them. …the people can be moved only by the power of speech. They both used speech as a weapon and they used it well. At one point in his life, Hitler even refers to the, magic[al] power of the spoken word… Propaganda was also very important to both of these leaders. Hitler introduced the swastika and his infamous, Heil, Hitler salute, while Gandhi used his everlasting hunger strikes to stir the nation. Both of these leaders gave their countries what they needed, a person to tell them what to do, a figure of power, a leader. While Hitler and Gandhi both used some similar techniques to gain their power, once in control, they were very different men. Hitler abused his powers, while Gandhi wanted nothing more than to free his people. It is not because I value life low… but Gandhi at any point of his reign would have been willing to give his life for the freedom and safety of his people. Hitler's ego, greed, and self-centeredness caused him to abuse his great deal of power. He took advantage of what he had, which was a great many people who worshipped and followed his every move. After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles didn’t allow the Germans much breathing room when it came to the military, but by the 1940s, the Germans were not being watched as closely and Hitler was little by little allowed to rebuild his army. At this time he instigated the Hitler Youth Program which was a compulsory program for all youth of Germany which was run by the schools and government powers. Every youth over the age of thirteen was forced to join. He introduced his idea of Blitzkreig which was a five-step process to take over the world. Within a few years he had most of Europe and some of Asia under his control. His use of brute, naked force is what gave Germany the edge they needed to begin on the road to world domination. Hitler cared so little for his people that he would sacrifice thousands of them to get what he wanted. He had power, and he abused it as much as he could. Thus began Hitler's biggest attempt at abusing his power. Thus began the Holocaust. Gandhi had a diametrically opposite approach to attaining his goals. First, he did not believe in using violence to get what he wanted. He felt that Suffering in one’s own person is … the essence of non-violence and is the chosen substitute for violence to others. As Gandhi said on page 200, I have no weapon but non-violence. Gandhi felt that the only way to defeat a powerful force that was to sit back and use any non-violent method possible. If someone died, it was just as big a blow to the opposition as it was to you. But Gandhi, like Hitler was also very stubborn. His stubbornness, was another weapon he used to get what he wanted. When his non-violent marches all of the sudden turned into a brutal murder of 8 British military officers, Gandhi was very upset. The Indians had become powerful and were starting to take over and eliminate their British superiors. Gandhi thought this to be worse than what they had before and he refused to eat or drink until all the killings has stopped and the Indians once again began to march and use passive resistance to gain their independence (Gandhi often referred to this as Swaraj or self-rule). By this time, Gandhi was so powerful that all the killings stopped, just to save his life. As independence approached and Hindus and Muslims continued to fight and kill each other, Gandhi once again put his belief of non-violence into play. He went on his own to a Muslim-majority area of Bengal, placing himself as a hostage for the safety of Muslims living among Hindus in western Bengal. Once again, within days, the fighting stopped and Gandhi’s stubbornness had saved the day. Hitler and Gandhi both had many devices set up to help them not only gain power, but once in power, to keep their power. Hitler chose to scare the masses into following him, while Gandhi chose the less violent, but harder way to go, using only his two most lethal non-violent methods; love and truth. Gandhi loved everyone and everyone was forgiven. Both of these leaders accomplished their goals as well. Hitler accomplished not only killing 6 million Jews, but he also tore apart Europe and especially Germany. And while Hitler was out running his concentration camps, Gandhi fulfilled his dream of having a separate, free India. He single-handedly freed 600 million Indians, Muslims, and Hindus from British control. When we look back on these two men, Gandhi will forever be known as one of the greatest men who ever lived, while Hitler is what people think the devil would be like. Both of these men had great amounts of power, but each used it differently; one for good, one for evil.
The new post by Ashish does not seem to correlate with his earlier belief. I am confused! Do you still prefer hitler or have changed your stance?
About the analysis given, I can only say it's made to suit one's bias. It fails to present naked facts.
My view: I would really appreciate Hitler as a person (rather as a leader, motivator and influencer; given the facts presented), but fail to admire him for all that he had done (killing of 15 million jews cant justify any leader). Gandhi on the other hand was a mass mover (for whatever reason) and theryby an exceptinal leader, I can admire him both as a person (for his qualities, esp leadership) and also for the after-effects( would be incorrect to attribute india's freedom to Gandhi alone) of his struggle.
Gandhi not getting a Nobel prize and reasons thereof are subject matters of dissertation. It might be influenced by so many social and political factors, and it would be wrong to judge anyone on this basis of the prize.
I don’t think I took a stance on Hitler at any moment. I never said I liked (or revered) him or if I hated him. As I said, I was only referring to the TOI article. And, if you read the article, even they don’t care what you think of Hitler or if you really want to worship him. The given statement ('I'd worship Hitler, not Gandhi'), can be traced back to a certain mass communication student, Vishal Desai, in Ahmedabad (in which he shows why he will make a very good media agent for TOI or Aaj Tak), and I can’t accept the moral rights for it. What I really questioned (and if that qualifies for a stance, than so be it) was, why should I revere Gandhi? What is his relevance to the current generation? Gandhi will forever be known as one of the greatest men who ever lived, but was he really too great (perfect) to be questioned at all? Shouldn’t we move forward and give more people some due reverence. If at all the issue be religious ‘I would rather worship Jack Welsh than M.K. Gandhi’, and that’s a stance.
I agree with Mudit, that, “an analysis is made to suit one's bias. It fails to present naked facts”. But I guess it will not be an analysis if it is not based on facts. When I read the above article (which I guess stated a lot of facts and some views), I thought it supported Mudit’s abstraction on the issue. When Mudit read it he probably felt otherwise. Can’t help it …..
PS. Nobel Prize is indeed just a useless rhetoric argument, it dosen’t make Ms. Kyi a bigger patron of peace, but, it is a fact !!
Post a Comment
<< Home