Philosophies Of Non-violent Resistance
Introduction
Then general intention of non-violent persistence is to maintain peace and harmony in the entire country. It is characterized by the aspect of remaining harmless to oneself and also to the rest of the population. The philosophy of non-violent resistance may come with the belief that it is not necessary to hurt people or animals for one to achieve a particular outcome. This feature makes it more outstanding from others since it does embrace the importance of life, peace and order. The main principles of non-violent resistance include; seeking to conquer friendship as well as understanding, it’s a way used by courageous individuals, the main objective is defeating injustices and not people, and lastly, it upholds that people learn from suffering and get transformed. Hence, in this philosophy paper, we are going to compare and contrast the non-violent resistance philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi and Henry David, their similarities and discuss how they are important in today’s life.
Existing differences between the Mahatma Gandhi’s and Henry David non-violent resistance philosophies
Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent resistance aimed at restraining from the British rule in India (Sean), which took place in the year 1920 and extended to February 1922. The protestors failed to purchase goods from the British people but opted to source different goods from local handicrafts as well as other liquor shops. On the contrary, Henry David non-violent resistance originates where he is required to pay taxes of six years after venturing in the taxi business, but he resists. He faced injustice where he is arrested and convicted in jail for his resistant. He later revised an article hit condemning the civil government for such injustices.
According to Mahatma Gandhi, there is a need for avoiding physical violence as it brings no good other than loss of life and destruction of valuable properties. This is the most probable reason to why He opted to lead the entire population on the non-violent British resistance, which only involved boycotting the usage of British services and commodities. They only relied on what they were able to produce locally. This move led to the deterioration of the British trading activities; hence they ended up quitting. Conversely, Henry David formulated some manual script which he used to condemn the injustices that he faced under the American civil government. Through the articles that Henry wrote, we see him overseeing some instances where he might cause death or be killed. He, therefore, strongly condemned slavery and injustices as nothing good would result from any physical violence.
Gandhi led the protesting move by undertaking the ahimsa, which is a religious movement that means “no harm is done”. This principle is most common in the religion of Jainism, Hinduism and also Buddhist. About Mahatma Gandhi, the ahimsa principle did act as a tool of leading a mass action in restraining from British rule. On the other hand, Henry David never relied on any religious aspect while inciting people to resist injustices practices. Henry David only used his inspiring essays and articles to educate and inform the entire population on the importance of holding up on non-violent resistance movement, with the aiming of making the civil government right. This way, both slavery and injustices would come to an end in America.
Through the “satyagraha” phenomenon, which literally meant the ‘truth force’, Mr Gadhi aimed at converting the opponent. This would be effectively achieved through winning his mind and heart as well as persuading such individuals to view things in a particular point of view. This method does effectively aid in bringing two disagreeing party together and reason as one person. On the contrary, Henry David was never determined on winning the mind of the subject. Henry’s main objective was to educate individuals on their rights (Stanley and Giro) and persuade them to fight against the injustice that existed in the civil government.
Mahatma Gandhi has a strong feeling that weak individuals should not use satyagraha as a weapon. This is simply because one is supposed to stay come and optimistic under every circumstance. No distraction should hinder such a strong individual from pursuing the truth and achieving the set goal (Christina), even under extreme pressure. On the contrary, Henry David did not speculate on who should participate in the non-violent resistance movement. He concentrated on pursuing the general population on rising and condemning the evil deeds that the civil government was doing to the patriotic citizens.
According to Mahatma Gandhi, non-violent resistance is not for the set of physically weak individuals. Individuals who are afraid of physical war, but it is a method used for the brave individuals’ who are determined in achieving their main objective without going back. Conversely, Henry David non-violent movement did not discriminate against the weak from the strongest. His motive was one, to persuade the entire population on restraining from the rotten civil government. Both the weak and the strongest would participate in this movement to bring justice back.
The similarities between Mahatma Gandhi’s and Henry David Thoreau non-violent philosophies
In both non-violent philosophies, the aspect of shunning from the use of physical war while protesting is portrayed. They both share the idea that physical war would only result to more destruction, loss of innocent lives and deteriorating economic conditions (Paramjit and O’Donnell), people would, in turn, strive to exist due to hard economic conditions.
In both the Gadhi’s and Henry’s non-violent resistance movement, the aspect of influencing the subject is portrayed. Gandhi leads the entire population on neglecting purchase of British goods which would, in turn, lead to the fall of their trading activities. Similarly, Henry writes articles that clearly portray how evil is the civil government after his arrest. This, in turn, incites people on participating in the non-violent resistance to make the government right.
In both cases, the non-violent resistance movement led to the creation of friendship hence promoting peace and unity. Under Gandhi’s lead, we see people coming together and promoting their local industries by purchasing their products. Similarly, under Henry’s movement, we see the entire population setting aside their differences and works together to protest against the evil civil government. Thereafter the king joins the movement and decides to make everything right.
In both instances, the idea of maintaining peace and unity while protesting is portrayed. Both, Gandhi and Henry, embraced maintaining and promoting peace in the country. They, therefore, use the non-violent resistance aspect as the most suitable way of achieving their objectives.
Both Gandhi and Henry are determined leaders. They share the common feature of not giving up. They fight for their rightful share without being distracted by any prevailing hard condition. Later on, we see each of them succeeding and respectively, achieving their objectives.
Under both the non-violent resistance movement, each led by their respective leader, had an objective of fighting injustice practices. Gadhi led individuals in restraining from the injustices that resulted from the British in India. In contrast, Henry led protestors to resist the injustices that were caused by the civil government in America.
Under both occurrences, there is sharing of the idea that people usually learn from their suffering and getting transformed. Considering the non-violent resistant movement that was led by Gadhi, the individuals had really suffered in the hands of the British, which eventually led to their transformation. Similarly to Henry theories movement, where the citizens greatly suffered in the hands of the evil government before getting transformed and seeking for justice by fighting the injustice that existed.
The most suitable version between Mahatma Gadhi and Henry David non-violent resistance movements
In my own opinion, I would recommend the use of both the philosophies in fighting the existing injustices. Both, Gandhi and Henry, shared the same characteristic of promoting peace and harmony in their respective countries despite the many problems that existed. They both actively attracted and influenced the entire population in a manner that never resulted in physical protest that would lead to the destruction of properties and even loss of lives. Gadhi led protestors from restraining from the British rule which enslaved them in their own country. They effectively achieved this objective by working together and refraining from the usage of British commodities but instead promoted their local products. The same motive applied under Henry’s non-violent movement, where he incited the public through his written manual scripts. The main theme of the scripts which included essays and articles, articulated on the importance of fighting the existing injustices in the civil government that is leading to the mass suffering of the individuals in the whole country. Henry’s motive results from his arrest due to failure of paying the taxes as the authorities require him’. The essence of courageous is portrayed both in Gandhi’s and Henry’s non-violent resistance philosophies. This aspect has proven how courageous both the leaders were. This a significant requirement that every leader should pose to be successful in all his undertakings. It is through the courage that both leaders possessed that enable them to fight strongly against the prevailing resistance without giving up. Later on, we learn that they are both successful in achieving their various objectives which is a source of joy to the entire community as a whole. Therefore, both versions of Gandhi’s and Henry’s non-violent resistance are equally important, and every leader should emulate them throughout his leadership term. This would effectively promote friendship, unity, peace and harmony in the country, and there would be no injustices that would be witnessed.
Whether either philosophy could be useful in today’s’ society
Both Gandhi’s and Henry’s non-violent philosophies would be equally successfully used in today’s’ society. It is through them that we learn the most applicable and efficient way of presenting our woes to the government or the related subject. We see Gadhi leading his protesters to refrain from making purchases from the British government that had enslaved them in their own country. The protestors embraced on promoting their local markets other than those of the British (Robert), hence leading to their failure. The same concept can be applied in today’s’ society, where the government should emphasize mainly on the purchase of local commodities to develop the local markets. This would, in turn, lead to improved living standards of the citizens and eventually growth in the economic sector, which is very healthy for a country as a whole. Revenue from sales and taxes would increase, and thus the stability of the country both economically and financially. Initiation of development projects would also be promoted hence mass growth of the country.
Through both the non-violent resistance, we get to understand the importance of maintaining peace in the country, despite the existence of injustices. Peace is an essential factor in the country (Richard and Popper), that should be embraced at all costs. A country that does not have peace it is characterized by factors such as hard economic times due to the low level of business activities. The adverse conditions may extend to loss of lives of citizens due to hunger or rather starvation. People should shun from physical protesting since it will lead to loss of lives and destruction of properties, a move that can be avoided. A country that is characterized by war is a no go zone for the tourists who heavily contribute to the government’s revenue through their frequent visits in the country. The economic conditions also tend to deteriorate in a country that stability is questionable. Hence, individuals should seek justice in an honourable manner such as holding non-violent resistance which will not distract the existing peace and stability in the country.
Through Henry’s non-violent resistance movement, we get to learn how we can effectively use written scripts in inciting or rather informing each other on various matters that are affecting our country. Henry relied on essays and manual scripts to inform and influence the general public (Chaytor), with the motive of fighting the injustice that existed in the civil government. He can effectively initiate his motive of making right the civil government without disruption of peace that existed in that country. This is an important moral lesson that every leader should learn and implement in today’s life. The leaders should make use of various social platforms to lead and influence other individuals in joining them to fight and refrain from injustice acts without causing disruption of peace in the country. Peaceful demonstrations through non-violent resistance should be the only way to go.
The aspect of unity has been portrayed in both non-violent resistance cases. Under Gandhi’s case study, we can see individuals working together as a team to fight the injustice that is resulting from the British. Also, in Henry’s case study, we can see people coming together to resist the injustices that are caused by the civil government. Through these two case studies, we learn that unity is an important tool when it comes to fighting injustices. In today time, people ought to effectively embrace the element of unity to be successful in fighting cases of injustices. Through unity, people will be in a position to achieve great things as well as ensure there is peace in the country, which is a crucial factor for economic development.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Gandhi’s and Henry’s non-violent resistances case studies are critical in understanding the most effective manner of fighting injustices. Under both cases, the aspect of promoting peace and unity has been portrayed. The two philosophies have further demonstrated how non-violent resistance aims at strengthening the friendship but not creating enmity between two conflicting parties. The idea that the non-violent resistance fights against evil deeds but not against the individuals is clearly portrayed. In both case studies, fighting against injustice deeds is the main theme, where Gadhi leads against British rule, and Henry leads against the civil government. Some resulting differences from the above case studies are that Gadhi mobilized people to shun from buying British commodities but rather promote the local markets. On the other hand, Henry used manual scripts to criticize the injustices that existed in the civil government. His arrest triggers this move after failing to pay the taxes. Another resulting difference is that Gadhi used religion to aid in influencing people to join him. At the same time, Henry never relied on religion for the influence of the general public at any point. The two case studies have a moral lesson that should be applied in today’s society which is promoting peace and unity. We learn that under all circumstances peace and unity should be the major key factor that should be observed.
.
Work cited
Aronowitz, Stanley, and Henry A. Giroux. Education under siege: The conservative, liberal and radical debate over schooling. Routledge, 2003.
Chaytor, Henry John. From script to print: an introduction to medieval literature. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Jones, Richard R., and Roger Popper. “Characteristics of Peace Corps host countries and the behaviour of volunteers.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 3.3 (1972): 233-245.
Joshi, Paramjit T., and Deborah A. O’Donnell. “Consequences of child exposure to war and terrorism.” Clinical child and family psychology review 6.4 (2003): 275-292.
Saunders, Robert A. “Buying into Brand Borat: Kazakhstan’s cautious embrace of its unwanted “son”.” Slavic Review 67.1 (2008): 63-80.
Shalley, Christina E. “Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity.” Academy of Management Journal 38.2 (1995): 483-503.
The scammer, Sean. Gandhi in the West: The Mahatma and the rise of radical protest. Cambridge University Press, 2011.