Three page reflection on Ghandi the movie

The Movie Gandhi was very interesting. The story of his non-violence movement was incredibly well done. From South Africa to his death, it was filled with things that provoke thought. Though it does make him superhuman by the way every word from his mouth was profound, it does present his ideals in a way that contrasts against those so ready to go to violence.

I am not a pacifist, and in fact I believe it the duty of every man to protect the weak. It is the duty of every man to protect his family and sacrifice himself for their sake. This movie however, makes me wonder when I would be willing to use non-violence against an aggressor. Would it be only against an enemy as civilized as the British? Only against an enemy with a free press? Or are there other limits that I’ve not considered or that I’d be willing to go beyond. It is at first very clear to me that I would kill any many that is pursuing the death of my family. For my own life, however, it is not immediately evident what I would do. Initially, I would reserve the right to proportionality. Though I also see that I could be convinced that my life could be sacrificed for something greater, and perhaps a nonviolent movement where the aggressors are acting to kill/beat only me and compatriots and not my family (unless they are compatriots) is a case where I’d participate.

I find his method fascinating. But I also wonder how unique it is to India. Or must something completely different occur in other cultures/histories? In the United States, MLK was not seeking an independent nation, but was suing for equality. This is a victory for nonviolence, but its it the same victory as India? I tend to think not. India was a revolution against a civil occupier, the civil rights movement was a demand for equal rights from a government considered their own. They seem very similar, but I still see critical differences, the demand for native rule (because of civil rights and severe poverty) and the demand for equality in the government differ in an overthrow of sorts and a working in the system. Though I think both are appropriate actions, both were contingent on the situation, and I think they were both only possible because of the democratic civil society they both developed in.

In a situation such as China I think a nonviolent movement could be victorious if given a specific goal, and perhaps democracy is such a goal that could be achieved, but the details of the movement must come from the people and be inspired by their history, common culture, and their national strengths. In situations such as Sudan, Ruanda and other developing African nations, I have great doubt that a nonviolent movement could ever be successful. Factions seem too split, too aggressive, and seem to devalue their opponents as not human.

The commonness of Humanity seems a key to a successful civil nonviolent movement. In civil countries that consider citizens human (e.g., India, USA, and China) a civil movement could occur fruitfully. But in others where factions do not consider opponents human, a nonviolent movement can not readily make an impact on the psyche of the opponent. In those countries, a program of humanizing the opponents must occur first, then, once humanized, perhaps in a few situations non-violence could work. Though I still would suspect a civil society that follows the rule of law must be in place for nonviolence to really impact the national psyche.

I think testimony to this is the numerous pogroms throughout history. If nonviolence really worked all the time, would not the murder of innocent women and children turn a country against itself?

And if the response to this point is that they were not publicized then I would claim that in itself is the point. I claim that they were not publicized for two reasons, because of a call by the population in support of the pogrom or because of a government censorship program. In the first case, advertising would not work, and in the second, advertising can only occur in a limited and covert way. In both cases active defense of human life must occur, specifically for those who do not choose martyrdom. If a man chooses martyrdom for himself but his family does not (or the weak do not), then he is truly not living as Christ did for his Church. Christ laid his life down for his Bride, NOT for himself. In this case a man would be selfish, self-centered and unworthy of any praise, for he has failed in his role as husband, as male, and as the image of Christ. Though once a man has been denied means for retaliation, he must still seek to lay his life down for his family (and the weak) by any means possible, which very likely would be limited to nonviolence.

The movie Gandhi was very thought provoking about the nature and use of non-violence. And I think I now have a greater appreciation for the power, uses, and methods of nonviolence. Though I still remain not a pacifist, I can see clear examples where civil disobedience and nonviolence can be effective methods for change.