Gandhi was more violent than Hitler!!! Surprised?? Well someone thinks that way...
In the month of January I read an item in newspaper. There was something unusually interesting about it. Although, you may find it a raw analysis, lacking a good presentation. I still want to share it with you. Read on.
There was an interview published in TOI on 10th January 2010 of Siavoj Zizek, an American philosopher who was visiting India for the first time. I had never heard about him before. TOI interviewer Shobhana Saxena had introduced him as an unusual philosopher with unfashionably left-wing views. This man thinks that everyone supports violenence. When the interviewer asked him what is his stand on political violence, he answered like this: “In an abstract sense, I am opposed to violence. But nobody is actually against violence. Look at Buddhist. They say you shouldn’t kill, but then they have all the exceptions. During the 40s, one of the great Zen philosophers was writing articles not only justifying Japanese invasion of China but also giving advice on how Buddhist enlightenment allows you to kill without guilt.” When asked that he was also critical about Gandhi; why did he call him violent, he answered, “It’s crucial to see violence which is done repeatedly to keep the things the way they are. In that sense, Gandhi was more violent than Hitler. Though Gandhi didn’t support killing, his actions helped the British imperialist to stay in India longer. This is something Hitler never wanted. Gandhi didn’t do anything to stop the way British Empire functioned here. For me, there is a problem.”
My aim here is not to highlight the never ending debate of “means or ends”. I don’t have slightest intention to either invalidate Zizek’s view point or the opposite.
I was surprised; I was surprised to know that someone thinks so strangely. These are radical thoughts. However, later I thought that even Gandhi’s way of non violent fight was also very radical for the world. Gandhi and Zizek are the two extremes. One had a quest to find the holistic truth the other believes what he sees. Both were born in the same world without any prenatal understanding of anything.
If one analyzes, he will find that one extreme thought gives rise to its other end. Non-violence is there because violence is there. It was English rule that gave birth to a Gandhi. There was a Gandhi and there was a Bose. There are Gandhians in the society therefore, there has to be a Zizek. I think that is the reason for the existence of Maoists and Terror groups. You can think of many other extreme views existing about several other things.
Extremist thinking is important as its gives way to many middle thinkers who analyzes both the ends critically. But, when I say this it doesn’t mean that I support the activities of Maoists or Terrorists. The problem that lies with them is inability to express. Gandhi believed in practicing what he is preaching. He himself practiced non-violence. Imagine if he as an individual had continued doing that without telling anyone. His thoughts would never have had become public. We would not have got a leader like him; people would not have had followed him. It is very important that extremists to express. Today, we don’t understand the reason behind the terrorist activities because they don’t express. They don’t put there demands in front of anyone, what do they want from the world. When radical thoughts remain unexpressed they either get fade away or they give rise to turbulence.
Reference:
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQS8yMDEwLzAxLzEwI0FyMDE0MDA=&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom
