Those in favour would give replies like the the ‘big fish’ has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, hence his reaction to nonviolent menas can only be negative. They would always say that whenever the state fails, private players, in the form of mobs, guerrilla warriors, or armed insurgents have to step in to fill the vacuum.
Marxian philosophy states that the dictatorship of the working class, though installed and maintained by violence, shall yield to the withering away of the State. However, it has been seen time and again that it has not, and these societies, setup with a Marxist ideology have been shaken up and gone through repeated cycles of violence many times since. Most of the times, it is not actually the oppressed, but the resourceful and opportunists who gain from these shakeups.
At the same time, even the nonviolent stream of thought, preached by Gandhi, Martin Lr King and others since has not met much success in whatever attempts it has seen. In our own country, Gandhi’s own followers have been so corrupt, and devious in the use of violence that they really have no legitimate claim on being his followers.
So what is the right wya? And what is ‘rational’?
Rajat Bhatia, 30029
1 comment:
Firstly, I wont accept that Gandhian philosophy has failed. Till today, people take non violent means like going on fast, candle march etc. to get desired results. Whereas, people who have indulged in violent activities like Naxals, LTTE etc. have not been able to get desired results in a way acceptable to majority of people.
Big Fish is 'BIG' because small people have made it big. He needs support of small so that he remains big. So, his reactions to non violent means cannot be always negative.
If somebody is being corrupt, he cannot be a Gandhian follower!
Right way is with each one of us. God has not given us power to create, so we have no right to destroy! Being rational is upto you.....
Post a Comment