Colonization can be a wonderful broadening of boundaries, or it can be a crippling defeat of society. Both sides can make a factual and persuading argument, but it is up to the audience to decide who is morally and justly correct. With the constant presence of British rule in India, both sides were fighting for attention; the Indians for freedom and the British for the retention of their rule. Siding with the unfairly crippled, I am amazed at the patience, will power, and peacefulness of Mahatma Ghandi.
"We do not want to remain frogs in a well. We are aiming at world federation. It can only come through non-violence. Disarmament is possible only if you use the matchless weapon of non-violence." On August 7th, 1942, these words were heard in Bombay. Ears listened and hearts felt that freedom was finally attainable. But why not fight for it! No, Ghandi said, no. He had learned through studies of other revolutions that non-violence and civil disobedience was the best way to achieve and sustain sovereignty. Now, he just had to convince the people.
Since he knew British and Indian people would be hearing this speech, Ghandi chose words that would inspire some and not offend others. No one wants to be a frog stuck in a well (especially if there isn’t a princess around looking for a kiss). At the same time, though, he is telling the ruling British that physical harm will not occur to them. He is inspiring people into positive action while also telling those that are the ‘enemies’ that their rule is coming to an end in a peaceful way.
Also, his idea of a “world federation” is a major statement of his vision of the impact this individual revolt could have on the rest of the oppressed world. His choice of the word ‘disarmament’ is also very strong and exact. It is a use of logos but mostly pathos, since he knows the power of his influence. It also tells the Indians that they will carry no weapons, but most importantly it lets the British know two things: 1. The Indian people will not attack with arms but with logic and unionization, and, 2. The British themselves are going to be disarmed. Again, their reign will be through.
Ghandi completely believed in the truth that actions speak louder than words. Their ‘matchless weapons’ are, indeed, inferior to bullets, because with every bullet the British fire, the more their presence in India will be seen by the international world as not needed and, more so, morally unjust and inhumane. Change was needed. Change was happening. The frogs were about to spring free as the well fell away.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420807a.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The biggest problem with colonization is finding a balance in which natives of the land being colonized feel as though they play an important role in the governing of their country. Throughout history, people have been fighting over land. Land is what people can live off of and where they leave their marks. It is invaluable. For a country to colonize another, they are inviting themselves to walk all over someone else's land. Often, people begin to feel as though they are being manipulated into doing (or not being able to do) things that the colonizers want (or don't want). From my recent experience in Senegal, many people from the older generation feel hostile towards the French. They felt that the French came to their country and colonized it with intentions of building it up but left it in ruins. The city I lived in, Saint-Louis (Ndar is the Wolof name for it), has many buildings that are in ruins: the walls have fallen down and only staircases and toilets are remaining. Now, there isn't enough money in the country to clean up these messes and the half empty lots are now filled with the neighborhood trash. What’s more, Ndar was the colonial capital of Senegal but the French left the city in ruins.
What Ghandi said about non-violence is ideal but in certain situations it is unrealistic. Without some sort of pressure put on the colonizing country, a country could be left in ruins much as Ndar is. I don't personally believe in violence but in certain situations it is just the thing to get governments to take care of unfinished business and keep the frog out of the well. Populations have to be able to stand up for themselves and when they're merely poor, developing countries, they need to make some sort of impact. Sometimes some peaceful talk just isn't enough.
Peace is a means through which people can come to diplomatic agreement when the natives feel they’ve been treated fairly and have substantial influence in governmental responsibilities. If they feel they’ve been walked on and mislead about problems that should have been resolved by colonizers, I don’t think it is realistic to come to a peaceful agreement. You can’t keep people trapped under an undesired rule and impose foreign rule on their land without expecting some retaliation eventually. While violence is not necessarily the ideal answer, many times it is the only answer that will bring about the attention that a country needs.
Post a Comment