Would “Gandhi…have become an asterisk of history rather than an icon”?
Peter Worthington wrote a great piece in the Toronto Sun last week titled, “War cannot be waged ‘peacefully'”.
Excerpts:
“Want to know why we (meaning the West) won’t win the war on terror?…
The other day, after a rocket attack, Israel announced it was attacking the home of a suspected terrorist leader where explosives were stored. It gave the occupants 30 minutes warning to evacuate before war planes obliterated the house.
So what did the residents do? Well, not only did they not evacuate, but neighbours formed a human shield at the targeted house and, guess what?
The Israel war planes were called off. So now, every time the Israelis give the 30-minute warning which, apparently, is policy, the “human shields” of women and children head for the targeted house, secure in the knowledge that the Israelis won’t attack.
This is madness — no way to fight a war, or terrorists. And this is Israel — the toughest democracy on the block. And yet Israel hasn’t even gotten its kidnapped soldiers back from Hamas and Hezbollah, which provoked Israeli retaliation.
…War cannot easily be waged peacefully. Restraints often mean prolonging the war and increasing its casualties.
…Today, humane considerations are paramount. The symbol of peaceful protest is Mahatma Gandhi, the creator of passive resistance that anti-military activists like to cite as a way to thwart authority. Often overlooked, is that Gandhi’s formula worked against the British. If he and his followers had lain down in front of Cossacks, the Wehrmacht or the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan, Gandhi would have become an asterisk of history rather than an icon.
…Remember the U.S. bombing of Baghdad prior to the 2003 invasion? Peace activists from the West pompously announced they’d be human shields around prospective targets.
Once the bombing started, these people fled — outraged that the Americans could be so inhumane, even though none were targeted.
…As for Israel, if its government is nuts enough to give warnings of attacks, then it deserves what happens. The next warning should be that if human shields remain, they will quickly become ex-human shields.
One attack should be sufficient to persuade Palestinian human shields to take cover.
It’s idiotic to give warning of an attack. Hezbollah and Hamas don’t warn intended targets of rocket attacks and suicide bombings…”
***
Image courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MKGandhi.jpg
It’s actually fairly well known comment by Hilter that the only way to deal with Gandhi was to shot him. And this was late 30s. I have no doubt Hilter would shot Gandhi and the rest of the INC early on in the 20s or even before.
Mr. Peter Worthington sounds like he is a disciple of the great Chanakya who said in his Arthashastra as follows:
????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??????
??????? ?????? ? ?????? ? ??????? ? ?? ????????
It is so simple that no translation is necessary to understand the meaning.
Do you agree with it? Our children may be able to offer advice if we cannot make up our mind.
However, Chanakya would have been satisfied with punishment (??????) . Mr. Peter Worthington thinks killing is better. We have to learn a lot from the West!
The author loses sight of history. One Gandhi’s formula worked initially, but by most credible historians, it failed once the British identified the solution to the problem was jailing these leaders (and sending some to Andaman). The authors logic on Gandhi being a fit for only British can be applied to any other freedom fighter.
The Toronto Sun link does not work. But I’m guessing the Israeli policy was redrawn shortly after some analysis was done about that incident. Unlike Indians who will try Kasab and ban Pak from playing in IPL as anti terror measures, Israelis have real plans and cojones to implement.
Two, modern warfare cannot have the same rules as conventional warfare. If the enemy(like Hamas and Hezbollah) will strike innocent civilians inside cities, the Israeli Government has shown that it will not be bound by the honorable warfare rules in fighting such enemies.
DD: Here is another link to the Toronto Sun article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1744369/posts
Gandhi was a product of the British policy of giving Indians limited home rule if only as release valve against those who wanted to violently overthrow them. The fact that the British chose to break the likes of Bose and Sarvakar and chose not Gandhi and his followers was because they had been contained. There has been some suggestion that Gandhi was a British spy and even if he was not, he was looked on favourably by the British population as some sort of holy man. The fact is that the British left India at a time of their choosing and not a day sooner than they wished and secured their objective of carving out an Islamic state out of India. Gandhi nor India secured independence by the honourable means know n to man, which would have been by the overthrow of British rule. War is the only means by which a leader can establish a true claim to lead. India proved itself incapable of doing that and has been paying for the weak knees of Gandhi ever since. Even in the wars India has fought when true heroes have emerged, India has preferred to be ruled by knaves and charlatans. It seems that Hindus have preferred to elevate true fighters to gods as has happened with Ram and Krishna but excused themselves of any martial spirit by escaping into religious fantasy. Gandhi is that symbol of that religious fantasy. His impact on the moral character of the Hindu has hardly been positive, but they will swear by him as the man they will follow. I hope in this note that a small advance can be made in revising India history and the work repair started.