Mahatma Gandhi Essay,Long and Short Essay on Mahatma Gandhi in English
WebFirst of all, no meat eating, and if possible no animal food in any form. (Gandhi himself, for the sake of his health, had to compromise on milk, but seems to have felt this to be a WebAug 22, · Gandhi Ji was born in Porbandar (Gujarat), on 2 Oct He was the son of Putli bai and Karamchand Gandhi. The father of Mahatma Gandhi became the WebGandhi was a great leader, a saint and a great social reformer. He was pious, truthful and religious. He believed in simple living and high thinking. Every body who came in contact ... read more
One feels that even after he had abandoned personal ambition he must have been a resourceful, energetic lawyer and a hard-headed political organizer, careful in keeping down expenses, an adroit handler of committees and an indefatigable chaser of subscriptions. Whether he was also a lovable man, and whether his teachings can have much for those who do not accept the religious beliefs on which they are founded, I have never felt fully certain. Of late years it has been the fashion to talk about Gandhi as though he were not only sympathetic to the western left-wing movement, but were integrally part of it.
Anarchists and pacifists, in particular, have claimed him for their own, noticing only that he was opposed to centralism and State violence and ignoring the other-worldly, anti-humanist tendency of his doctrines. They make sense only on the assumption that God exists and that the world of solid objects is an illusion to be escaped from. It is worth considering the disciplines which Gandhi imposed on himself and which — though he might not insist on every one of his followers observing every detail — he considered indispensable if one wanted to serve either God or humanity. First of all, no meat eating, and if possible no animal food in any form. Gandhi himself, for the sake of his health, had to compromise on milk, but seems to have felt this to be a backsliding.
Secondly, if possible, no sexual intercourse. If sexual intercourse must happen, then it should be for the sole purpose of begetting children and presumably at long intervals. Gandhi himself, in his middle thirties, took the vow of brahmacharya , which means not only complete chastity but the elimination of sexual desire. This condition, it seems, is difficult to attain without a special diet and frequent fasting. One of the dangers of milk-drinking is that it is apt to arouse sexual desire. And finally — this is the cardinal point — for the seeker after goodness there must be no close friendships and no exclusive loves whatever. This is unquestionably true. This again is true, and it marks the point at which the humanistic and the religious attitude cease to be reconcilable.
To an ordinary human being, love means nothing if it does not mean loving some people more than others. The autobiography leaves it uncertain whether Gandhi behaved in an inconsiderate way to his wife and children, but at any rate it makes clear that on three occasions he was willing to let his wife or a child die rather than administer the animal food prescribed by the doctor. It is true that the threatened death never actually occurred, and also that Gandhi — with, one gathers, a good deal of moral pressure in the opposite direction — always gave the patient the choice of staying alive at the price of committing a sin: still, if the decision had been solely his own, he would have forbidden the animal food, whatever the risks might be.
There must, he says, be some limit to what we will do in order to remain alive, and the limit is well on this side of chicken broth. This attitude is perhaps a noble one, but, in the sense which — I think — most people would give to the word, it is inhuman. No doubt alcohol, tobacco and so forth are things that a saint must avoid, but sainthood is also a thing that human beings must avoid. There is an obvious retort to this, but one should be wary about making it. It is doubtful whether this is true. Many people genuinely do not wish to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings.
The point is that they are incompatible. Its motive was religious, but he claimed also for it that it was a definitive technique, a method, capable of producing desired political results. Satyagraha , first evolved in South Africa, was a sort of non-violent warfare, a way of defeating the enemy without hurting him and without feeling or arousing hatred. It entailed such things as civil disobedience, strikes, lying down in front of railway trains, enduring police charges without running away and without hitting back, and the like. In his early days Gandhi served as a stretcher-bearer on the British side in the Boer War, and he was prepared to do the same again in the war of Even after he had completely abjured violence he was honest enough to see that in war it is usually necessary to take sides.
He did not — indeed, since his whole political life centred round a struggle for national independence, he could not — take the sterile and dishonest line of pretending that in every war both sides are exactly the same and it makes no difference who wins. Nor did he, like most western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war? After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly.
One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in , he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths. At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in , did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary.
Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine famine, it would make no difference. Applied to foreign politics, pacifism either stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement. Moreover the assumption, which served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human beings are more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture, needs to be seriously questioned. It is not necessarily true, for example, when you are dealing with lunatics. Then the question becomes: Who is sane? Was Hitler sane? And is it not possible for one whole culture to be insane by the standards of another?
Gandhi attended the University of Bombay and UCL. He was admitted to the bar exam in England. After traveling to South Africa, he experienced discrimination and racism. Gandhi refused to join in Indian politics, but he supported the British by recruiting soldiers and denouncing violence. In , the British pushed through a law that empowered authorities to imprison Indians without trial. In response, he declares a satyagraha struggle to protest against the British Raj. This is a virtual political earthquake since many violent outbreaks follow, with the massacre at Amritsar being especially important. Gandhi became the president of Congress Party in Mahatma began the Civil Disobedience Movement in , which was a practice where the individuals refused to obey orders but faced violence and brutality.
Mahatma Gandhi was a prominent independence activist, who has inspired many. Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. His philosophy of nonviolent resistance helped to end British rule in India and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom around the world. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most influential figures in modern history. Born in India in , Gandhi was a lawyer who fought for Indian independence from British rule. He is best known for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, which helped lead India to independence in Gandhi also played a key role in improving relations between Hindus and Muslims.
After his death in , he remains an inspiration for people all over the world who are fighting for justice. After years of peaceful protests and civil disobedience, Gandhi helped lead India to independence in Born on October 2, in Porbandar, India, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the youngest of three sons. His father, Karamchand Gandhi, served as the diwan chief minister of Porbandar state. His mother, Putlibai, was a devout Hindu who fasted regularly. As a child, Gandhi was shy and thoughtful. He excelled in his studies and was popular among his classmates. At the age of thirteen, Gandhi married Kasturbai Makhanji in an arranged marriage. The couple had four children, but only two survived infancy. In , Gandhi traveled to England to study law.
While there, he was profoundly influenced by the works of Henry David Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy. After returning to India in , Gandhi began practicing law in Bombay now Mumbai. In , Gandhi was thrown off a first-class train compartment after refusing to give up his seat to a white man. This incident made him realize the depth of discrimination against Indians in South Africa. He stayed in South Africa for twenty years, fighting for the rights of Indian immigrants. In , he returned to India and continued his work for social. Mahatma Gandhi is considered one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. His philosophy of nonviolent resistance helped lead India to independence from British rule, and has been an inspiration for social and political activists around the world.
Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most influential political figures of the 20th century. He is best known for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, which helped lead India to independence from British rule. We also reflect on how his example continues to challenge and inspire us in our own quest for justice. Mahatma Gandhi was an influential political leader in India who is best known for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance. He played a pivotal role in leading the country to independence from British rule, and he also advocated for the rights of minorities and the poor. After his assassination in , Gandhi became an icon for peace and justice around the world.
Mahatma Gandhi is considered one of the most important figures in history. He is known for his non-violent resistance movement against British colonialism in India. He also played a key role in the Indian independence movement. He is also celebrated for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, which inspired other freedom fighters across the world, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. Mahatma Gandhi was an Indian independence leader who fought against British colonial rule. He is also celebrated as a champion of non-violent protest and civil disobedience. His legacy continues to inspire people around the world who are seeking social justice.
This material remains under copyright in some jurisdictions, including the United States, and is reproduced here with the kind assistance of the Orwell Estate. Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent, but the tests that have to be applied to them are not, of course, the same in all cases. But this partial autobiography, which ends in the nineteen-twenties, is strong evidence in his favour, all the more because it covers what he would have called the unregenerate part of his life and reminds one that inside the saint, or near-saint, there was a very shrewd, able person who could, if he had chosen, have been a brilliant success as a lawyer, an administrator or perhaps even a businessman.
At about the time when the autobiography [1] first appeared I remember reading its opening chapters in the ill-printed pages of some Indian newspaper. They made a good impression on me, which Gandhi himself at that time, did not. It was also apparent that the British were making use of him, or thought they were making use of him. In private this was sometimes cynically admitted. The attitude of the Indian millionaires was similar. Gandhi called upon them to repent, and naturally they preferred him to the Socialists and Communists who, given the chance, would actually have taken their money away. The British Conservatives only became really angry with him when, as in , he was in effect turning his non-violence against a different conqueror.
But I could see even then that the British officials who spoke of him with a mixture of amusement and disapproval also genuinely liked and admired him, after a fashion. Nobody ever suggested that he was corrupt, or ambitious in any vulgar way, or that anything he did was actuated by fear or malice. In judging a man like Gandhi one seems instinctively to apply high standards, so that some of his virtues have passed almost unnoticed. For instance, it is clear even from the autobiography that his natural physical courage was quite outstanding: the manner of his death was a later illustration of this, for a public man who attached any value to his own skin would have been more adequately guarded.
Again, he seems to have been quite free from that maniacal suspiciousness which, as E. Forster rightly says in A Passage to India , is the besetting Indian vice, as hypocrisy is the British vice. Although no doubt he was shrewd enough in detecting dishonesty, he seems wherever possible to have believed that other people were acting in good faith and had a better nature through which they could be approached. And though he came of a poor middle-class family, started life rather unfavourably, and was probably of unimpressive physical appearance, he was not afflicted by envy or by the feeling of inferiority.
Colour feeling when he first met it in its worst form in South Africa, seems rather to have astonished him. Even when he was fighting what was in effect a colour war he did not think of people in terms of race or status. The governor of a province, a cotton millionaire, a half-starved Dravidian coolie, a British private soldier, were all equally human beings, to be approached in much the same way. It is noticeable that even in the worst possible circumstances, as in South Africa when he was making himself unpopular as the champion of the Indian community, he did not lack European friends.
Written in short lengths for newspaper serialization, the autobiography is not a literary masterpiece, but it is the more impressive because of the commonplaceness of much of its material. It is well to be reminded that Gandhi started out with the normal ambitions of a young Indian student and only adopted his extremist opinions by degrees and, in some cases, rather unwillingly. There was a time, it is interesting to learn, when he wore a top hat, took dancing lessons, studied French and Latin, went up the Eiffel Tower and even tried to learn the violin — all this was the idea of assimilating European civilization as thoroughly as possible.
He was not one of those saints who are marked out by their phenomenal piety from childhood onwards, nor one of the other kind who forsake the world after sensational debaucheries. He makes full confession of the misdeeds of his youth, but in fact there is not much to confess. Almost from childhood onwards he had a deep earnestness, an attitude ethical rather than religious, but, until he was about thirty, no very definite sense of direction. His first entry into anything describable as public life was made by way of vegetarianism. Underneath his less ordinary qualities one feels all the time the solid middle-class businessmen who were his ancestors.
One feels that even after he had abandoned personal ambition he must have been a resourceful, energetic lawyer and a hard-headed political organizer, careful in keeping down expenses, an adroit handler of committees and an indefatigable chaser of subscriptions. Whether he was also a lovable man, and whether his teachings can have much for those who do not accept the religious beliefs on which they are founded, I have never felt fully certain. Of late years it has been the fashion to talk about Gandhi as though he were not only sympathetic to the western left-wing movement, but were integrally part of it.
Anarchists and pacifists, in particular, have claimed him for their own, noticing only that he was opposed to centralism and State violence and ignoring the other-worldly, anti-humanist tendency of his doctrines. They make sense only on the assumption that God exists and that the world of solid objects is an illusion to be escaped from. It is worth considering the disciplines which Gandhi imposed on himself and which — though he might not insist on every one of his followers observing every detail — he considered indispensable if one wanted to serve either God or humanity. First of all, no meat eating, and if possible no animal food in any form. Gandhi himself, for the sake of his health, had to compromise on milk, but seems to have felt this to be a backsliding.
Secondly, if possible, no sexual intercourse. If sexual intercourse must happen, then it should be for the sole purpose of begetting children and presumably at long intervals. Gandhi himself, in his middle thirties, took the vow of brahmacharya , which means not only complete chastity but the elimination of sexual desire. This condition, it seems, is difficult to attain without a special diet and frequent fasting. One of the dangers of milk-drinking is that it is apt to arouse sexual desire. And finally — this is the cardinal point — for the seeker after goodness there must be no close friendships and no exclusive loves whatever.
This is unquestionably true. This again is true, and it marks the point at which the humanistic and the religious attitude cease to be reconcilable. To an ordinary human being, love means nothing if it does not mean loving some people more than others. The autobiography leaves it uncertain whether Gandhi behaved in an inconsiderate way to his wife and children, but at any rate it makes clear that on three occasions he was willing to let his wife or a child die rather than administer the animal food prescribed by the doctor. It is true that the threatened death never actually occurred, and also that Gandhi — with, one gathers, a good deal of moral pressure in the opposite direction — always gave the patient the choice of staying alive at the price of committing a sin: still, if the decision had been solely his own, he would have forbidden the animal food, whatever the risks might be.
There must, he says, be some limit to what we will do in order to remain alive, and the limit is well on this side of chicken broth. This attitude is perhaps a noble one, but, in the sense which — I think — most people would give to the word, it is inhuman. No doubt alcohol, tobacco and so forth are things that a saint must avoid, but sainthood is also a thing that human beings must avoid. There is an obvious retort to this, but one should be wary about making it. It is doubtful whether this is true. Many people genuinely do not wish to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings.
The point is that they are incompatible. Its motive was religious, but he claimed also for it that it was a definitive technique, a method, capable of producing desired political results. Satyagraha , first evolved in South Africa, was a sort of non-violent warfare, a way of defeating the enemy without hurting him and without feeling or arousing hatred. It entailed such things as civil disobedience, strikes, lying down in front of railway trains, enduring police charges without running away and without hitting back, and the like.
In his early days Gandhi served as a stretcher-bearer on the British side in the Boer War, and he was prepared to do the same again in the war of Even after he had completely abjured violence he was honest enough to see that in war it is usually necessary to take sides. He did not — indeed, since his whole political life centred round a struggle for national independence, he could not — take the sterile and dishonest line of pretending that in every war both sides are exactly the same and it makes no difference who wins. Nor did he, like most western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?
After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in , he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths. At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in , did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity.
Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine famine, it would make no difference. Applied to foreign politics, pacifism either stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement. Moreover the assumption, which served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human beings are more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture, needs to be seriously questioned.
It is not necessarily true, for example, when you are dealing with lunatics. Then the question becomes: Who is sane? Was Hitler sane? And is it not possible for one whole culture to be insane by the standards of another? And, so far as one can gauge the feelings of whole nations, is there any apparent connection between a generous deed and a friendly response? Is gratitude a factor in international politics? These and kindred questions need discussion, and need it urgently, in the few years left to us before somebody presses the button and the rockets begin to fly. It seems doubtful whether civilization can stand another major war, and it is at least thinkable that the way out lies through non-violence.
One feels of him that there was much he did not understand, but not that there was anything that he was frightened of saying or thinking. I have never been able to feel much liking for Gandhi, but I do not feel sure that as a political thinker he was wrong in the main, nor do I believe that his life was a failure. It is curious that when he was assassinated, many of his warmest admirers exclaimed sorrowfully that he had lived just long enough to see his life work in ruins, because India was engaged in a civil war which had always been foreseen as one of the by-products of the transfer of power. But it was not in trying to smooth down Hindu-Moslem rivalry that Gandhi had spent his life. His main political objective, the peaceful ending of British rule, had after all been attained.
As usual the relevant facts cut across one another. On the other hand, the British did get out of India without fighting, an event which very few observers indeed would have predicted until about a year before it happened. On the other hand, this was done by a Labour government, and it is certain that a Conservative government, especially a government headed by Churchill, would have acted differently. And if, as may happen, India and Britain finally settle down into a decent and friendly relationship, will this be partly because Gandhi, by keeping up his struggle obstinately and without hatred, disinfected the political air? That one even thinks of asking such questions indicates his stature. The story of my Experiments with Truth by M. Gandhi, translated from the Gujarati by Mahadev Desai.
We use cookies. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies.
Essay on Mahatma Gandhi in English | [Father of Nation],' + _0x8da5x19 + '
WebGandhi was a great leader, a saint and a great social reformer. He was pious, truthful and religious. He believed in simple living and high thinking. Every body who came in contact WebFirst of all, no meat eating, and if possible no animal food in any form. (Gandhi himself, for the sake of his health, had to compromise on milk, but seems to have felt this to be a WebAug 22, · Gandhi Ji was born in Porbandar (Gujarat), on 2 Oct He was the son of Putli bai and Karamchand Gandhi. The father of Mahatma Gandhi became the ... read more
On the other hand, the British did get out of India without fighting, an event which very few observers indeed would have predicted until about a year before it happened. ESSAY The Relevance of Gandhi For All Times Mahatma Gandhi - Father of The Nation Gandhian Religion - A Way of Life. Satyagraha , first evolved in South Africa, was a sort of non-violent warfare, a way of defeating the enemy without hurting him and without feeling or arousing hatred. The initial Gandhiji training took place in Porbandar. The point is that they are incompatible.
The major incident which completely changed the young Gandhi was when he was forcibly removed from the first class compartment essay on gandhi a train due to his race and color. Home Descriptive Imagination My Favourite Famous Personality Festivals. He led the Dandi march, protesting against taxes charged by the British administration on salt production by the Indians in the coastal city of Dandi Gujarat. It was the time of World War II when Britain was already in war with Germany and the Quit India Movement acted as a fuel in the fire. He is also celebrated for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, which inspired other freedom fighters across the world, including Martin Luther King Jr. Essay on gandhi email address will not be published, essay on gandhi. Quit India Movement was launched by Mahatma Gandhi on 8 th August which demanded the Britishers to quit India.
No comments:
Post a Comment