Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) was the most important Indian political and spiritual leader of the 20th century. After an arranged marriage at the age of 13, he traveled to England six years later and attended law school at the age of 19, before returning to India to practice in his new profession.
With an unsuccessful first year as a practicing attorney, Gandhi was offered a job with a Indian businessman with interests in South Africa and relocated to this region to assume the daily responsibilities of his new occupation. While there he witnessed the severity of racial discrimination, as many Indians had lost all civil rights to European colonists, who unabashedly referred to them as “coolies” and treated them as if they weren’t “full” human beings.
Subsequently, Gandhi became a leader within the Indian community and pioneered “satyagraha”: a political movement of non-violent protest against the oppressive rule of the British.
Gandhi developed satyagraha (pronounced SAHT ya GRUH ha) into a national movement, stressing passive resistance, nonviolent disobedience, boycotts and, on occasion, hunger strikes. As his life’s work, he utilized satyagraha as a framework for peaceful protest and played a major role in the 1906 Zulu War, World War I and II, as well as in helping India gain its independence.
Gandhi has influenced many great political leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, both of whom incorporated non-violent resistance into their own life’s work as a means for progressive change and social liberation.
If more societies followed satyagraha and believed in the premise of peaceful protest, international relations around the globe could actually improve. For a country like the United States, one overly consumed with both race and war, imagine how impactful boycotts could be? A nation mobilized as a collective behind this belief could drastically alter the demand for products created by others by just saying “we won’t buy.” This would also perhaps alter their perceptions simultaneously, given the financial pain this notion would cause.
If this strategy was successful, it wouldn’t be long before other nations bought into this philosophy and way of living, and followed their lead. Maybe thoughts such as these are somewhat idealistic, given we live in a world where nuclear missiles and money talk, and “all else” walks; nevertheless, the concept is itself very interesting and equally promising if it were explored and adopted by others.
What’s your opinion? Is peaceful protest no longer a viable solution for the modern world that we live, or could it possibly work and ultimately serve to create more self-sustainable, nonbelligerent societies around the globe?
Modern Intelligentsia 