Malcolm X
The non-violent opposition to oppression was a practical rather discussed over the entire twentieth century and was often bent to unworthy purposes by various instrumental politicians interested in their approach to figure one of the few performers who made it big. The historical figure who brought this sensitive doctrine at the center of world attention was certainly Mohandas "Mahatma" (great spirit, affibbiatogli name by the great poet Rabindranath Tagore) Gandhi. The writer has always had great admiration for this spiritual leader, who achieved the liberation of their country using methods in many ways unprecedented in human history complex. Reading the stories about the campaign of "Satyagraha" (Indian word that means non-violent struggle) you can test the moral and political fabric of which he was made man. Leveraging on the terrible conditions in which the peasants of Kheda, Gandhi was able to organize a huge non-violent peasant movement capable of stubbornly pursuing a massive strike for 21 consecutive days, forcing the British Empire to sit at the negotiating table and to grant a agreement that significantly improved the conditions of the strikers. The excellent technique in the "Mahatma" he used was to assume firsthand the unspeakable suffering that the British Empire committed against the Indian population and to overthrow, in a kind of aikido, the whole pain sull'oppressore. However, the non-violent doctrine could count on the British Empire began inexorably into the sunset, and structured so as to recognize a degree of credibility to the indigenous peoples, and it is exactly because of this reason that led to the revolt led by Gandhi defeat of the British Empire and the independence of India August 15, 1947. The core principle around which rotates the non-violent practice, however, presupposes that both the oppressor as the oppressed share the same principle of humanity. Gandhi did not immediately grasped this subtlety, and in fact, in the aftermath of the tragic "Crystal Night" of November 10, 1938 (when the Nazi SS perpetrated a real pogrom against the Jewish population living in Germany), sent to a German Jewish message in which he wrote: "If I were a jew who is born, lives and works in Germany, claiming the right to consider my house like the highest of the kind Germans, and challenges him to shoot me or throw me in jail. If a jew or all Jews to accept the advice offered here, they could certainly be worse than now. In addition, the suffering endured voluntarily give them an inner strength and joy that not even one thousand declarations of solidarity will never be able to produce. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in the widespread slaughter of Jews. However, if the Jewish mind was ready to voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy for the salvation that, though the hand of the tyrant, God has given to the race. "Gandhi, putting black white on these thoughts, persevered in a trust misplaced confidence in his opponent, proving he does not fully understand the nature of Nazi ideology. The protective armor developed by Hitler in his "Mein Kampf" was in fact able to put his followers away from "humanitarian temptation" to play on the doctrine of non-violent. Hitler has just set itself the goal of cleaning up humanity from its ills and has convinced the German people to support him, if you want to pursue a goal so high and great, you can not run the risk of "compassion" stand in the way that leads to fulfillment. If, instead of the British Empire, the non-violent movement had had to deal with the armies of the Third Reich things would have been in a very different way, as a difference, a perception of the asymmetric principle of humanity between the oppressor and oppressed can not doubling the size of the massacre. It 's highly likely that the Indian population would face massacre total defiance of the Third Reich on this ground. Gandhi was still able to learn at a high price and this terrible lesson the hard way when he attempted to unify politically the India resorting to the usual non-violent methods, fresh from the success gained against the British Empire. The "Satyagraha" came out in pieces, as it battles against the unwavering resolve of the Muslim League leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who said that Gandhi could aspire to the maximum to represent the Hindus, not Muslims. Jinnah was erected on these foundations that the nation of Pakistan, and was the fracture that separates a man like Gandhi as Jinnah, who were born from a dispute which then triggered the conflict between India and Pakistan decades. "Only violence aid where violence reigns, "wrote Bertolt Brecht, but not always the case. That's not violence that Hitler called with contempt" spineless submission, however, remains a rarely traveled road. If the Tutsis had voluntarily and queued in front of the Gandhian efficient torturers of the Government of Rwanda "Interhahamwé" I would have gone to pieces, and their sacrifice would not have led the perpetrators to feel remorse. It follows that the Satyagraha has a value only and exclusively when the sacrifice is made for a purpose precise, and only insofar as the oppressor, the oppressed recognize a degree of humanity. Without these basic conditions, non-violence, in the opinion of the writer, has the same effect as a gun unloaded.
0 comments:
Post a Comment