• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

what is the difference between non violence and weakness ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

talwan

Well-known member
Hello niyengar,
NonViolence is Keep low even if you know that you are powerful.Weakness is keep low knowing that your opponent is powerful.
In the case of Anna Hazare He knew he is stronger with the support of People but still He didnot indulge them to go violent.Weakness is Govt had to yield to Anna knowing his power od Mass.
Alwan
 
E

ernarayanan

Guest
When your silence can bring a solution to a problem, It means non violence and when your silence has no response it weakness.
 

Brahmanyan

Well-known member
i ve been hearing different versions of explanation for the same situations recently.
while some are attributed to being non violent, the same are termed by others as weakness.
so what is the difference between the two ?
please add some real life examples to understand the same, in a Practical manner.


It is not a weakness to be nonviolent. Nonviolence can be practiced only by a person of very high inner strength. Jesus Christ was the one of the earliest to show the path of nonviolence to achieve spiritual advancement.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 

sangom

Well-known member
Non-violence is "violence in non-physical forms", imho. It can be used only against an adversary who abides by "some" law and rules and will not resort to extreme steps to exterminate that non-violence; if you resort to non-violence against an adversary who is even likely to kill or maim you, it is weakness and/or foolishness.
 
OP
OP
N

niyengaar

New member
Non-violence is "violence in non-physical forms", imho. It can be used only against an adversary who abides by "some" law and rules and will not resort to extreme steps to exterminate that non-violence; if you resort to non-violence against an adversary who is even likely to kill or maim you, it is weakness and/or foolishness.


but Mr Ghandhi practiced non violence when britishers were waiting to attack him / Mr Jesus died because of non violence ? were they weakness ?


as in, if we are in a situation where we "avoid" the troubles, would that be non violence or weakness ?

what if that situation is not concerning us directly ? or if it does ?

some practical day to day examples will help - like the one above from Shri Talwan explaining Mr Anna Ji's situation ....
 
Last edited:

T.S.Sankara Narayanan

Active member
Every one of This Forum will Praise about Gandhi.

But to my opinion he is an Opportunist in Favor of Minorities and against Hindus.

Nawakali Yathra , The History Speaks about is a Brutal Massacre of Hindus and Hindus are the Totally Affected People at that Time.

Can any one of this Forum give any authentical Evidence about That.

Also it was said that there were about 3000 and more no of Maharashtrian Brahmins were massacred after The Death of Gandhi because Gotsay was a Maharashtra Brahmin.

Any Seniors please give some references....
 

Yamaka

New member
"But to my opinion he is an Opportunist in Favor of Minorities and against Hindus."- TSS

TSS:

You may be one of the smallest minorities possible among all Indians... an Anti-Gandhi Activist or Anti-Gandhi Propagandist, IMO!

LOL.
 

T.S.Sankara Narayanan

Active member
Pancha Pandavas were just 5 in Number when Compared to Gowravas.

But Truth in Form of Lord Krishna is The Mighty Power which brought Success to Pandavas.

So I Proudly Accept your Quote.

By the By You haven't gave information about Navakali Yathra and Massacre of Maharashtrian Bramins after the demise of Gandhi..
 

Yamaka

New member
Non-Violent Protest Vs Moral Weakness.

I am going to write here about a very controversial historical event that happened in Salem, TN in 1960s... this topic comes in our discussion here among many TBs including my wife quite often:

EVR and his followers had a massive rally ridiculing Lord Rama & Sita, and Lord Krishna.. it was talked about in most of TN with broad press coverage...

In response, there was NO counter-rally by Hindus in general or Brahmins in particular, although vast majority of Tamils believed in Lord Rama and Lord Krishna worship in their daily lives.

The reason, some said, was that a counter rally would have invariably brought in VIOLENCE.

Some others said, it was because MOST of the Believers are WEAK morally... they don't stand up and fight for their Religious Right in India (where it is Constitutionally Secular).

My personal view is most people didn't want to confront EVR... because he was very angrily criticizing the evils of religion and the caste system that Hinduism practiced for at least 500 years.

Without even a token counter-rally even in T. Nagar, Mambalam in Madras or in Madurai inner city was a sign of Moral Weakness, I will contend.

What say you?

ps. I know I am touching a bee nest... I will be running for a cover soon! Laugh out loud, please!!
 
Last edited:

Brahmanyan

Well-known member
Every one of This Forum will Praise about Gandhi.
But to my opinion he is an Opportunist in Favor of Minorities and against Hindus.
Nawakali Yathra , The History Speaks about is a Brutal Massacre of Hindus and Hindus are the Totally Affected People at that Time.
Can any one of this Forum give any authentical Evidence about That.
Also it was said that there were about 3000 and more no of Maharashtrian Brahmins were massacred after The Death of Gandhi because Gotsay was a Maharashtra Brahmin.
Any Seniors please give some references....

Dear Sri Sankara Narayanan,

I respect your views, but I differ with them.

I am an Octogenarian, born in British India and seen the final phase of our freedom struggle. Gandhiji was the unifying factor in our Freedom struggle. Calling him as an opportunist is most unfair comment on this great man. He was a religious person, devout Hindu, with hatred to none. According to me, partition of India was wrong. Gandhiji tried his best to avoid this, but the events in history overtook him,and compelled to agree for the division this great country.

What happened in the districts of Noakhali and Tipperah in Chittagong division of Bengal in October November 1946 was genocide of Hindu minorities perpetrated by Muslim community under instigation of Muslim League, to gain political mileage. Gandhiji camped in Noakhali for four months and toured the district in a mission to restore peace and communal harmony.
Enough material on this subject is available in internet. I would like you to go through the following if possible:
Applied Gandhi: Noakhali Peace Mission and the Miracle of Calcutta
Yes, There was anti Brahmin demonstrations in some parts of Maharashtra after the assassination of Gandhiji by Nathuram Godse. Some houses of Brahmins were looted and destroyed. Except killing of some Brahmins, there was no mass elimination of the community reported. For detailed reading you can open the following URL:
Assassination of Gandhi | Nathuram Godse

Gandhiji was part of Indian History, whose efforts in liberation of India from the British are unique. To understand him, you have to study his life in detail.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 

T.S.Sankara Narayanan

Active member
Thank You ji for Your Comments....

I gone thro the Second link and if you Click Political Career of Godsey which describes as Under.....

However, Godse and his mentors later turned radical and rejected Gandhi. They felt that Gandhi was sacrificing Hindu interests in an effort to appease minority groups. They blamed Gandhi for the Partition of India, which left hundreds of thousands of people dead......
 

sravna

Well-known member
IMO non violence and cowardice are two ends of the spectrum. To be violent you need courage but when you practice non-violence and shift further to the right end of the spectrum, you are also moving into the mental plane. It is more of a fight at that level. Interestingly you try to mentally overwhelm your opponent and make him weak.
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
...Without even a token counter-rally even in T. Nagar, Mambalam in Madras or in Madurai inner city was a sign of Moral Weakness, I will contend.
Y, If TBs felt discretion is the better part of valor, I can't find fault with that. Continuing to justify varna system and insisting that is part of "dharma" ordained by their religion, that is moral weakness.

Cheers!
 

Brahmanyan

Well-known member
Thank You ji for Your Comments....

I gone thro the Second link and if you Click Political Career of Godsey which describes as Under.....

However, Godse and his mentors later turned radical and rejected Gandhi. They felt that Gandhi was sacrificing Hindu interests in an effort to appease minority groups. They blamed Gandhi for the Partition of India, which left hundreds of thousands of people dead......

Dear Sri Sankara narayanan,

No amount of reasoning can justify the heinous crime of taking life of this Great Mahatma. To understand Gandhiji, as I mentioned, we have to go through the writings on him and by him. He never looked at the individual by his religion, nationality or creed. He fought for the cause which he believed to be right and used nonviolence (Ahimsa) and passive resistance (Sathyagraha) as his methods to achieve the results, even at the worst provocation.
Gandhiji was called an Anachist. After independence, he advised Congress to be disbanded , he said " Its task is done. The next task is to move into villages and revitalize life there to build a new socio-economic structure from the bottom upwards." I give below another link which will help us to understand Gandhiji's views better.
Applied Gandhi: Gandhi- The Anarchist

It was George Bernard Shaw who echoed the mind of common man on Gandhiji's death when he told
"It shows how dangerous it is to be too good"

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
N

niyengaar

New member
Y, If TBs felt discretion is the better part of valor, I can't find fault with that. Continuing to justify varna system and insisting that is part of "dharma" ordained by their religion, that is moral weakness.

Cheers!

but would not that become weakness - to keep quiet even when u r suffering ?

that is why the question, what is the difference between the two ?



if we are feeling touchy with the brahman factor, can we find practical examples out of other religions / walks of life ?
 

Yamaka

New member
but would not that become weakness - to keep quiet even when u r suffering ?

that is why the question, what is the difference between the two ?

if we are feeling touchy with the brahman factor, can we find practical examples out of other religions / walks of life ?

Hi niyengaar:

What's YOUR position on this?

You take your considered view on this issue, then we will debate on it!

Cheers.
 

kunjuppu

Well-known member
B,

for that brief period when i was a moderator, i could not stomach the attitude of guys who were apologists for godse and his ilk. there was one nasty gentleman, who printed verbatim godse's speech in this forum.

i told him that there are certain values, which are 'holy of holies', and promptly removed the post, and warned him that i would ban him.

if i remember right, there was a barrage of complaints against my 'moderation' and i think it was one of the factors that i was kicked out :)

proud of it though.

these guys talk like pakistanis i know - contempt for gandhi, and justifying his murder. the extremes, they are disgusting and they have a lot in common. ie warped mind.
 

sangom

Well-known member
B,

for that brief period when i was a moderator, i could not stomach the attitude of guys who were apologists for godse and his ilk. there was one nasty gentleman, who printed verbatim godse's speech in this forum.

i told him that there are certain values, which are 'holy of holies', and promptly removed the post, and warned him that i would ban him.

if i remember right, there was a barrage of complaints against my 'moderation' and i think it was one of the factors that i was kicked out :)

proud of it though.

these guys talk like pakistanis i know - contempt for gandhi, and justifying his murder. the extremes, they are disgusting and they have a lot in common. ie warped mind.

Kunjuppu,

I concede it is your unquestionable freedom to hold Gandhi or anyone else from the public figures, for that matter. But to expect that others should also necessarily subscribe to the same hero worship is not a very satisfactory attitude. I think Praveen's guidelines forbid criticism of Gandhi, but not sure; if so that prevails.
 

Nara

Well-known member
.... there was one nasty gentleman, who printed verbatim godse's speech in this forum.

i told him that there are certain values, which are 'holy of holies', and promptly removed the post, and warned him that i would ban him.
K, I am not a free-speech purist, but close to it. Barring shouting fire in a crowded theater, not a whole lot must be censured. Idea, how so ever noxious it may be, must be allowed to be aired, the best disinfectant is the bright light of open communication. Keeping "holy of holies" or pampering தொட்டாச்சிணுங்கி, is not prudent.

In this respect, I was horrified several years ago when a nephew of mine made apologies for Godse. This, I think, is because of making taboo out of discussing Godse's. To prevent young minds from getting hijacked by Hindutva folks, I think Godse's speech, and a critique of it, must be made part of the high school curriculum. Let them learn the true history with all its repulsive hideousness, only then they will be strong to not succumb to parochial influences.

BTW, Gandhi was a great leader. He put Thoreau's Civil Disobedience into practice, and the world changed for ever. As we speak, Thoreau and Gandhi's methods are being acted out in front of WH demanding Obama veto the proposed pipeline for oil from Canadian tar sands to Gulf coast. He showed that it takes more courage to face the establishment authority in a nonviolent way than to engage in violence.

All this is well and good.

However, at the same time, we must also keep in mind Gandhi was not an object of unabashed adulation among all Indians sans future Pakistanis. Notable among them was the Dalits. The exchange between Gandhi and Babasaheb Ambedkar on Caste is a telling rebuke to Gandhi for his absurd justification of Varna.

Yes, Gandhi was a great leader, but like many great leaders, he was also a flawed leader. Let us not deify him.

Cheers!
 
OP
OP
N

niyengaar

New member
Hi niyengaar:

What's YOUR position on this?

You take your considered view on this issue, then we will debate on it!

Cheers.



well, regarding my point of view, that is the whole essence of this thread isn't it yamaka ?
focusing upon an individual's views will end up with a who supports / opposes that individual - something which conflicts the purpose of a generic discussion. and i am sure u knew that well before asking - so getting back to the topic.



btw , just to sum up what we ve discussed so far,


Shri Saidevo gave links to ahimsa and dharma in links.

Shri Alwan explained that Weakness and Non violence are dependent of who is stronger and who is not - to not go violent in spite of being powerful is what is non violence ; being silent because the opponent is stronger - is not non violence but just weakness. He gave the example of Shri Anna Ji's protest to add. This explanation looks understandable and clear.

Shri ER Narayanan 's explanation revolves around whether being silent can give a solution or not. If being silent brings about a solution, it is non violence and otherwise, it is weakness.
But how will we know whether there will be a solution or not ? Until Independence people followed Ghandhi Ji and fought non violently. But nobody knew if they would succeed at all. I am not clear on how we can attribute our action to results which might depend on a lot of other factors.

Shri Sangom said " if you resort to non-violence against an adversary who is even likely to kill or maim you, it is weakness and/or foolishness." ... But in both the cases of Mr Ghandhi and Mr Jesus, their adversary were harming them / killed them. So would Ghandhi and Jesus become weak ? we attribute their works to non violence evertime, dont we ?

Shri Yamaka said "Without even a token counter-rally even in T. Nagar, Mambalam in Madras or in Madurai inner city was a sign of Moral Weakness" ... He said that the reason brahmans did not show their opposition was because EVR and co were strong - but they gave a reason that they did not want violence. Also he thought that people here might not be too happy with him for saying that ( "I will be running for a cover soon" ) ...

Shri sravna feels that " non violence and cowardice are two ends of the spectrum. To be violent you need courage but when you practice non-violence and shift further to the right end of the spectrum, you are also moving into the mental plane. It is more of a fight at that level. Interestingly you try to mentally overwhelm your opponent and make him weak"

Shri Nara feels that "Continuing to justify varna system and insisting that is part of "dharma" ordained by their religion, that is moral weakness" ...

but would not that become weakness - to keep quiet even when u r suffering ?
that is why the question, what is the difference between the two ?



is keeping quiet at all times, non violence ?
will that make the ones fighting for their rights, violent ?
If the enemy is stronger and we still keep quiet, is that weakness or non violence ?
If the adversary is going to injure / hurt / kill us , will that be our weakness or non violence. Both mr Ghandhi and Mr Jesus, were injured and killed.
If keeping quiet is going to allow the injustice to carry on, what is the use / meaning of keeping quiet at all ?
and is keeping quiet the right way of showing non violence ? because Ghandhi Ji did not keep quiet - but fought for a cause. So, can we fight but still be non violent ?

too many questions to be clarified still ...



so basically , 1) can we define what non violence is and what 2) weakness is and 3) how the two can be differentiated, because the individual opinions , as is clear so far, seems to again be confused.



p.s. : people, please keep Shri ghandhi and Shri ghodse for another thread. I think we are not even close in understanding what the difference is , in between non violence and weakness ...
 

sravna

Well-known member
This is a really good topic.

Society would be much better off if it understands that non-violence is a great strength and not a weakness. To me non-violence is non-physical and non-aggressive means of fighting for your cause. Non violent methods should meet the following criteria. It should have a moral force driving it and it should appeal to those people on whose behalf the fight is made.

It is as I said in my previous post not fought with physical force but with intellectual force. It should not be construed as weakness just because physical force is not used. That is backward thinking.

Mahatma Gandhi practiced non violence in a very effective manner and was responsible for that approach taking roots in India. I think human society has to learn more lessons in giving up violence and aggression as a means of a fight. India can be proud and almost the whole credit goes to Gandhi, as a country where peaceful protests can achieve its objectives.
 

sangom

Well-known member
Gandhi used, and he could use, non-violence as a slogan because he was sure that he was fighting an empire which then was very mighty but one which obeyed laws scrupulously. He himself was an authority of that law (Bar at Law, he was.) Please see the following for some more info on Gandhi:-

"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Annie Besant, were virtually contemporary. Gandhi was born in India, got bar at law degree from UK while Annie Besant was born and brought up in UK. For first 30 years of his life did not devote his young life for the benefit of Indians, the country to which he owed everything. As he was a failure as advocate in the very first and the only case MK Gandhi bar at law could not defend the case as he fumbled did not speak a word in support of his client before the British Magistrate. He apologized and left the court almost heart broken. Then Gandhi managed to get an assignment in South Africa from an Indian businessman and left for South Africa where he spent 21 years without his wife and children. Though Gandhi, the barrister from India made many friends, British, South Africans and Indian and fought for equality of Indians and Africans with British ruler of South Africa. Gandhi and Indians in South Africa cannot forget the humiliation that he suffered when, with valid 1[SUP]st[/SUP] class ticket he was virtually thrown out of train by Britishers. Thus when the First World War started in 1914 Gandhi left for India. Indians thought now experienced Gandhi who was about 45 year old will lead the Indian campaign against the British rulers. But instead Gandhi supported the British in their war to the extent that Gandhi in his home state Gujarat went from village to village for four years to recruit soldier from India for British Army. Which on the other hand Annie Besant a British citizen spent 5 years in jail as she was supporting Indian independence from British rule which was not only Annie Besant but many Indians were demanding , if not independence, Home Rule. It was only after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of unarmed India’s peaceful men and women who had just gathered there to hear their leaders, killing more that 500 men and women that Gandhi became to an extent anti British or anti imperialist and joined Independence movement and soon became its leader and Father of the Nation."
http://hcsingh.com/2011/04/25/annie-besant-and-mk-gandhi-6-independence-movement-of-india-from-1880-to-1920-%E2%80%93brief-review/
If Gandhi had used his non-violence against, say, any other dictator (Gaddafi being the latest) or any other Govt., he would not have been so successful. (We can wait and see what happens to Gandhi II and his JLP.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks