Do you agree with this quote by Mahatma Gandhi?

[ZombieHorde]

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Mahatma_Gandhi/

[billyoc]

1. I don't condone non-violence.

[elehhhhna]

5. lol

[Radical Activist]

2. I'd like to see a more reliable source for the quote

that also puts it in context and tells me at what point in his life he said it.

[ZombieHorde]

10. If you google the whole quote, you will discover many other sources.

Here are a few...

http://www.livinglifefully.com/thinkersmgandhi.html

http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/strength.htm

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=n&p=7

[struggle4progress]

29. Between Cowardice And Violence

Violence the Choice

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence ... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier ... But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature ...

No Cowardice

I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.

My method of nonviolence can never lead toloss of strength, but it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.

My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once ... that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.

Self-defence by Violence

The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.

Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.

But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself. He is a stranger to nonviolence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to his nature. Before he can understand nonviolence, he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away from nonviolence.

http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

[H2O Man]

32. See Thomas Merton's book,

"Gandhi on Non-Violence." You will find that quote, and a half-dozen more that are very similar.

[Mira]

3. Did Ghandi give you the black eye before or after he said this?

[ZombieHorde]

14. Right after he stabbed a kitten...

[Eric J in MN]

4. I don't believe that Gandhi said that.

Doesn't sound like his philosophy.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. My first reaction, too

If it is an authentic quote, I will bet that it comes from very early in his activism, while he was still living in South Africa and working against racial segregation and before he began developing his doctrines of satyagraha.

[Sanctified]

8. It sounds exactly like Gandhi, read the quote again and see what he is saying.

The statement is very deep and profound and you need to really examine what he is saying, with this quote you can see that Gandhi truly had no violence in his heart since by his own accord if he did have violence in his heart it would be better for him to act violently instead of pretending to be non-violent.

[Book Lover]

17. Or he could have engaged in self-deception (nm)

[ZombieHorde]

11. Google the whole quote.

[Growler]

13. It is one of the essential messages of the Bhagavad Gita

...and perhaps the main message of Krishna to Arjuna. Gandhi knew this, and lived it.

[Mind_your_head]

7. I voted that I agreed with the quote, BUT there is a huge disqualifier there....

IF there is violence in our hearts

Some people really truly DON'T have 'violence in their hearts'

What of them?

[Sanctified]

9. The quote does not apply to people of peace, I think Gandhi was addressing

the wolves who wear sheep clothing.

[ZombieHorde]

12. I am not so sure about that...

http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/strength.htm

It may, however, be clarified that Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of political action was not born of fear or escapism.Rather he disapproved of the passive non-violence of the coward.He regarded a coward “as less than a man”.“It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our breasts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence”, he said. On another occasion he remarked, “I have said more than once that if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women, and our places of worship by force of suffering i.e. by non-violence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.”

[Growler]

15. Here is another, similar quote from Gandhi

"He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully."

Gandhi, Non-Violence in Peace and War, Volumes I and II.

[charlie]

16. A little more context...

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. The is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent."

http://books.google.com/books?id=AIrLed2w1lkC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&source=web&ots=cbJnwJlHb_&sig=dulIEC0ou84V26v9ZkY8TTW-Wps

[Book Lover]

18. I see he avoided discussing fear when calling someone a coward

The more I learn about this man, the more I dislike him. He was in so many ways, inhumane.

[ZombieHorde]

19. His accomplishments were great, and they were attained by humane means.

Do you agree with these two assertions?

[Book Lover]

20. Please define "great"

And which accomplishments?

[ZombieHorde]

21. Please define "great"

Definitions 4,6,7,17 from Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/great

4. wonderful; first-rate; very good: We had a great time. That's great!
6. notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding: a great occasion.
7. important; highly significant or consequential: the great issues in American history.
17. Informal. very well: Things have been going great for him.

And which accomplishments?

I know that you are being a smart ass, but I will answer anyway...

Gandhi first employed peaceful civil disobedience in the Indian community's struggle for civil rights in South Africa. Upon his return to India from Africa, he organized poor farmers and labourers to protest against oppressive taxation and widespread discrimination. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for the alleviation of poverty, for the liberation of women, for brotherhood amongst different religious and ethnic groups, for an end to untouchability and caste discrimination, and for the economic self-sufficiency of the nation, but above all for Swaraj—the independence of India from foreign domination. Gandhi famously led his nation in the disobedience of the British salt tax imposed in India with the 400 kilometre (248 miles) Dandi Salt March in 1930, and in an open call for the British to Quit India in 1942. He was imprisoned for many years on numerous occasions in both South Africa and India.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=gandhi%20

[rug]

22. Violence is not a subjective phenomenon.

[ZombieHorde]

23. Please elaborate.

[rug]

24. Regardless of what's in one's heart, violence is devastating to all around it.

I like Ghandi but I think he got it wrong here. While he's clearly denouncing hypocrites, violence is rarely the better choice.

Where is the quote from?

[ZombieHorde]

25. Where is the quote from?

I got from the link in the OP, but here is another that another poster posted: http://books.google.com/books?id=AIrLed2w1lkC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&source=web&ots=cbJnwJlHb_&sig=dulIEC0ou84V26v9ZkY8TTW-Wps

[Jim__]

26. I really don't understand the quote.

The best context of the quote that I've seen is given in response #16:

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. The is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent."

What does it mean to have violence in your heart? Does it mean that a person who emotionally wants to resist violently, but sees that as futile in this situation and so gives non-violence a chance, participates in non-violent resistance, is hurting the cause of non-violence? How so? If the person accepts the path of non-violence and follows it, I don't see how the fact that he may act violently under different circumstances effects his non-violent actions. If his non-violent actions are effective, he may be converted to non-violence.

Based on that interpretation, I voted "No."

[SidneyCarton]

27. Those who mask impotence with protestations of nonviolence cheapen nonviolence.

They cheapen nonviolence by making it look like the refuge of cowards. Look at Gandhi, look at MLK, or any other of the thousands who have participated in nonviolent resistance (emphasis on resistance) and you realize right away that these are extremely brave individuals, for they could not face violence without striking back without having banished fear from their hearts.

Some of us cannot master our passions to such a degree as to achieve the serene courage that Gandhi attained, for those he encouraged to still act. This quote is very much in line with his other quote to "be the change you want to see in the world." While Gandhi did not condone violent resistance, I would guess that he had more respect for those who risked their hide in such actions than those who masked their apathy in the robes of nonviolence in an attempt to sanctify their lethargy.

[uberllama42]

28. I have no idea what the fuck that statement is supposed to mean.

A statement has to convey some meaning, whether or not accurately perceived, before it can be agreed with.

[ZombieHorde]

30. Maybe it means what it says. What is confusing you?

[Azooz]

31. When and why fight?

To put it in historical context, Gandhi had 100s of million of loyal followers during a major civil war, after a long hard struggle for India's liberty. Churchill said that nonviolence would not work against Hitler, true, but that would have been when the nonviolence part would end and the violent part start. Gandhi used it to get the British out of India, the Nazis would have increased their violence rather than leave India - the Brits did not face a cowardly Gandhi nor would have the Nazis.

>>It is better to be violent,
To an nonviolent person that is an insult, intended to emphasis the next statement

>>if there is violence in our hearts,
That would be harsh criticism to someone who believes in non-violence to, something for them to fear and work against. Most men are violent, part of being born a human I guess, but Gandhi worked hard to remove that violence and make it much lower on his choices and options, and was teaching those who listened to him to do the same.

>>than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
ie. a hypocrite is much worst than a violent person.


Violence is not bravery, a bully is brave among children and the weak but will turn coward in front of bigger boys and pretend to be a nice nonviolent person till he gets more power - the alternative Gandhi is pushing here (I think) is that the bully should try to learn how to remove that violence first. Many can teach that, but coming from a guy with a large army has much more impact, even on bullies.

I am not %100 sure of this but think it fits with what Gandhi would have thought of when and how to fight. Never is best but he did not live in that type of world and tried his best to make it such a world, in India at least.

[Azooz]

33. Cain and Able - Able won