Oct 4, 2010 4:48:58 AM cite

Even Ghandi and Budda couldn't do it. But fighting when you must is a human thing - you don't make the wolf go away by feeding it lambs!

by jshm2

Aug 19, 2010 6:59:50 AM cite

i think we have to go back to Basics.All human r good people. to get succeed we need human minds/brains. Ignorance is the blockage. What I mean by the word ignorrance is deliberate unknowing of truth or reasons. This happens at unconcious level of mind for 89%. some times at subconcious level for say 10%. For 1% this happens at concious level they are our Prisoners of War. It is very Easy to drop knowledge to 89%. People like Arundhati can treat 10%. the balance 1% we can kill them to exist

by mathewkuriachan

Jun 5, 2008 4:42:49 AM cite

Take the court case of residents of the Ecuador vs. Texaco [Chevron] as a good example of the non-delivery of Non-violent means in today's world. As a medical doctor I feel deeply for those afflicted with cancer and other ailments because of a large oil company leaving filth behind after they departed. They could have used a fraction of their profits to clear up that filth. How are these people able to have a good night's sleep. Do we amount to only this much. On the other hand it would be dangerous if all conflict evolved into violence. That definitely scares me. A balance between violent and non-violent means may also not work out. Who are we to decide which person is exerting 'his right to violence' in a 'proper manner'. Both Bush and Osama claim they are fighting for a right cause. Who is right and who is wrong? Whom should we allow and whom should we stop? You see the difficulty? Despite Non-violence being a slow time consuming process, it is the better of the two. More Bush's, Osama's and Chevron's may continue to party for a while, but the partying will not last very long. Thanks to Gandhi and his follower King.

by subbiahkasi

Aug 12, 2007 8:49:58 PM cite

Till the whole Humanity learns to respect the live of any other human beign, we are in War. The humanity is in war. I may live peacfully in my Country now, but i am as part of the humanity in war, because war exist right now in other Lands. So from my side as warrior from here i can inspire Love and Peace to the people and this is my biodiversity resistance from a safer side of this war. The people who are close in this war cause they are attacked right now in some Lands, may have the question what to do and the dilema is to choose something effective wich will not be against their religious believes or other believeing systems. Before i continiue i want to say, that to make a right decision and the right chess move in this situation, we have to realize another fact: The War between the humanity is something that lasts since the begining of the humanity. And a lot human beiings wish this war to end someday and have peace all over the earth. So i would count in my decision what an effect my move would have on time and wich action brings the whole humanity faster to the end of this one and only war. Die like a martyr with using non-violent resistance can inspire Love to the humanity, and has a strong effect that may bring us faster to the end of the humans war. Gandie teaches us how strong this can be. If we fight armed we may minor a considerable number of "Dangerous humans" and help with this way better the war to stop one day faster. The "Dangerous human" is always the attacker. I wish we all chose love right now, but a biodiversity of resistance may bring us faster to the end of humanitys war, that should be end one day so we all leave in peace. Arundhati i need to tell you that i vote your question by accident with only one star and i cant take it back now. Its five stars! Ok? You are very sweet! Lot of love and respect!

by alexisgerardis

Jun 18, 2007 5:20:57 AM cite

Gandhi referred to his life and actions as an experiment with truth… I think we need to continue that experiment, these experiments today. As an IDEarealist I believe that humans are inherently good. And that also comes from my belief in the possibilities of human evolution (yes, despite our history of genocide). In my own history of resisting violence my methods have always spanned from compassion and creativity. We need to continue to create a world that does not have to resort to violence-- be an example of the possibilities of peace. I can go on and on about how I believe that ‘nonviolence’ is ‘the way’… but I don’t think anyone can ever come to a full understanding with each other in that question and so I think we need to take a step back… and ask ourselves WHAT IS WORKING AND WHAT IS NOT WORKING? What IS effective? Do violent tactics work? And if they aren’t what can work or how can these strategies improve? …. I think we have to take these questions beyond the state and beyond the multi-prong economic system. I believe we cannot only rely/work within the legal/state (what one would call the non-violent way) system to change things but as you have implied we need a “biodiversity of resistance”… One can argue that our current methods of change aren’t doing enough- our protests, our lobbying, our prayers, our advocacy, our service- its not stopping the machine- it may be slowing it down BUT ITS NOT STOPPING IT. One can also argue that, we’re doing what we can, as much as we can, to our capacity. One can argue, “we have to do more because of the urgency of the earth, of our vanishing cultures, of our biodiversity so in that respect we need a strategy of “by any means necessary”? But what makes us come to the resort of ‘violence’ in the first place? Have we exhausted all the other parts of our minds and hearts? Yes, we are in war. We are in a genocide. We are in many many violent paradigms but can we call upon the sanctity of time and ask ourselves first, “how did things come to be this way?” Is there room for dialogue in the 24hour battlefield? (many may say no if the UN cant even stop anyone) Even a whisper of what it means to live in peace again? (perhaps we have forgotten to ask our grandmothers and our children what they think? How do we enter them into the dialogue?) Or do we resort back to the moral question of the righteous fight? Another question comes up for me… ( this might be going into philosophical sematincs again… but lets see where we arrive…) What DOES IT MEAN TO BE VIOLENT? Let us take the example of political graffiti. Is graffiti violent? I would argue NO. Some might think it is because it’s the destruction of private and public property. But I see it as a perfectly unharmful form of dissent, a touch of color to this pale gray streets of capitalism, BUT the deeper question is: IS THIS FORM OF PROTEST WORKING? I would say, YES and NO. We could be a lot more creative on this one. YES, it catches the neighborhoods attention- if that’s what you’re looking for but if you’re struggling for more- that can of spraypaint has got to put out more than a sketch of Russian revolutionaries, more than unreadable blurbs about your angst. I think it is a waist of energy to paint irrelevant revolutionaries everywhere. Yes, symbolism creates inspiration but our work cannot stop at martyrism. The Artists/Activists needed to come up with something more creative and ‘directly relevant’ to both the local movement and larger movements. That is where we fail and lose people. The every day masses start to disengage themselves in “revolution” because they think its just a bunch of angry youth with a dying cause for martyrism, dogma, violence. What about the case of blowing up a whole bunch of SUVs? Is that violent? MAYBE? Does it catch people’s attention? YES. Does it work to change consumerism? Maybe, mostly NO. I see a lot of ‘violent’ protest a lot like “no-smoking fear tactics”- It catches peoples attention: YES but does it change things- MAYBE, MOSTLY NO. Why? Because we are not organizing to hit the roots of the problem. It is frustrating but nobody said it would be easy, violent or non-violent- the struggle is going to take a lot of creative, hard work. One can argue that it is easy for ‘us,’ the ones with the privilege of being able log onto the internet to discuss this to advocate for ‘nonviolent principles’ to say these things but that is precisely where we need to ask ourselves these questions. We have the privilege of ‘nonviolence’- I can argue that it is even our ‘right’ to be nonviolent – thus our need. And so this is what we must show them. That nonviolence is a right and you can no longer threaten our families with violence. We are creating more beautiful worlds- we are creating new stories. How are we going to use this privilege? Is it possible to be non-violent but support other (armed) struggles? Or is this another means versus ends dilemma? Regardless, if this system continues, it is inevitable, I am afraid to say, that we will continue to see more violence from all sides. The method of nonviolence gives no greater guarantee than that of violence. Because the question of armed vs. nonviolence raises moral judgements and value systems we can never come to a full understanding of each other. We can, however, create a third, fourth, fifth… space. I believe our true nature is to create. Thus art is primordial. So again, like Gandhi, we must continue to experiment. MAKE ART NOT WAR. CREATE NOT WAR.

by possibilities

Jun 18, 2007 5:19:53 AM cite

Gandhi referred to his life and actions as an experiment with truth… I think we need to continue that experiment, these experiments today. As an IDEarealist I believe that humans are inherently good. And that also comes from my belief in the possibilities of human evolution (yes, despite our history of genocide). In my own history of resisting violence my methods have always spanned from compassion and creativity. We need to continue to create a world that does not have to resort to violence-- be an example of the possibilities of peace. I can go on and on about how I believe that ‘nonviolence’ is ‘the way’… but I don’t think anyone can ever come to a full understanding with each other in that question and so I think we need to take a step back… and ask ourselves WHAT IS WORKING AND WHAT IS NOT WORKING? What IS effective? Do violent tactics work? And if they aren’t what can work or how can these strategies improve? …. I think we have to take these questions beyond the state and beyond the multi-prong economic system. I believe we cannot only rely/work within the legal/state (what one would call the non-violent way) system to change things but as you have implied we need a “biodiversity of resistance”… One can argue that our current methods of change aren’t doing enough- our protests, our lobbying, our prayers, our advocacy, our service- its not stopping the machine- it may be slowing it down BUT ITS NOT STOPPING IT. One can also argue that, we’re doing what we can, as much as we can, to our capacity. One can argue, “we have to do more because of the urgency of the earth, of our vanishing cultures, of our biodiversity so in that respect we need a strategy of “by any means necessary”? But what makes us come to the resort of ‘violence’ in the first place? Have we exhausted all the other parts of our minds and hearts? Yes, we are in war. We are in a genocide. We are in many many violent paradigms but can we call upon the sanctity of time and ask ourselves first, “how did things come to be this way?” Is there room for dialogue in the 24hour battlefield? (many may say no if the UN cant even stop anyone) Even a whisper of what it means to live in peace again? (perhaps we have forgotten to ask our grandmothers and our children what they think? How do we enter them into the dialogue?) Or do we resort back to the moral question of the righteous fight? Another question comes up for me… ( this might be going into philosophical sematincs again… but lets see where we arrive…) What DOES IT MEAN TO BE VIOLENT? Let us take the example of political graffiti. Is graffiti violent? I would argue NO. Some might think it is because it’s the destruction of private and public property. But I see it as a perfectly unharmful form of dissent, a touch of color to this pale gray streets of capitalism, BUT the deeper question is: IS THIS FORM OF PROTEST WORKING? I would say, YES and NO. We could be a lot more creative on this one. YES, it catches the neighborhoods attention- if that’s what you’re looking for but if you’re struggling for more- that can of spraypaint has got to put out more than a sketch of Russian revolutionaries, more than unreadable blurbs about your angst. I think it is a waist of energy to paint irrelevant revolutionaries everywhere. Yes, symbolism creates inspiration but our work cannot stop at martyrism. The Artists/Activists needed to come up with something more creative and ‘directly relevant’ to both the local movement and larger movements. That is where we fail and lose people. The every day masses start to disengage themselves in “revolution” because they think its just a bunch of angry youth with a dying cause for martyrism, dogma, violence. What about the case of blowing up a whole bunch of SUVs? Is that violent? MAYBE? Does it catch people’s attention? YES. Does it work to change consumerism? Maybe, mostly NO. I see a lot of ‘violent’ protest a lot like “no-smoking fear tactics”- It catches peoples attention: YES but does it change things- MAYBE, MOSTLY NO. Why? Because we are not organizing to hit the roots of the problem. It is frustrating but nobody said it would be easy, violent or non-violent- the struggle is going to take a lot of creative, hard work. One can argue that it is easy for ‘us,’ the ones with the privilege of being able log onto the internet to discuss this to advocate for ‘nonviolent principles’ to say these things but that is precisely where we need to ask ourselves these questions. We have the privilege of ‘nonviolence’- I can argue that it is even our ‘right’ to be nonviolent – thus our need. And so this is what we must show them. That nonviolence is a right and you can no longer threaten our families with violence. We are creating more beautiful worlds- we are creating new stories. How are we going to use this privilege? Is it possible to be non-violent but support other (armed) struggles? Or is this another means versus ends dilemma? Regardless, if this system continues, it is inevitable, I am afraid to say, that we will continue to see more violence from all sides. The method of nonviolence gives no greater guarantee than that of violence. Because the question of armed vs. nonviolence raises moral judgements and value systems we can never come to a full understanding of each other. We can, however, create a third, fourth, fifth… space. I believe our true nature is to create. Thus art is primordial. So again, like Gandhi, we must continue to experiment. MAKE ART NOT WAR. CREATE NOT WAR.

by possibilities

Sep 14, 2006 3:35:24 AM cite

At its highest and most realized, the moral is indistinguishable from the aesthetic. Rigid preconceptions and an insistence on totality of planning hinder the artist. Openness, a developed spontaneity, fearless and unprejudiced regard toward tools and technique - these are better preparation for the creative act than dialogue and dogma.

by roybelmont

Sep 12, 2006 11:58:14 AM cite

I´m not him but try to answer with my opinion......If the resistance of a person or a group is violent, perhaps it´s effective for a short moment, the other people start to listen, and he/she/they can express the angry and sad feelings, but in effect, you do nothing better than it was done to you. Answering to violence with violence can´t be the right way, for my opinion. So it is very important that people listen carefully to them who are resisting non-violent, so nobody has the feeling to have to get violent to be listened.

by wolfenser

Sep 12, 2006 5:45:36 AM cite

?Resistance is futile? and struggle reinforces that which is fighted. So both methods are not up to the ?age of (self)knowledge?. What is effective is that individuals know where there stream of consciousness is flowing. Is it flowing into fears or is it flowing into beauty? This is self-knowledge and of course to be able to ?stream? consciously one has to know the own belief systems. This is what is necessary to stop unwanted manifestations: Know Yourself!

by mbl

Sep 12, 2006 5:30:32 AM cite

Each situation is different. The path of non-violent resistance needs to be sought first, while armed stuggle may be needed if grave injustices are being commited. What is effective in one situation may not be effective in another situation; it's up to us to be mindful of what we can do to bring about the best solutions.

by Deannahawk

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: For this question Gandhi gives the answer. We can remember. It is the question from India. He gave the right answer for this question. They don’t make a war [and] this is revolution, still a revolution. He make a big big influence on the India became his freedom, his sovereignty while he has a very intelligent leader. He was a wise man, he was clown too, I think. You cannot fight against wrong things. When you are fighting with guns, with arms, you loose yourself because you become exactly so aggressive, looks like your opposite site. We have a very wonderful writer, it is Eugeny Schwarz and he writes [inaudible] [fair] story, its name is “Drache” (“Dragon”). It is one story about who is fighting against Drache. He became (turned to) with arms a dragon himself. This act of kill another people it can never be positive. Some wish to kill is not positive. Of course the people can use their own intellectual potential, their own energy. And I know a lot, thousands and thousands of people who fight but not with arms, with their intellect, it is a fighting in education, it is a fighting for lives of a lot of people, they are fighting for moral health of nations. This thousand people do this and with big big big success. Use, more use wisdom of love, and you are never wrong when you are not doing for other people things you don’t like they do for yourself. Bring the love and you become the love. Bring this patience and you become respect. Bring respect from another people and you become respect. It is all have a communication.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: ٍI think that the issue is not optional, so we can not choose between non-violent resistance and armed struggle. Of course we prefer non-violent resistance because armed struggle has very passive results later, because the winners who used armed struggle will become despots after they win. As I said this is not an optional issue, for example, can we stop revolutions? In Middle East countries and in the countries where there are dictators for a long time, can we expect more? If there was a armed struggle movement against dictators, should we refuse it just because we believe in peace? In Europe, people talk always about peace also in Iraq we have been talking for a long time about peace, but I said that there is war against Iraqi people so we can not talk about peace there. Sure we prefer peace, but dictators are not peaceful, so we should not wait 40 years to get rid of them. Can the world help us? That would be good thing.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I think that pacific resistance is one of the most effective ways to fight. An example of that is India, a country which has provided the humanity with one of the main exponents of the pacific resistance. Eventhough Ghandi was himself a victim of violence when he was murdered, he tought us something very important, which is extremely relevant and helpful to those countries at war or with a high level of violence. I think that the non-violent resistance is effective and it is a good method to defend ourselves from this death instint which is threatening the humankind.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Arundhati, hi. You know I’m from South Africa and so it’s such a problematic question to answer because my fundamental - my fundamental self tends to move towards non-violence. Yet I do believe that that’s completely naïve in a world in which we live. You know, the struggle against Aparteid took place finally with a many, many-pronged assault on the aparteid state, some of it violent, some of it economic, strategic. I would – you know, your question basically answers itself. You know I do believe we need a sort of as you call it a biodiverstiy of approaches to bring down what is construed and proven to be illegitimate. So, resistance, yes. You know but on the other - I also do know this for sure. That violence inculcates violence. And sometimes the spiral goes out of control, and, you know, literally that the delicate center or epicenter does fall apart. And it gets out of control. So there’s enormous responsibilities that are attached to the idea of struggle, struggle and violence and the decision to take life because it is justified by a higher moral purpose. My personal perspective? Is that I believe that we should not take life. That armed struggle that costs human life is not sustainable. My logic however tells me that armed struggle has brought about [transition] of power. In South Africa, there’s been a moral shift, a higher order of morality established, but I believe all South Africans are now losers, great losers. I’m not sure. The cost of war, the cost of conflict, directly and indirectly, I’m not sure. You know we really need to find another way. But if - if we can’t agree on the terms, well, then we really are in trouble. Because obviously not everyone is going to agree to reasonableness, so [inaudible].

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Arundhati, that is one of the most difficult questions ever posed to me. What I think about non-violence I think about homes, millions upon millions of homes where violence occurs every day. And then on top of that we have armed struggles. Then we talk about peace. Did you know that the peace movement on Earth is based to create that peace on Earth? Not peace at home? How can we peace on Earth when we not talk about peace in the home? I feel that the right thing to do is to talk about the peace at home first and foremost before we talk about the peace on Earth. The peace on Earth will never be created in such a way that we all dream on the peace on Earth. And until we have that peace in the home between the mother and the father and the children, then we will never have peace on Earth. So and of course we do need biodiversity. Imagine a garden of beautiful flowers in the circle as we are sitting here today. Then try to imagine it becomes one and the same flower. As powerful and beautiful it will be from in the beginning soon, very soon, you will feel dull with that whole thing. But if everyone is blooming in its own beauty, imagine that, that everyone sitting here in this circle at the table blooming in their own beauty. Yes, Arundhati, we need that biodiversity on Earth in everyone’s language, everyone’s culture, everyone’s spiritual understanding. Remember there’s only one Creator and there’s only one Earth. You know what the great prophet of the Bahai faith said there is only one Earth and mankind is a citizen? And within that Earth the beautiful, beautiful garden, look at it! Look at it, how beautiful it is. That’s what I am aiming at when I talk about peace. Peace at home. And when we have peace at home the peace on Earth will fall into our hands. And the beauty of the diversity of everyone will bloom beauty. That’s what I’m looking at. I’m so happy you asked the question and I’m privileged to give you my answer. Thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: Hey, Roy, I know of course you are watching this in Kashmir right now. The reality is we have no [formals] and we need the diversity of tactics and strategies, and we certainly cannot in any way adopt a principle stance of non-violence in a world, which is so violent, in a world which will inevitably use violence against movements that are non-violent. And so, I can’t endorse the principle of non-violence when it means saying to people who are under the gun, people who are facing the power of states, the power of military, the power of police oppression that they only can fight back, which is non-violent. And so, really, I think we have to ask a question of effectiveness of tactics in specific circumstances and specific struggles and specific situations, and we can learn from the history of social struggles. We can learn from the examples of the dangers and the weaknesses of certain [facets of] societies. In particular, we can look at the way in which violence, when it’s carried out by individuals or isolated groups, can lead to greater oppression, can lead to isolation, can lead to elitism in how one thinks about social change. Believing, for example, that only an enlightened minority can make change, whereas I think what we can learn from history of social struggles is that in reality, it’s when large numbers of people participate in struggles. And inevitably, those struggles will have elements that are violent and non-violent, which will involve the use of force, collective force, the power of the strike, the power to confront those who have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. We find that the most effective methods almost universally tend to be those that involve the greatest numbers of people and involve people engaging not just in civil disobedience, but ultimately in activity, which targets the most powerful institutions of power in the basis that they rely upon, which is the participation, the consent to legitimacy that’s given to them by ordinary people.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala