Sarah V. poses for a picture with Rajmohan Gandhi after the professor's talk during last week's Celebration of Peace.During last week's talk reflecting on the life of his grandfather, Mahatma Gandhi, Professor Rajmohan Gandhi used this story to look for the purpose of people and government in time of "War on Terror" that is in conflict with "Peace and Ahimsa (the Sanskrit word for non-violence)."
"A little girl asked here parents how wars start,'' professor Ghandi started.
"Wars start over land,'' her mother said.
"No, wars start over economics,'' the father said.
"They are fights over land,'' the mother countered, only to be stopped by the father's exclamation of "ECONOMICS!"
The little girl, sighed. "Now I really know how wars start,"
Professor Gandhi's talk to students of Waubonsie, Neuqua Valley, Naperville North and Naperville Central centered around the themes that propaganda in the "so-called" Muslim vs. the so-called "Western World" are standing in the way of the prospect of potential of peaceful global world.
"Today, there is a belief, or propaganda that America is the enemy,'' Ghandi said. "Likewise, in america and the West there is the thought that there is something wrong with the Muslim world as a whole."
The grandson, who at 72 years of age, said he is still honored to be referred to as the grandson of Ghandi. He said Ghandi's relevance was as much about bringing Hindus and Muslims together as much as it was achieving (non-violently) India's independence. He later went on to say,
"Those who commit acts of violence in the name of justice are ordering the public to pay the price.''
The professor went on to push you guys to to get involved, and maybe change the world. "An individual has conscience, government doesn't have consceince . Institutions don't have conscience. Government needs opposition, disent, often to provide the role of a conscience."
Interesting. But what if individuals have opposing coscienciousness, and being linked to governments both locally and nationally, they are enganged in a tug of war that often uses labeling dialog and sometimes violence.
I could not help be think of the "What would Jesus Do?" catch phrase. Substituting, "What would Ghandi Do?" when thinking of the crosscutting cleavage that has become national news right from our own backyard. The debate/protest/delayed opening/and lawsuit over the Planned Parenthood clinic is a complex one to find "Ahimsa" in our pluralistic, polarized society.
I am a Catholic, anti-abortion, but pro-choice. Does that make me a flip-flopper? I guess I wish I could turn to Ghandi for guidance.
What do you think Ghandi would do, or advise on the two side of the local clinic conflict. Linked here is Time magazine's story on the local controversy and the national grassroots lobbying so-called pro-life movement.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1662487,00.html
4 comments:
One of the basic principles that Ghandi stood for is that of protecting the innocent through a non-violent way. In addition, he proclaimed forgivness and penitence to sinners and wrongdoers in society. In light of this, Ghandi's ideas do not allow for the killing of babies just because the mother does not want it. Ghandi would stress that those who made a mistake, like forgetting contraception, should face the consequences with courage and honor. Just like he admitted his mistake of stealing to his father, he would advise mothers who want to abort to face the truth. Life is not something that we can just throw away just because we feel like it, or because it is more convenient. It takes true strength to face up to your mistake and raise that baby or, if you are troubled, give it up for adoption.
In my opinion, Ghandi would not look favorably upon pro-choice ideologies. Of course their are certain instances in which abortion is necessary, it should not be used on a voluntary (pro-choice basis).
Ghandi fought for the the freedom of about a billion people. This included people of all background, some of which are criminals and wrongdoers. So, Ghandi stressed forgivness and mercy for these people by fighting for every INDIAN, not just the law-abiding ones. Because of this FACT, I don't think that he would allow people to kill INNOCENT babies just for their convinience. If he was alive today, he would stress the importance of responsibility and morality when it comes to abortion.
I know many people will argue that since he stressed freedom in society he would therefore support the pro-choice ideology. But the logical pathway that I just demonstrated proves just the opposite. If he forgave criminals and gave them a second chance to freedom, then why would he allow anybody to kill an INNOCENT baby. Also, it is very important to remember that Ghandi was an extremly religious man. In fact he read every major holy book that he could find, including the Bible, Quron, and the Torah. Therefore, he would also argue that the power of ending a life does not rest with us-- it rests with God alone...
I'm also pro-choice but anti-abortion like Mr. Wolak. I don't feel that it's wishy washy. Because abortion is already legal, to make it illegal would only indanger the lives of people that would want to have abortions. Now, it would do this because the individual would still desire and pursue an abortion, even if it was illegal. Illegal abortions would clearly not be as safe as a whole as the abortions that we currently have are for the obvious reason that you wouldn't be able to do them in a lab legally. Supposing that abortion becomes illegal, nationwide protests would engulf the nation as countless pro-choice women and some men will feel that their freedom has become greatly infringed upon.
Gandhi would have both sides come together in a meeting and work something out through discussion. In the end, though, this would prove futile and disagreements would remain. Gandhi would take the middle ground and try to play the ambassador role, trying to stay as neutral as possible. On the other hand, he also might take the conservative viewpoint and side against abortion. In doing so, he would envoke a nationwide protest of abortion that would lead to a Constitiutional amendment banning abortion. I feel that he would pursue the first path and try to work things out, though.
-dell
According to Sreeharsha, one of the basic principles that Ghandi stood for is that of protecting the innocent through a non-violent way. If this is the case, than would Ghandi really allow a child to born to mother who neither wants nor is able to properly care for that child, which is the number one reason women get abortions. And, if Ghandi proclaimed forgivness and penience to sinners and wrongdoers, wouldn't he forgive the young people who forget to use contraception, or by chance become pregnant due to inaffective contraception.
While, I relize that if Ghandi was alive today, he would most likely stress the importance of responsibility and morality when it comes to abortion, I see it in a different light. Ghandi accepted all people. Even those who he didn't approve of. He may have been anti-abortion, but he believed in people's rights and would accept the decision of the mother.
As a man of peace, and one that believed in the rule of compromise, Ghandi would indeed take the middle ground in this issue, and would urge the two sides to come to compromise.
Post a Comment