The Theme Of Non-Violence in Ahimsa, a Text By Gandhi

In Gandhi’s text called Ahimsa or the way of non-violence, he talks about the idea of non-violence, by saying “non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind, It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man”(Gandhi pg 83). Gandhi believes that using non-violence is more effective than using violence and that non-violence takes more courage and has no cause for fear. He expresses this belief by writing, “Violence does not mean emancipation from fear, but discovering the means of combating the cause of fear, non-violence on the other hand has no cause for fear”(Gandhi pg 83).

Throughout the text Gandhi argues reasons why non-violence is something that is good and needs to be done in order to get ones atman to its highest level or perfection, if it comes to the point where an unjust situation must be confronted. Throughout the text, I have devised the claim that Gandhi’s idea of non-violence is a good thing and helps the atman of a person grow, if they feel so engaged to confront a cause that defies the dignity of humanity.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Nonviolence

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

In other words, practicing non-violence in life will build character and make someone a better person as a result.

Throughout the text Gandhi gives some reasons as to why the way of non-violence is a good thing to practice. First, Gandhi argues that it takes no fear in order to use non-violence and in with having no fear a person acquires courage, as explained, when he expresses, “The votary of non-violence has to cultivate the capacity for sacrifice of the highest type in order to be free from fear.

He recks not if he should lose his land, his wealth, his life. He who has not overcome all fear cannot practice ahimsa to perfection”(Gandhi pg 83). I believe this statement is true. Acting in a way of non-violence requires a large amount of courage and fearlessness. In the civil rights era many of the protesters used non-violent protests as a way to get things to change in the Unites States, which took courage due to the fact that the white man had physically and emotionally abused them for centuries in the land that they were trying to socially change. People like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks and also other influential leaders during the civil rights era used non-violence. These people are some of the most fearless and courageous people in my opinion, because they protested via non-violent means while violent acts were going on all around them on a daily basis during that period in time. Unlike todays “black people matter” movement, they didn’t rob or kill others that were hurting them but respectively voiced their opinion in order to be respected in the future. In my opinion, using non-violence takes more courage than using violence. To be non-violent in the case of violence also takes fearlessness, and that is why I believe that Gandhi’s idea of practicing non-violence will make someone a better person.

Gandhi also argues that using non-violence will help one become a happier and better person in general; however, with the practice of non-violence, the urge to use violence will appear and not acting on that urge will result in personal growth and happiness in the future. This opinion is revealed, when it is stated, “It is not that I am incapable of anger, for instance, but I succeed on almost all occasions to keep my feelings under control. Whatever may be the result, there is always in me conscious struggle or following the law of non-violence deliberately and ceaselessly. Such a struggle leaves one stronger for it. The more I work at this law, the more I feel delight in my life”(Gandhi pg 86). The happiness received from getting a point across and defending justice is an applicable and logical choice for non-violence over irrational and violent means. Are suicide bombers happy when they try to get there point across through violence? No, because they are dead and do not see the reaction of justice that is wished for. This is a current example in which supports his belief of non-violence in this way. I believe this is true because, in my opinion acting .under the law of non-violence it will teach one patience, determination, and control which are all characteristics that make someone a better person, along with seeing the result of such patience and sustainability of drive for seeking such justice.

With Gandhi and myself believing that non-violence is a good thing and will help a person grow and become better, there are arguments and other opinions that try and disprove the idea that non-violence takes courage, fearlessness, and helps someone become a better person. The counter argument that most people would think about Ghandi’s idea of non-violence is the conception that it takes violence to urge change and that being violent takes courage or makes one courageous; however, is this completely accurate in modern examples of violent acts in order to seek a just result. With the death of innocents in terrorist attacks like 9/11 and riots, common onlookers, unlike those seeking justice through violence, often result to worse agendas creating less injustice due to the disrespect they feel from the group that could not be courteous enough to treat others as thy would like to be treated. If you would like to be respected by someone, it is not the best idea to disrespect them in order for them to respect you. This just causes more hate; therefore, all the death, harm, and violence is for no reason. The common misconception that many people have about violence is that it takes courage and fearlessness to be violent, however this is not true. Gandhi disproves this misconception by talking about how using non-violence can work for justice and can bring about change without the use of violence, by stating, “Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. When I refuse to do a thing that is repugnant to my consciousness, I use soul force. For instance the government of the day has passed a law which is applicable to me. I do not like it. If by using violence I force the government to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body force. If I do not obey the law and accept the penalty of its breach, I use soul force. It involves sacrifice of self”(Ghandi pg 89). Gandhi believes that using soul force or non-violent practices will result in the best outcome when it comes to law and wanting a change. It is better for someone to act non-violently than violently if they want something changed for the better. Although radicals for change in this era of time do not think rationally enough to acknowledge this, the justice they seek would receive better results had they thought in such way. I also believe that using non-violence when it comes to making a change is the best way to push for that change, due to the fact that when respect is give respect is earned. This is prominent in how many streets throughout America, especially in the south are named after Martin Luther King Jr. In our future, will our children learn about the bravery of peaceful protest and look up to heroes like Martin Luther King or will they look up to mass murders who sought change through killing innocent lives at cafes in Paris?

As you can see, I believe that Gandhi’s idea of practicing non-violence is a good thing and will result in the gain of characteristics that attribute to making ones atman or self-better, along with bettering society with respect and less hatred. Practicing non-violence will help a person become fearless, will give a person more courage than they previously had and also make the person who practices non-violent ways a better person in general. That is why I agree that Gandhi’s idea of using non-violence is something that will benefit people as individuals and as a whole in relations to being in a community. Maybe if the world reviewed the teaching of Gandhi the deaths of children would have been avoided?