Mahatma Gandhi Community Forum

Perhaps no one can disagree with my following summarisation-

Terrorism : Spiritualism :: Bin Laden : Mahatama Gandhi

Therefore can we discuss an imaginary scenerio as under:

What would have happened if Bin Laden loaded with all kind of assault weapons would have landed before the unarmed, half naked fakir like Gandhi ?

Views: 1794

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I do not think Gandhi would make any influence on Osama bin Laden. The reason being, Laden follows a particular ideology requiring violence as a tool. However, failure to convince Laden would not be termed as failure of Gandhi. On the other hand, we can see that Laden has been successful only to some extent.Terrorising people and harming innocent people.Waht more? He pledges to attack all those who belong to different cultures. He wants to project his jihad as 'clash of civilizations'. Certainly he cannot win. First thing, He thinks he fights Christianity in the West, What he presumes to be the evils of Christianity are actually evils of Capitalism - crass capitalism, or say, consumerism.Now, consumerism cannot be fought by arms.It requires alternative in economic thinking.,Say, Gandhian method. So, ultimately Laden is going to lose. Gandhi wins.
You says a particular ideology...that means Islam.

Is it not true that Bin Laden is a more perfect follower of Koran & Islam than average Muslims or liberal muslims?

BTW, He has not invented 'Jehad'. Jehad is duty of every Muslim as prescribed by Koran. It's a different matter that only a handful Muslims like Bin Laden practice Islam & Koran perfectly in words & spirit.
Bin Laden simply fights Greed. I actually agree with Bin Laden on that particular issue, however I am completely against ANY use of violence. I am a passionate American pacifist and a strong follower of Jesus Christ as well as the philosophy and example of Gandhi. He was the most socially intelligent person IN ALL OF HISTORY becuase of his undying persistence of active peaceful civil disobedience. I say socially intelligent becuase he remined the world of what LOVE really means. It means honesty, humility, and altruism (putting others above ourselves). Gandhi was a genius becuase he targeted the heart, or emotion of the world, and created a foreverlasting message of Love, Peace, and fulfilment of moral responsibility. This means it is wrongful of us to NOT ACT AGAINST those who threaten peace and freedom. We all have a duty to defend freedom and encourage world peace through non-violent methods. Gandhi changed the world in a very positive way by enlightening us, and likewise, adjusted our minds to understand the TRUTH: That love, honesty, and humility, and no compromise short of that is the answer to universal salvation for all, especially you.
Hi, Chris Beal,

I surely do not know why the Forum puts your posting on the first page of this thread instead of being in line as next in line but there it is.

I too am a Christian American admirer of Gandhi, but I do not see myself as a "pacifist" and I have never viewed Gandhi as a pacifist either.

"Peace" is not really a virtue, but peaceful civil disobediance is, and peace without justice is no peace at all. Give us a peace based in truth and I shall surrender all.

So if I do understand your point correctly, then you mean that we as Gandhian activist for truth, need to help find a nonviolent way for Bin Laden and company to promote their grievances. To that I agree.

If Bin Laden gets killed then the grievances remain undone and unsettled, and all gov's including the USA is always going to be violent in their processes so the only effective assistance we as concerned people is to seek out a peaceful solution that will empower both sides of the conflict, and do not just cheer on the destruction of one side under the other side of any dispute. That I agree with.

It is not the Gandhi way or a peaceful way in promoting the destruction of an enemy because destruction is like the ultimate form of violence and injustice.

And welcome to the Forum.
My Dear Booky,

Let me tell you the reason of your first querry.

If you will use Window 98 then your reply is likely to be placed at the last irrespective to the post, which you are replying.

On the issue of pacifism I toe your line, however on the issue of Bin Laden vs Gandhi, you seems to be more Ladenian than Gandhian.

My reply to Christopher hold good for you also.
Hi Christopher, Welcome at Gandhi topia.

I think Americans must learn not to ride in two boats moving in opposite in opposite direction. How can be one Gandhian & Ladenian at the same time, I wonder? However at this Forum I found not only such bizarre Americans but Gandhians from rest of Globe, who want to follow Mr. Bin Laden.

In Mahabharata, there was dearth of right people fighting for the wrong side. Had it not been the case, Duryodhana may not have dared to pursue so evil as was practiced by him. In this modern Mahabharata also this hold true. When so many Americans have developed so much LOVE for Laden, then I suppose there must be some genuine reasons.

In my opinion the genuine reason can only be as under:

Bin Laden succeeded in crushing the misplaced American Pride ( ego) singlehanded on the morning of 9/11 as ordained by divine.
Hello my old friend Viduur, and greetings from and to the other side of the planet Earth. He in India and me in USA.

My most honest and sincerest reply to this topic, is that I firmly do believe that the late great Mahatma and Bin Laden would be instantly best of friends, and our Gandhi would hand on to Bin Laden the embrace of continuance of civil disobediance in the Gandhian ways based on truth and not in fear.

My findings is that the entire Muslim world (as was the entire world) was so impressed with the Indian Mahatma that Bin Laden knows already that he is following Gandhi's way of truth and courage even though his people are forced to use some violence in their rightful cause.

What many people including "Viduur" here miss is that Gandhi understood and accepted certain levels of violence like in police actions and defensive wars and using violence is better than cowardice.

Bin Laden has tried to talk peace terms, and Bin Laden still today reaches out for peace terms but most people are only listening to their fear of violence, and their distinct prejudice against Islam, and that makes so that if Gandhi were to meet Bin Laden in today's time then Gandhi would see Bin Laden as his brother and as his truest follower and disciple.

That is my studied perspective, and I believe this position to be the best representation of the truth.
Hi Booky, Welcome & cheers at GandhiTopia.

We are definitely good old friends and our friendship has been recorded by various long debates at GandhiTopia is a more lively place with lot of traffic. Many Gandhians & admirers of Gandhi may like to have a look at our those debates, which may look unconventional & controversial but widen the scope of Gandhian philosophy in the contexts & chaos of the 21st century.

The links are as under:


Path of Non-violence

Barack Obama gives Gandhi message.


Violence is ignorance!

The Story of India.

Reply to your comments follows in the next post.
My dear Booky, Gandhi was not tolerated by the religious fanatics and one must not forget that Gandhi's life was consumed by a Hindu fanatic only namely Pandit Nathu Ram Godse, who was inspired by the likes of Savarkar. Savarkar's name still inspires millions of Hindus, who want to follow controversial ( or anti-Hindu) doctrines of RSS led Sangh Parivar.

In such a situation, it is very difficult to imagine if an Islamist of Bin Laden caliber would have tolerated Gandhi. Gandhi could have been killed again if he would have met Laden, but dreams of Laden would have also been shattered. Gandhi's death in the hands of Laden would have exposed the hollowness of Islam only, and the process of "Demise of Islam" would have been accelarated ensure the demise of Islam much before 2100 even.

When the majority of Indian Muslims were not impressed by Mahatama then it is only pure imagination to conclude and say that "My findings is that the entire Muslim world (as was the entire world) was so impressed with the Indian Mahatma". If muslims would have been following Mahatama then was it possible to create Pakistan?

What many people including "Viduur" here miss is that Gandhi understood and accepted certain levels of violence like in police actions and defensive wars and using violence is better than cowardice.

I never said that Gandhi rejected violence altogether. I only say that Gandhi created some very powerful weapons like Satyagraha, Civil disobidient movement etc from the concepts of Non-violence.
You may be interested to read the imaginary conversation between Gandhiji and Bin Laden written by Lord Bhikhu Parekh, on The Gandhi Foundation website.

regards, Matthew
Hi there Matthew,

my objection to that point and to that link, is that the author states his preconcieved bias before the text, and then he is giving false words from Bin Laden and from Gandhi too. Neither Gandhi nor Bin Laden has said such things and thus it is totally dishonest.

I am not trying to put words into the mouth of Gandhi or of Bin Laden but only comparing their positions accordingly.

Gandhi was never really the Apostle of nonviolence but the Apostle of truth, and nonviolence was one method of expressing truth.

We do have real and true words from both Gandhi and from Bin Laden so there is no justification in making that imaginary conversation at all.

The words of Bin Laden are available throughout this entire world and his true words show that Bin Laden has offered peace terms while his opponents only offer belligerance and falsehood in return.

So Bin Laden now has a duty to chose his next option which includes the choice of using violence against his unpeaceful enemies.

Here is a link about Bin Laden and Mahatma Gandhi calling on making peace with terorrism and it does not use any immaginary words at all;

Nonviolence is only one of many weapons in the pursuit of truth.
Hi "Dipak D",

I see you making the same mistake as others in giving a false perception of Bin Laden that is NOT from Bin Laden's own words but instead are just ideas coming out of the fear from those afraid of terrorism.

Bin Laden has publically and specifically offered peace terms and so your claim he requires violence is not true.

And Bin Laden or Al-Quida does NOT pledge to attack different cultures, no jihad of civilizations, he is not fighting against Christianity or against Judaism, and they are not fighting against Capitalism or consumerism. Those claims are unsustantiated and they are not true.

What we do know from Bin Laden himself, and from others in the Al-Quida group, is that they are against injustices and exploitations and against religious bigotry, and they are particularly against the violence done in Palestine and violence now being done in Muslim Countries, and they seek to defend the religion of Islam against the enemies of Islam, and rightly so.

All this TRUTH is what puts Bin Laden on the side of righteousness, and it puts his efforts on the side of God.

The real Mahatma Gandhi would have sought out the very truth and would not have accepted slanders and propaganda and he would not be swayed by fear, and as followers of the Gandhi principles then we too need to do the same.

I personally believe that Christians, Jews, Hindu, and all people need to join in the Holy Jihad for justice and then end the need for more violence.


GandhiTopia is a free service by GandhiServe Foundation. You can support GandhiTopia by a donation or by buying our GandhiTopia products.

Thank you!

GandhiTopia Store



© 2019   Created by GandhiServe Foundation.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service