Why would Gandhi grab a gun today?
The film “In search of Gandhi” shows India nowadays. The reporter and his crew travel through the route gandhi went with his followings to the sea, named “salt march”. They wanted to show the independence from the British economy and the protest against the British supression. Now the reporter wants to find out if the people still believe in Gandhi and his ideas.
On his way he gets to know that the ideas of Gandhi do not work anymore. The people remember gandhi but they do not follow his principles because the world they live in have chaged a lot.
The reporter thinks that Gandhi would also grab a gun if he was living in 2008 while his ideas are contradictory to our globalised world.
Nowadays the community does not signify as much as in the past because the individuum works for himself. The people are more egoistic because everyone wants to earn respect in the society and therefore needs to be succesful (money) and a looking forward attitude to keep up with the times.
Gandhi wanted independence for everyone but the independence did never obtain all Indians, for instance the poor and the untouchables because they still do no have the right to live, eat or celebrate in the same places as the high casts or even the vote.
Gandhi also wanted peace between the Muslims and the Hindus because he thinks that they all belong to India and that every human, does not matter which complexion or religion he has, is equal and therefore they do not have to fight against each other. But today the Muslims and the Hindus hate each other. They fight and even kill the the people from the obverse religion because they have so much jaundices and, based on their fights, animus for the different religions that they do not think about the people they kill but only the common mass of the members of this hated religion.
Because of this circumstances the reporter guesses that even a man like Gandhi who was really steadfast in his principles and who was not afraid of any violence of the British against him would get so desperate and agrily that he will grab a gun and shot down his opponents.
I think the opinion of the reporter is legitimite because the situation in India, mainly the violence between Muslims and Hindus, is not under control and even the politics use the religion for their politic goals. But I do not think that Gabdhi would have used any violence because you do not see ANY VIOLENCE in his WHOLE life, even if the British hits him, hits his followers, shot the Indians down or anything like that. He had his own methods because he knew that the British must give up their condition if the public see pictures of their cruelty. And he knew that the people trust him and therefore for instance stop the riots to keep him alive (fasting). But he never would have used any violence because he had so much composure that he knwe if he would once use violence he could never stop the violence used by the people and therefore loose his influence.