1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
STALIN [3.7K]
3 years ago
5

How did Mandela’s tactics differ from Gandhi’s? (Gandhi believed in nonviolent protest)

History
1 answer:
nadezda [96]3 years ago
7 0

SIMILARITIES —The depth of oppression in South Africa created Nelson Mandela, a revolutionary par excellence, and many others like him: Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Albert Lutuli, Yusuf Dadoo and Robert Sobukwe — all men of extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity. In India, too, thousands went to jail or kissed the gallows, in their crusade for freedom from the enslavement that was British rule. In The Gods are Athirst, Anatole France, the French novelist, seems to say to all: “Behold out of these petty personalities, out of these trivial commonplaces, arise, when the hour is ripe, the most titanic events and the most monumental gestures of history.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent his years in prison in line with the Biblical verse, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Nelson Mandela was shut off from his countrymen for 27 years, imprisoned, until his release on February 11, 1990. Both walked that long road to freedom. Their unwavering commitment to nationalism was not only rooted in freedom; it also aspired towards freedom. Both discovered that after climbing a great hill, one only finds many more to climb. They had little time to rest and look back on the distance they had travelled. Both Mandela and the Mahatma believed freedom was not pushed from behind by a blind force but that it was actively drawn by a vision. In this respect, as in many other ways, the convergence of the Indian and South African freedom struggles is real and striking.

Racial prejudice characterised British India before independence as it marred colonial rule in South Africa. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle without really comprehending the sheer scale of racial discrimination in India. When he did, however, he did not allow himself to be rushed into reaction. The Mahatma patiently used every opportunity he got to defy colonial power, to highlight its illegitimate rule, and managed to overcome the apparently unassailable might of British rule. Gandhi’s response to the colonial regime is marked not just by his extraordinary charisma, but his method of harnessing “people power.”

Nelson Mandela used similar skills, measuring the consequences of his every move. He organised an active militant wing of the African National Congress — the Spear of the Nation — to sabotage government installations without causing injury to people. He could do so because he was a rational pragmatics.

DIFFERENCES—Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are entitled to our affection and respect for more than one reason. They eschewed violence against the person and did not allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force are manifest.

Gandhi and Mandela also demonstrated to the world they could help build inclusive societies, in which all Indians and South Africans would have a stake and whose strength, they argued, was a guarantee against disunity, backwardness and the exploitation of the poor by the elites. This idea is adequately reflected in the make-up of the “Indian” as well as the “South African” — the notion of an all-embracing citizenship combined with the conception of the public good.

At his trial, Nelson Mandela, who had spent two decades in the harsh conditions of Robben Island, spoke of a “democratic and free society in which all persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities. […] It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be, an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

The speed with which the bitterness between former colonial subjects and their rulers abated in South Africa is astonishing. Mandela was an ardent champion of “Peace with Reconciliation,” a slogan that had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. He called for brotherly love and integration with whites, and a sharing of Christian values. He did not unsettle traditional dividing lines and dichotomies; instead, he engaged in conflict management within a system that permitted opposing views to exist fairly.

You might be interested in
WHAT IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FAILED , AND THE UNITED STATES CONTINUED TO USE THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
cupoosta [38]

Answer:

The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777, but the states did not ratify them until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. Once peace removed the rationale of wartime necessity the weaknesses of the 1777 Articles of Confederation became increasingly apparent. Divisions among the states and even local rebellions threatened to destroy the fruits of the Revolution. Nationalists, led by James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Wilson, almost immediately began working toward strengthening the federal government. They turned a series of regional commercial conferences into a national constitutional convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

“An opinion begins to prevail that a general convention for revising the articles of Confederation would be expedient.”

John Jay to George Washington, March 16, 1786

8 0
3 years ago
A direct result of the battle of Fort Sumter was that
wlad13 [49]

B. Confederate states refused to send troops to the US army.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The NileR iver meets the Mediterranean Sea in which country?
USPshnik [31]
Egypt bro.. none of those country’s but Egypt touch the med
4 0
2 years ago
Deng reformed China’s education system because skilled workers were needed. capitalism was being taught too freely. Chinese cult
Nikitich [7]

Answer:

Option A

Explanation:

Deng a Chinese politician reformed China’s education system because he realized that certain reforms are necessary for the modernization of China. Deng reformed China’s education system because skilled workers were needed to narrow the gap between China and other countries of the world.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
1. The two major river systems of China are the<br>and the​
Setler79 [48]

Answer: the yellow river and the yangtze river

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why was it necessary to launch the Second New Deal?
    15·1 answer
  • eisenhower kennedy and johnson all approved of the united states backing the south vietnamese in their civil war. T or F
    11·2 answers
  • What continent did the Native Americans travel from to get to America?
    8·2 answers
  • HELLLLLLPPPP MEEEE<br> Milwaukee-Pittsburgh is a megalopolis<br> True<br> or<br> False
    13·1 answer
  • What was the main legislative body in ancient Greece
    9·1 answer
  • What is Fascism’s view of religion?
    9·1 answer
  • American Indians were taught writing, reading, and mathematics at
    14·1 answer
  • By 1914, America's four major industries included all the following EXCEPT
    14·1 answer
  • PLEASE ANSWER ASAP!!!
    7·2 answers
  • What food related act was signed by George H.W. Bush in 1990?
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!