Ethics Film “Gandhi”
Luis Martínez Iáñez 4º Renoir Page 1
1. Who was Mohandas Gandhi? Describe this man, his philosophy and his work. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the preeminent leader of the Indian Nationalism in British-ruled India. He achieved to led India to independence and he also inspired many movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific name of “Mahatma” (which means venerable) applied to him first in South Africa in 1914, but he was also called “Bapu” in India (which means father). Gandhi has been one of the most important and influential people of the history. Physically he was a short person, extremely thin (because of the hunger strikes he did) and brown texture (Hindu type). Mentally he was peaceful and serene and he used to meditate a lot the problems. His mind didn’t support the violence and he always thought that it could be a pacific solution which not causes conflicts or fights. He went to jail many times for his protests against the things he (and many other people) considered unjust, but he never physically hit someone. His sentences and concepts had given a lot to think and to meditate to all the world. Although Gandhi was Hindu, he was born (and he grew up) in the United Kingdom, where he studied law. But it was in his journey through South Africa where he was discriminated and he decided to held his first manifestation. Later on, when he became famous for defending people rights, he went to India to see the Indian situation. Because for him India was an “alien country” (as he says in the film), he spend a few years travelling all over India to know it better. He found out that the situation was very bad, and the main reasons was that the British Empire was doing what he wanted with India, so Gandhi decided to become independent of India, and this is the time when he began to hold the manifestations. But he didn’t fight with weapons or with the hands… he decided to fight them without doing it. Although it sound strange, this system was effective: when the English people (militaries) started to kill Hindus and they see that they weren’t reacting, they started to felt nervous and also guilty about those deaths. At the end, the British Empire saw that they were doing wrong and unjustly, so they regretted for the damage caused and they gave India to Gandhi and to Hindus. This concept of non-violence has been very important for the world history. In Gandhi’s time, this concept didn’t exist and he was the first person that thought about it and put it in practise. Also, thanks to this little Hindu man, India has become a better country, and although it’s still a bit poor now, it has improved a lot.
Page 2
2. What is Gandhi concept and value of “minority”? The Gandhi’s concept of minority has been one of the most important ones which Gandhi had had. It just consists on the following: if only one person is right (and the others are wrong) that person will always be right, and it doesn’t matter that this person just forms a minority of only one person! For example: imagine we travel in time (of course in a travel machine) at a time when science was not well developed yet. If in that time we ask to someone the following question: “Is the Earth round?” Obviously there are going to say us that the Earth is not round, and they would think that we are crazy! If you think about it, now days we will all agree that the Earth is round, but in the past we would be the only person who is right about the Earth’s form. Although the other people would think that we are wrong because we are the only ones who believe this, it doesn’t matter we are a minority of one: if we are right, we are right, and we will always be right, even if we are the only ones right! Gandhi used this concept to explain that the whole world could be wrong and that people should not always relay in the great masses of people, because they can also be wrong. Gandhi said that he preferred to be part of a single minority that had the right to be part of a large majority that was wrong. In my opinion, I am completely in favour of this concept: if you think that you are right, doesn’t matter the other people are not in your side, you have to choose the option that you think is correct. Although this concept is easy to say, in some situations of the life we are pressured to do what the others do too (although we don’t want to do those things) and to take the side of the majority of people, because all them think that the minority is wrong. They are these situations in which we don’t believe in our right minority opinion and we take the wrong opinion of the majority, often because we don’t want to look strange and different from the other people who think differently. I think that it is very difficult for only one people to oppose to the vast majority of people who are wrong. Like I have said, oppose to the majority can be difficult and even dangerous, so I think that the people who have been doing this throughout the history have been the greatest people and also some of the most brave ones, without going too far: Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and a very long list that follows. In conclusion, this concept has been a very important one for all the world and the people who have done it have been the greatest in the history.
Page 3
3. According to Gandhi “An eye for an eye just makes people blind!” Explain. This sentence is one of the most important and with more meaningful sentences, not only of Gandhi, of the whole history. It has lots of meanings, lots of them just depend on you and your way of thinking, but mainly means that: The way of thinking of the “An eye for an eye” it just cause bad things for all the people. The concept of the “eye for an eye” consists on the following: if you do harm to someone, that person has the right or the obligation to repay the damage, so the both people stay equal. This concept has existed since the past, and it also makes some sense, but when we want to equal important damages, then it is not going to be good: In the ancient Roma they used a system based on the concept of the “an eye for an eye”: if a person, for example, cut the finger of another person (doesn’t matter it was an accident) then the other person had to cut him the finger. But if he cut more finger than he had to, then the other person had to try to equal another time the cut. In some cases, people that started to try to equal a cut on a finger ended up with their arms cut! Watching this examples we can see that the sentence of “An eye for an eye just make people blind” makes a lot of sense, because if we want to equal the damage the only thing we are going to get it’s a lot more damage for everyone (and that is what it mean the “making the people blind”). Gandhi meanly used this sentence for make the people of India see that if they fight against the British people, the only thing they were going to get was more deaths of Hindus and also of British soldiers, so the best thing they could do was not fighting back them and not trying to give them back all the damage they have received. This is the reason why Gandhi used to get very angry when he saw that some Indian people were fighting back the soldiers, because that only would make the situation worse. I need to confess that I personally sometimes believe in the rule of the “an eye for an eye” because often it is the option that seems more fair and logical, and I am sure that lots of people also use this concept, for example: in class when someone hits another person, the person who has been hit is going to try to give the strike back to him, most probably because he wants that person to suffer what he has suffered, so they stay equal. I think that this concept has been one of the most important ones to keep the peace and not to provoke wars, because it doesn’t matter the damage you have received, you have to be intelligent enough to prevent and resolve the conflict without the violence, because if you give the strike back were are all going to end up bad.
Page 4
4. Did Gandhi manage to get freedom for his people? Why do some people say that he made a mistake? Of course Gandhi managed to get freedom for his people, if he had not, his name would have been forgotten, and he would only be remembered as a person who tried to get the independence of India and failed. But I think that, although he managed to get the freedom, he didn’t manage to do it in the way that he would have wanted more. This is because, at the end, India and Pakistan became independent. Gandhi wanted to become independent from the British Empire, so all the people of India could have the same freedoms and live as equals. When Gandhi saw that Pakistan would became independent of them in turn, Gandhi became sad, because he also wanted Muslims to live with them as equals. This is why some people think that Gandhi made a mistake when he asked for Mr. Jinnah to become the first prime minister and for him to choose all the important members of the new government of India (Mr. Jinnah was member of “Gandhi’s team”). According to the film, Mr. Jinnah was a Muslim who helped Gandhi to get the independence of India, but in reality he never followed his ideas. When Gandhi asked for Mr. Jinnah to became the president of India (in order to show his gratitude), the first thing that Mr. Jinnah did as the Prime Minister was forcing Gandhi to accept the independence of Pakistan. If Gandhi refused, then a civil war would erupt. In this situation, Gandhi had no more choice than letting the Muslims became independent, which he didn’t wanted because he wanted an India with equal people and with the same rights, didn’t matter you were Hindu or Muslim. I think that Gandhi really made a mistake, because he let Mr. Jinnah to use him for his own benefit. Maybe if Gandhi would have prevented this, Pakistan would not have become independent. But I think that they would have ended up doing it, because it wasn’t only Mr. Jinnah, there were lots of other Muslims that wanted to became independent, so I think this would have ended up happening sooner or later. Although Gandhi didn’t achieve the coexistence between the Hindus and Muslims, I think he did a great job that not everyone could have done. Thanks to Gandhi lots of people got their rights, and I think that it’s the most important part, if the Muslims wanted to independent from India worse for them, because they wouldn’t have had any more a person like Gandhi!
Page 5
5. What do you think of the film? Would it be a “hit” again today? Why? The film we have watched: “Gandhi”, has been for me a very good film which I have enjoyed a lot. I have found the film very good in the argument (how they have presented the life of this important man) and also I’ve found quite interesting all the meaningful sentences and the meanings that the film has given to us. Talking about my appreciation of the film (my critique), as I have said, I’ve found it very good and I think that it gives you a very good view of Gandhi’s live. As a far as I now, this film won in the year 1982 eight Oscars, and I think that it has been the best film in this year (if not, one of the greatest ones). I see this film as a one that you need to watch before you die, specially if you didn’t know anything about Gandhi (as it happened to me) because after watching it you’ll understand how was the world quite a very few years ago, and you can see how the humanity (thanks to people such as Gandhi) has resolved the problems that they have and how they have managed to get a better world in which the conflicts have reduced and now lots of people stay in peace. As I have already said, before watching this film I didn’t know who was Gandhi (well, maybe I had heard of him a bit) and thanks to the film now I can propose the important concepts of this man that had changed the world. I am completely sure that now days this film can be a hit again, for the same reason as mine: for all the people who only have heard a little bit about this person it would be great for them to see this film, because they will see that the world they know it hasn’t been the same during all the history. In the film of Gandhi we can easily appreciate a world in which some people don’t have the rights and freedoms that all humans deserve. Now days in lots of countries every person is equal and has the same rights, but in the India of those years, India was a salve of the British Empire (and not only India, lots of countries more), and the image of Gandhi became very important and symbolical in that time, because he was the first person who tried to defend the rights of their people in a way that didn’t lead to global wars, big conflicts or just the violence. I think it would be very good for all the people of my age to see this film and start to think in these concepts that have changed the world. In addition, this year would be a very good one for the recently death of Nelson Mandela. I also have to say that I am impressed with the appearance between the real Gandhi and the actor, they seem the same person! I have also like the music and the images of the film, the only thing that I didn’t like was the way that Gandhi speaks English; he pronounced the words in a way that I couldn’t understand without the subtitles. In conclusion, I have found the film very interesting and with a very important meaning of the human rights and the non-violence.
Page 6