I can only say that Gandhi is great. He is the father in the hearts of Indians. He can use his life to stop violence. But I still don't agree with his point of view of non-violent non-cooperation... Did the British finally quit India because of Gandhi's non-violent non-cooperation? I think there are certain factors but not all of them... At that time, the UK was also going downhill, it was no longer the sun never set, otherwise it would have been so easy to run away...
And God said that when a person hits you on one side of the face, you should stretch the other half of the face and let him hit him until he feels ashamed and realizes his own inadequacies. Well, the Lord did say something like this, but I couldn't do it myself. Gandhi led the people to do so. I admire him and despise him at the same time. I sacrificed so many people's lives in a way that I couldn't fight back... Anyway, I would have to sacrifice them. If it was me, I would call on everyone to resist together! rather than nonviolent non-cooperation. Power comes from the barrel of a gun! [come on, come on, come on]
Finally, I attached a piece of Gandhi's Baidu Encyclopedia, plus the following two things, I don't agree with his philosophy even more. But that doesn't stop him from being a great man! India would not be independent without him!
One more word about the UK This film made me awe-inspiring about UK law. Gandhi was an Indian leader who wanted to overthrow their colonial regime. For this kind of person, the British side's first reaction
Should it be an assassination? Or kill? Or poisoning? It's possible anyway. From the perspective of the British side, I think any method is right as long as Gandhi is killed. But how did the UK actually do it? Gandhi only did a few years in jail and the British put him in jail just to keep things down and free from abuse and no assassination. For Britain Gandhi was protected by law even as a reactionary party.
View more about Gandhi reviews
