Gandhi was a very rich and strange man. I first learned about him from a junior high school history textbook. The textbook at the time contained a picture of Gandhi and some descriptions of his deeds. Gandhi in the picture is lean and thin, but he is friendly. Deeds have some descriptions of his nonviolent noncooperation movement. But these things have had a strange effect. I have a great interest and a deep respect for this rickety old man who is called the Mahatma in the history books. And this also made me take the initiative to understand him a little bit, and as the understanding deepened, the more I admired him, the more confused I became.
When I watched this movie, I was no longer a teenager in junior high school. I have become more mature and have a deeper understanding of human nature, politics, the world and more. So, I'm glad I'm only watching this movie now. Back then, my admiration and confusion gradually deepened and became clear as the film progressed.
My admiration stems from Gandhi's own greatness, and my confusion stems from his nonviolent non-cooperation. From Gandhi I saw an ideal man, who was wise, fearless, who did what he said, kind, and was just perfect. In China, we would call such a person a saint, such as Confucius and Mencius. He is very strict with himself, spinning by himself, cleaning toilets by himself, taking care of himself by himself, and living a life like an ascetic. And this reflects the extraordinary ability of self-discipline. In addition, he can firmly put forward ideas at a critical juncture and when others are at a loss, find a way out, calm everyone down, and be calm and calm in the face of strong oppression. This is great wisdom. And when he faces the killing, whether it is from the enemy or his own side, he will ponder and be sad, he will be angry, and he will even choose to sacrifice himself in exchange for peace. This is kindness, the ultimate kindness, and the ultimate morality. And these, which are difficult for people to do, have made his Mahatma and his greatness. That's why I admire him.
And for his nonviolent non-cooperation. I am confused. He said that this is to influence the opponent, let the enemy discover his own sin (that is, let the enemy's conscience discover it), and then let the enemy give up the crime. So they slapped you on the right side of the face, and even turned the left side of the face to hit him, and no longer resisted at all. It's understandable when you're caught in jail, but it's ignorance not to resist at all when the other party threatens your life. In particular, the scene of regaining the salt field in the movie is incredible. A group of people took the initiative to send it up to let the other party fight, and never fight back. This is not normal. If the enemy wanted to find out in his conscience, how could he injure batch after batch of civilians who knew they would not resist, and still tried their best? What's more, there are examples of the general who killed civilians but thought he was reasonable and was sheltered by the government, and the policeman who beat the demonstrators as an Indian, etc., are enough to prove that the enemy is difficult to detect with conscience. As for the achievement of non-violence and non-cooperation in India's independence, we can find that it is mainly due to the following aspects: 1. The power of public opinion has been mobilized, and due to the nature of non-violence, it has always been in the upper hand of public opinion (inexplicably, I feel that this is not enough, it is relying on Second, it has a huge mass base, and this is a huge force, although it is constrained by the nature of non-violence, it still has a huge potential to become a violent force; 3. At that time, World War II also began, and the United Kingdom was involved in the war and was tired of dealing with the situation in India (so the United Kingdom did not take the initiative to think about giving up its rule, which can be seen from the fact that the United Kingdom later split India into two countries, India and Pakistan. ). Therefore, I have a disapproval attitude towards nonviolent non-cooperation. But it does not mean that it is useless. Although there are many successful revolutions in history, almost all of them are accompanied by unnecessary bloodshed and have a certain degree of madness. But non-violent non-cooperation is civilized, and if the two can complement each other, the revolution will inevitably be more civilized. And it has a certain meaning in guiding today's demonstrations.
In addition, I would like to add something about the greatness of Mahatma Gandhi, that is, it is absolutely a miracle that he can force the people of the whole country to worry about it and stop going crazy. After all, the life and death of a person who has no relatives and no reason with him is difficult to impress others, especially those who are crazy. And he did, so his greatness is self-evident!
View more about Gandhi reviews
