Text / Xiao Guanping
Contents: Chapter 1: The Ascetic Chapter 2: Gandhi and Mao Zedong Chapter 3: A Different Perspective Chapter 4: The Paradox that Changed the World Chapter 5: The Success and Disruption of Dreams Chapter 6: The End of the Mahatma Chapter 7 : Conclusion
————
"Gandhi Biography" won the Oscar for best picture that year. It tells the life of Indian political leader Gandhi. His most individual point of view is the philosophy of "non-violence" (ahimsa). This word also runs through the whole play.
Gandhi believed that truth is God, and non-violence is the means to pursue truth, that is, to know God. If Gandhi's words are correct, then his words are the truth, and the truth is God, and he is God; if Gandhi's words are wrong, then his words are not truth, and even if the truth is God, he is not God.
————
△ Ascetic monk
Gandhi, with a thin and slender body, like Napoleon, has no physical and external advantages, but relies on his strong heart and firm belief. Although Napoleon was not tall, at least he had a wide body and a round belly, and he had the temperament of a general, while Gandhi was skinny and went on a hunger strike. He could be lifted up with one hand. Their professional ability is certainly admirable, but in contrast, the greatness of spiritual power is more attractive.
There will always be some people in this world who have this kind of charm, or magic power, and can make those around him, or even those who have heard of him, follow him on the road of continuous efforts for the future of mankind, even if this is A point of no return.
Human beings always seek advantages and avoid disadvantages, and do not suffer voluntarily. The reason why Gandhi asked for suffering is precisely because he led by example, used practical actions to influence the world, confronted various injustices in the world, and used peaceful means to seek a path to revolution. Victory to be achieved.
This kind of action of his is extremely difficult and has many obstacles. If it is not because he has such a charm to call people's hearts, how can there be so many willing followers? We are now very fascinated by a great man like Gandhi, thinking how good it would be to live with him, despite being poor but full of fighting spirit! But these are only fresh because of different regions, and legendary as the times are gone. If it really happened to me, it would be hard to bear this suffering.
————
△Gandhi and Mao Zedong
When it comes to the liberation history of India, we will naturally think of my country. If we compare the liberation trajectories of the two countries, we will find great differences between them. Mao Zedong's famous slogan "I won't commit anyone else; if someone commits me, I will commit a crime", which gave the Chinese people strong courage in action, while Gandhi's "satyagraha" gave the Indian people endless spiritual support. encourage. The reason for the different liberation histories between the two countries is not that Mao Zedong was born in my country and Gandhi was born in India, but the cultural roots of the two countries are different.
Compared with other schools of thought, Hinduism and Jainism are much more bitter and forbearing. Even Confucianism and Taoism, which advocate peace as the most important thing, are by no means showing their faces to be beaten by others.
During the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, the Chinese would never resort to non-violence against the Japanese, but "would rather be broken than broken", "Those who commit strong crimes will be punished even if they are far away", this is the rigid side of Chinese culture. In contrast, China is more receptive to Western ideas and culture, so it finally chose the proletarian revolution and seized power by force, and India liberated itself in this unique way.
————
△ Change the angle of view
At that time, most of the British soldiers stationed in India gritted their teeth at Gandhi, but they did not rule out admiration for him. Most of the British people who appeared in the film had lines from senior military and political leaders or judges and lawyers, and the soldiers were basically just playing tricks.
We can't look closely at the expressions and moods of those soldiers when they shot unarmed Indian civilians. We can only compare our hearts. If we were a soldier, carrying out such a massacre in a country with backward productivity and different beliefs, how would we do it?
Perhaps as a soldier, the orders of the superiors must be carried out; then, as a living person, how should the orders of one's own mind be heard and carried out? What's more, the enemy also has a leader like Gandhi!
The film mainly focuses on the characterization of the protagonist and historical events, and does not use too many brushes and techniques to make side-by-side attacks, so there is no such small person's perspective lens. Most of the audience is an ordinary member, so we can put ourselves in and use their perspective to participate in this real historical event and open up a new way of thinking.
————
△The paradox of changing the world
Jesus was just a legend, and Gandhi made that legend a reality.
The comparison between Jesus and Gandhi stems from their attitude towards the enemy's attack. Jesus once said that when an enemy hits you on the left cheek, you must show him the right cheek, which is very similar to Gandhi's claim.
Seeing rows of Indians willing to let the British army beat them to death and wounded, I really don't know whether to praise or curse. These people didn't need to suffer these tortures. It was because of Gandhi's call for non-violence that they went to the road of self-destruction.
But what would be the fate of these people without him? Are you living happily? of course not! They may not only lose their lives, but even a little bit of national and national dignity.
In socialist countries (such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc.), there may be a bloody revolution that turns passive into active and leads the country to victory! But will this kill no one? And, more people will die!
Watching this movie reminds me of a paradox. If we want to realize our desire to save society, can we rely only on kindness and passion? If you don't have power, why do you want to fulfill your wishes?
On the road to gaining power, you must do things that go against your original intention, so that you are no longer pure, then even if you have power, save the society, and complete your ideal, the things you have done along the way have turned yourself into a demon, What's the difference between you and the people you hated before?
However, if we only rely on illusory words such as faith, belief, kindness, dedication, dedication, and love, without the assistance of wisdom and force, without the support of power and economy, without political voice, and without a mass base, will it end up being just a What about fantasies and dreams?
Similar topics of the trinity of politics, society, and philosophy have appeared in many literary works, and I don't think even those people can solve the complex cause and effect.
And Gandhi is definitely not an utopian. He said that poverty is the greatest violence. He opposed pure material enjoyment, and was in favor of creating a life with labor and work. It can be seen that his positive attitude towards life is not as pessimistic as Indian religions.
We have seen that the Indian national liberation movement led by Gandhi is actually a special case of solving this paradox, a miracle. He doesn't use guns, he doesn't use bullets, he wins by faith alone, and it's no wonder The Times says he has "brave idealism".
————
△The success and failure of dreams
Gandhi believed in many religions. He was very wise and knew that the god in his heart did not really exist. As long as he had a good and sincere belief, any religion could be interoperable. Therefore, he actively made Hinduism and Islam live in harmony and twisted the whole Indian nation into one.
And when India became independent, he saw the last thing he wanted to see, that is, the two congregations were fighting over their beliefs. He sat in the car and declared to these people who had united to support him: "I am a Hindu, and I am also a Hindu. I'm a Muslim, even I'm a Christian, a Jew, and what are you doing now? I don't want India to be like this! Stop fighting!"
He still has a way to fight the British government, but this time, he can't use the same method to deal with his own people. India became independent, but it was followed by the partition of India and Pakistan. Gandhi made the dream of friendly coexistence between the two religions come to nothing, and the conflict between India and Pakistan that has continued to this day has since kicked off.
Perhaps history is always like this, one suffering ends and another gradually begins. So when India celebrates its independence, Gandhi, who has more long-term ideals, is secretly sad.
When watching the film, I just admired and admired, without grief, until the last part of the film, I saw the two religious people walking in different directions on the India-Pakistan border, and suddenly angry eyes shot at each other, once together. The compatriots who followed Gandhi in the non-violent movement actually used violence to deal with their own people here. As a result, both sides were injured and blood flowed... Later, with ignorance and prejudice, all kinds of conflicts intensified - my heart was completely torn, Isn't this ridiculous?
"An eye for an eye, the world is getting more and more blind!!" Is this what Gandhi wanted?
It was Gandhi who made India truly independent, and after independence, his ideal of non-violence ceased to exist. It is not uncommon to see such situations in ancient and modern China and abroad. When fighting foreign enemies together, you can unite together, and when the enemy leaves, your own people will fight. I can't help but think of the Chinese civil war again. Are humans really that mean?
So I often joke that if you want world peace, the best way is to let aliens invade Earth. If I were Gandhi, I might use external forces to create imaginary enemies (such as Britain after the withdrawal of troops) to promote domestic peace. But it does treat the symptoms but not the root causes, just as the law is to morality. Although it is practical, it cannot solve the fundamental problem of human nature.
————
△The end of the Mahatma
Gandhi was 100% kind and 90% wise. But it was the lack of that ten percent of wisdom that made Gandhi more of a martyr than a wise man. As a lawyer-turned-national leader, both require a very bright mind to do both, and Gandhi is full of wisdom in his approach to violence and his approach to finding a way out for India's future.
But his overly naive beliefs made him at best to contend with a gentlemanly England, and if the enemy was Germany with a will to power, where could he take India? As the female reporter said: "Do you think your method is useful to Hitler?" Although Gandhi answered her calmly, we under the screen would only sweat and take a deep breath for this assumption.
I think Gandhi's purpose is not to solve actual problems, but to propose solutions to problems like a philosopher.
During his last hunger strike, a Hindu came up and handed Gandhi a cake and said, "I'm going to hell, don't go to hell with me, eat it." Gandhi asked him why he said that. The man said that because his child was killed by a Muslim, he also crushed a Muslim child to death, so he was tortured mentally.
And Gandhi told him calmly, "If you don't want to go to hell, then go and raise a Muslim child about the age of your own son, treat him like your own child, and cultivate him into a new Muslim." Gandhi always believed that the elimination of ethnic groups , racial, religious estrangement and prejudice, can we truly usher in peace.
Because the film uses a flashback method from the beginning, first let Gandhi be assassinated by the fanatics of the National Public Servant, and then tell Gandhi's life, so when the film is about to end, I have been afraid to see the assassination at the beginning .
Gandhi had come out of a thrilling hunger strike at this time, celebrated the end of the civil war with orange juice and toast, and ushered in new hope for his life, but it was all shattered by the harsh gunfire and became a dream again. He escaped the prison torture of the British government and escaped the danger of a long hunger strike, but he did not expect to become the victim of the church conflict and died at the hands of his own people.
His death told the world that peace is only the wish of idealists, and there will never be true peace in this world. But I prefer to accept Gandhi's words at the end of the film: "The tyrants and murderers of history may be invincible in the short term, but in the end they will always fail. Only truth and love will last forever."
————
△ Conclusion
I like to compare what two great men, Churchill and Einstein, had to say about Gandhi. They are also world-famous figures in the 20th century, but their evaluations are diametrically opposite, which is very comical.
Churchill said: "Mr. Gandhi is disgusting... to be famous in the East by appearing as an ascetic, parading half-naked in front of the Governor's Palace".
But Einstein said: "It may be difficult for future generations to believe that such people have really appeared in the world."
Churchill, as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, really suffered from it, and if my enemy was such a stubborn little old man, I must be dumbfounded and restless.
It seems that the different evaluations of a great man stem from the perspective of everyone looking at the statue. Some people stand directly under the statue. For example, the Indian people at that time and us today, of course, worship him with all their might. It is not surprising that those who stand on the side and the back will have other different views.
There is another kind, that is, the British government and army represented by Churchill basically sit in a helicopter to overlook the statue in the sky, so even the great characters will become funny and small at this time.
Gandhi made the history of that passion and became a great man who will always be remembered, and the comments on him will continue forever. After a hundred years, future generations will look at the present era, and I don't know what to say. When we look up to or laugh at history, we gradually become history too.
2012.2.19 first draft revised on 2018/6/28
View more about Gandhi reviews
