Yes. It is valid in a violent world as long as the people in that world still have some sense of conscience. If we were all a bunch of sociopaths, I think it would be futile.

No, Ghandi was a good man but his concepts aren't flexable to the changing times. No one pays much attention to protestors unless they wave semi automatic weapons in the air.

The society in which we live different than in the 1940's but ideals do not change.Peaceful resistance worked then and works today.Mankind itself has not changed and our idea of peaceful civil disobedience has not changed.Civil disobedience happened in South America and people got thier water rights back.The only thing that has changed is we have bigger bombs.

The best way.

The reason Gandhi's method worked is the same reason Martin Luther King Jr.'s method worked: if one stands on understanding that all humanity is interconnected, speaking and acting from that clarity, it awakens this innate knowledge in others. Even though we're prone to selfishness, fear, and warlike behavior, people of courage can still stand up and speak to the higher self within others -- and while it's not guaranteed to reach every individual, it will often reach enough to make a difference. This is how one person who sees clearly can be useful.

It depends on the society in question. As another person wrote, peaceful protests can work as long as the target of the protest has a conscience. If the target of the protest does not have a conscience, then for get it. For example, hear in the US, we value the right of people to protest. We may not agree with the message of the protesters, but we respect their right to speak out. Through such protests, policy in this nation has been changed. On the other hand, in China the leaders don't respect this right. So, when tens of thousands of people gathered in Tiananmen Square in 1989 to protest the corruption in the government of China and demand more freedom, the government eventually sent in the military to put down the protesters and initiated a massacre that may have taken thousands of lives. (The Chinese government won't officially admit to just how many actually died in the crack down.) So, it really does depend on which group you are talking about when it comes to the effectiveness of peaceful protests. Some groups will be swayed by such things. Others would probably shoot you rather than admit that you might actually have a point.

Yes, it's very valid. Peaceful resistance had an awesome psychological effect upon the British. They began to feel like barbarians and were forced to reconsider their whole perception of what it meant to be civilized. Just because the results aren't quick and clear, it doesn't mean they are not powerful. Ghandi understood a profound spiritual truth, that was more powerful than any weapon. Although this is not a direct quote, "If they want to hurt us we will bleed, and if they want to kill us we will die, until they realise we will never give up and never stoop to their level.", it was kind of the spirit of his way of thinking, because he realised death was not the end, and the power of love was the ultimate force in the universe.

I asked this question many years ago. The wise man whom I asked said, Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent fasting protests were potentially extremely violent. He was a major religious icon in India. His welfare was so important to the Hindu population that if he should die while fasting to protest British occupation, it would have ignited national violence with many thousands of deaths. Doesn't sound truly peaceful does it?

I think it is valid. It doesn't mean that it will always work though. Ghandi influenced MArtin Luther King Jr, and he understood that "you cannot stop violence with violence"--it only breeds more violence.

i believe that it is valid...the violence that was prevalent during his time was nothing less of what is there today. the only difiiculty in the process is the long duration that is involved in bringing out the change

The intention of this reality is not peace, but division and competition.

Only in some circumstances. Ghandi himself said that his methods would only have worked against the British. When he defeated the British using their own, unfair, rulebook, they conceded defeat. When Mandela tried the same thing in South Africa, they just change the rules, retroactively, to stop him winning.

well it worked for him, didn't it? India was released from British control. Looks pretty valid to me.

Gandhi's general philosophy revolved heavily around the Bhagavad Gita. Read it and you'll come to your own answers I think. Is it valid? Sure why not. Opinion questions are the best kind. No right answer really. ...unless you contradict your self...so No...but yes :-p