A Quote by Mahatma Gandhi

Nonviolent attainment of self-government presupposes a non-violent control over the violent elements in the country. — © Mahatma Gandhi
Nonviolent attainment of self-government presupposes a non-violent control over the violent elements in the country.
States are violent institutions. The government of any country, including ours, represents some sort of domestic power structure, and it's usually violent. States are violent to the extent that they're powerful, that's roughly accurate.
A decent government with an effective, but not gratuitously violent, police force and a fair court system are essential. This deters and incapacitates psychopaths, bullies and hotheads - and if it earns the confidence of the people, they don't have to become violent in self-defence.
There is a report that says that kids who watch violent TV programs tend to be more violent when they grow up. But did the TV cause the violence, or do violent children preferentially enjoy watching violent programs?
We need to look at the totality of the things that we're labeling as violent and really examine whether we need to have some more proportionality in terms of the punishment fitting the crime that's done. The bright line that we have right now, between violent and nonviolent, does not account for shades of gray.
'American Psycho' is violent. 'Apocalypse Now' is violent. 'Officer Downe' is a comic and not violent to me.
Not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there's everything. There are violent persons of this religion.
I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do.
But whether the resistance against government tyrants is non-violent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
I'm not a big fan of violent movies, it's not something I like to watch. And it's not my aim or goal to make a violent movie. My characters are very important, so when I'm trying to depict a certain character in my movie, if my character is violent, it will be expressed that way in the film. You cannot really deny what a character is about. To repeat, my movie end up becoming violent, but I don't start with the intent of making violent movies.
Love is also a very violent thing. Totally violent. Suddenly, you are, like, at this party your friends invite you to, and you meet this person, and your life is turned upside down, and the next day you can't stop thinking about them. That's violent. Hopefully, it's for the better, but it's a violent thing.
I was raised in Washington, DC, very violent place. I grew up with violence. My introduction to music was violent. The years I've spent on tours, some of that was extremely violent.
If you look at 1983, the film of the year was 'Terms of Endearment.' 'Scarface' was lumped in under the gratuitously violent banner. I mean, we knew it was violent, that it depicted a violent time and place. But it wasn't the end-all of the thing.
Any time there is a cultural breakthrough in which this culture transcends what it's supposed to be, there's a violent reaction. So we had a black president, and it's followed by an incredibly violent reaction. It happens over and over.
We need to take violence against women seriously. It is the biggest indicator of whether a country is violent inside itself, and whether it will be militarily violent against another country.
The bravery of the nonviolent is vastly superior to that of the violent.
And in the racial climate of this country today, it is anybody's guess which of the 'extremes' in approach to the black man's problems might personally meet a fatal catastrophe first - 'non-violent' Dr. King, or so-called 'violent' me.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!