Do you think these statements contradict each other? Why or why not? 1. "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. 2. However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes. Experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. - Gandhi

Yes them statements do contradict each other cuz india used violence against britain to get britain to come to the table and negotiate much like ireland did before it . So without the violence first there wouldnt be any negotiations and thus no peace . Well no independence through peacefull means without using violence first anyway lol

Hmmmm.... What I perceive from this is that it isnt contradictory at all. Ghandi specifies violence in the way of self-defense and standing up defensively...not being robbed of honor and dignity. So yes, he was for violence. However, just to use violence in order to intimidate, cause fear, and means to an end, sorry...dont think Ghandi meant that lol

I'll get back to you on this. I posted so I wont lose your thread. It's to early for my brain to think that deep. lol.