Max Weber And Arenht: A Comparative Analysis

Walking through a small Indian village Gandhi hears Max Weber and Hannah Arenht debating about politics. Intrigue by the conversation, he decides to join in. Gandhi has been contemplating whether his strategy on non-violence action will appeal to the Indian people, in addition, whether it will have the outcome he desires for India as a future state. India has been under the British Empire and the Indian people feel powerless to take back India. As Mahatma Gandhi is consumed by the suffering and the injustice of treatment of the Indian people, he himself internally takes responsibility to bring power back into the hands of the Indian people. He desires to deliver the message of achieving India as a state through Satyagraha; a non-violent resistance. For this reason, he invites Max Weber and Hannah Arenht to weigh on his ideology and welcomes theirs on the concept of state building. …show more content…
The British Empire can no longer have dominance over a nation which suffers under their rule.
Weber: I’m afraid my friend, that you will be disappointed on my position on taking a non-violent action against a government that oppresses the people of a foreign land.
Arendt: Do you Weber really believe that violence in the political realm, is necessary? I hesitate to see the Indian people taking a violent action against the British Empire, only because of the size and the military power. How can the Indian people defend themselves against that?.Weber: Are you really asking me? Does the Indian nations problems have no significance to the desired end result? Your question Arendt, has no other results.
Arendt: Elaborate.
Gandhi: Is violence the only answer for the Indian people to repossess