Khomeini versus Gandhi

Two of the most earthshaking leaders, Khomeini and Gandhi, had diametrically opposed views on revolution. While Khomeini was all about war, Gandhi was all about non-violence. While Khomeini was supporting the US Embassy hostage crisis, Gandhi led the Salt March. Khomeini was all about one religion, Islam, while Gandhi was advocating for peace and unity between the hindus and the muslims in India. How can two such different people both be the faces of revolution? Is it the country that makes the difference between violence and nonviolence, Khomeini and Gandhi? Religion played a large role in the Iranian Revolution, part by Islam being such a large part of the people's lives and part by the emphasis Khomeini put on religion. They began their revolution like a jihad, or holy struggle (yet commonly associated with violence). In India, human rights and equality were the motivating factors, and the means to achieve them was through satyagraha. Would satyagraha have worked in Iran? It is not likely that a peaceful uprising would be developed in a country already ruled by terror. Could a Khomeini-like figure have succeeded in India? Violence seems to be the human instinct during a revolution and there was undoubtably violent acts during the Indian Revolution. It is more common for a revolution to be led by a "Khomeini" than by a "Gandhi."


http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000031822/khomeini2-sized.jpg
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/gandhi.jpg

Khomeini versus Gandhi

http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000031822/khomeini2-sized.jpg

http://gandhicola.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/gandhi1.jpg

Two of the most earthshaking leaders, Khomeini and Gandhi, had diametrically opposed views on revolution. While Khomeini was all about war, Gandhi was all about non-violence. While Khomeini was supporting the US Embassy hostage crisis, Gandhi led the Salt March. Khomeini was all about one religion, Islam, while Gandhi was advocating for peace and unity between the hindus and the muslims in India. How can two such different people both be the faces of revolution? Is it the country that makes the difference between violence and nonviolence, Khomeini and Gandhi? Religion played a large role in the Iranian Revolution, part by Islam being such a large part of the people's lives and part by the emphasis Khomeini put on religion. They began their revolution like a jihad, or holy struggle (yet commonly associated with violence). In India, human rights and equality were the motivating factors, and the means to achieve them was through satyagraha. Would satyagraha have worked in Iran? It is not likely that a peaceful uprising would be developed in a country already ruled by terror. Could a Khomeini-like figure have succeeded in India? Violence seems to be the human instinct during a revolution and there was undoubtably violent acts during the Indian Revolution. It is more common for a revolution to be led by a "Khomeini" than by a "Gandhi."

Iranian Revolution and Egyptian Revolution: Leader versus Technology

http://shahriarshahabi.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/iran_revolution_1979.jpg

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheTbwwyLsUmPylxe31BReHjLw0XVKER7DUiGfK59G7S6Ze6GfTrttAucdgLLTsvI9EFXVXUUYJtnsp136-bkS6rz0az1kyicshPfj4u21GQaOF83zS76t88LLZyqlMleme5Ni6yTlviw0/s1600/Facebook+Internet+Egypt+Revolution.jpg

The Iranian Revolution had a clear leader in the figure of Ayatollah Khomeini. However, in the recent Egyptian Revolution, there was really no one apparent leader. Why is that? Though there are other factors contributing to the difference, a major change was the technology and its role in the revolution.

Preceding the Egyptian Revolution, Tunisia experienced a surprisingly rapid development of a revolution. Many people attributed the speed to "Facebook," which gave the youth a forum to discuss, motivate and share ideas, leading the the organization and instant unity of the people and information. In both the Iranian revolution and Egyptian Revolutions, the youth were highly involved. The takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Iran was primarily a student-led movement, where they took many American hostages. In Egypt, one of the main motivations for the revolution was the unemployment rate for the youth. Thus, the youth are taking advantage of the new technology, including forums such as Facebook to organize their rebellion.

In Iran, Khomeini also used the technology of his time to keep the revolutionary fervor alive during his exile. With people listening to his cassette tapes, his power became supreme and his ideas became the vision of the nation. Now however, in 2011, Egypt did not even need one man to unite the country and reign with one supreme vision to overthrow their government. Although there were some leaders, there was no "Khomeini" of the Egyptian Revolution. Could technology like Facebook take the place of revolutionary leaders like L'overture, Gandhi, Stalin, Mao and Khomeini? The real question is if people can organize themselves and keep a movement alive without a head or symbol that a one man leader provides. By the evidence of the recent Tunisian and Egyptian revolution, the answer seems to be a yes.