Violence v/s Non violence.

The ideology of non violence hitherto has been the various battles and and political struggles, also not to forget the independence of various countries, be it India or the Caribbean.

Non violence or “ahimsa” is a word from the past, the times when the 24th tirathankar MAHAVIRA preached JAINISM and hence spread it to the rest of the world. Non violence movements have been very recent to history, with the movements for “lokapal”, an advanced form of the RTI, saw a blend of non violence. But the mere essence of non violence hasn’t been too pragmatic in its implementation and it being adopted by the world. It is due to the fact that these movements put little efforts into bringing their creed to establishment.

This article is basically to make people realize that non violence is actually the cause of violence or the most extent. The ideologies of non violence often are too vague and have an essence of ambiguity that creates an effect which is opposite of what it promises. As a result thus non violence creates the undesirable environment within the society, by the continued repression of powerless, who in his belief and optimism that he can earn things by non violence, often looses his life.

I agree to the fact that albeit violence in any definition is bad. Not that the ideal meaning changes after an intelligentsia speaks of it or promises it being successful, can it be defended. It shouldn’t be a part of how people deal with each other. I believe in a society which is devoid of inequalities where mutual cooperation is the only mantra towards the development of the people as a whole as a community, or rather as HUMANS, but when you take off the real mask behind that of non-violence you’ll realize that all this while this has been the real reason behind all this grinning,against the violence it pretends to oppose.

While most people have a clear idea of what violence is like this “stabbing people, harassment onto death, shooting them, hitting till they die”, the need to is simplify the true meaning behind violence. Okay so then how about stabbing an animal? How about say putting your foot on an ant? Is it violence? NO! Why? Coz they don’t communicate. Clearly there is a need to modify the definition of violence first. There needs to be some distinguishing between violence to a plant, animal and homosapien. Violence needs to be modified enough to be discriminated by economic violence, structural violence and of course social violence. Other area of violence that needs to be distinguished is that being used for self defense. Of course an undefined violence would always mean direct bashing of an individual.

Non violence Is like being not-violent, like not raising your voice against some repression, some oppression, or a particular thing you want by all your will. Even the cops are non violent most of the time. Most of us wouldn’t have encountered into something violent, still some activist, environmentalist or any other “concerned” will come to the locals, the common people to adopt the path of non violence for the social, political or economic unjust. Why don’t they go to those policemen who act violent some times when people are non-violent for a cause?

Non violence has always been defined as a tool for ending the violence, but there have been very less rather no examples of it being successful. This fact that it has not surely deterred violence doesn’t stop the adherents of non violence to again propagate it. On the other hand they claim that non violence has a remarkable track record taking names of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther king JR. as they are the Olympic winners of this non violence competition.

Non violence states that violence is the main reason why violence happens, that violence begets violence. So according to non violence a person can protest, vote, voice , form association and bring out a lighted candle and then go through. The most wicked weapon a person can take is – non violent civil disobedience.

Now since non violence has one stop of action that it can propagate, going through a non violent action to oppose what we dislike, in case of a rape I suppose we need to interpose between the victim and the rapist and talk to him maybe, telling him about life would be much better if you don’t rape people. WHAT IS YOUR COHERENCE IN THIS?  Violence is said to have fuelled violence. I reckon that it is the infallibility to oppose this violence which further paves the way to more violence to take place. We need to demarcate between what we define as being violent and being self defense.

But the story isn’t that simple. I need to emphasize that self defence and hence the violent measures used can turn counter-productive. These situations need to be handled using our practical intelligence, a wit, maybe by talking or physically placing yourself between the antagonists. Now whenever two people fight in a bar, school, class, college, we never start throwing chairs on each other forming groups and turning violent until a rampage takes place, we instead try to pull back the people from the one-on-one so that they calm down.

The essence of the article is at all levels, everywhere in the society, we need to adapt self-defense which discourages aggression in a destructive way. This option is way better than being non-violent. Non violence portrays you as being someone who is weak, cannot stand for what is wrong and has stamped himself to being that part of the society, who see unjust, even take it on themselves, and still remain silent. Non violence is good only when you need numbers in a history paper during your graduation.

Don’t be equivocal or silent to fight against the wrong. Just Stand to what is right.

Philosophy Tuber