I have been hearing right from my childhood this great Gandhian philosophy of non-violence and I greatly respect and admire Gandhi ji for his courage, wisdom, honesty, patriotism and leadership. I also agree with the philosophy of non-violence that he widely preached and also practised himself in various situations.
However, I believe the word non-violence as preached by Gandhi ji is greatly misunderstood in today's world. If violence indeed had absolutely no business in this universe, then why would mother nature (or God) have created it in the first place?
1. The exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc
2. Powerful, untamed, or devastating force: the violence of the sea
3. Great strength of feeling, as in language, etc; fervour
4. An unjust, unwarranted, or unlawful display of force, esp such as tends to overawe or intimidate
If you see the top 3 connotations above, they more or less state that violence is merely an act of injuring, killing or breaking something/someone. It is the 4th connotation that uses the adjectives such as "unjust", "unwarranted" or "unlawful". Hence, the default meaning of the word "violence" is not really "unjust violence".
It is this 4th form of violence which according to me is wrong. Just because an act involves breaking or injuring somebody or something doesn't necessarily mark that act as wrong !
Infact, let us look at some examples of situations where violence is indeed quite justified.
1. War situation - A soldier who is defending the country's boundries from enemies is often faced with situations where he has to injure or even kill enemies trying to enter the nation illegally. He is undoubtedly doing violence. However, it is not unjust or unlawful violence.
2. Predator kills a prey - A Lion has to kill a deer if it has to surive and if the balance in the food chain has to be maintained. Hence, this act of violence is justified.
3. A man involved in a rightful fight - E.g. Father trying to save his child from a kidnapper hits the kidnapper with a weapon in order to release his child, or a husband injures or kills a person who was trying to molest his wife, sister or mother.
4. Rama invaded Lanka - Imagine what would have happened if Rama had sat for a "Fast unto death" (aja "Anshan" in Hindi) in front of Lanka's gates hoping that Ravana would feel pity and return his wife Sita to him. Do you think Ravana would've returned Sita? I do not think so. Infact, he would've waited for Rama to die and then would've feasted on his dead body.
5. Lord Krishna's approval of the war of Mahabharatha - After going down on the way of non-violence and agreeing to compromise for as small a territory as 5 villages, the Pandavas under the guidance of Lord Krishna did indeed finally decide to violently fight for their right. They never decided to do an Anshan in front of Duryodhana. Infact, Lord Krishna himself encouraged and motivated Arjuna to kill his own relatives during the war simply because all of them were fighting for an impure and unjust cause.
6. A theif has stolen your life long savings worth several lacs (or crores) of rupees. You are now in a situation where it is difficult for you to even surivive unless you get your money back. Moreover, since there was no visible proof against the thief, he has managed to escape from even the supreme court of law (quite possible) - In this situation, you may continue to do an Anshan in front of his house for several days but do you think that is really going to give you your money back? On the contrary, if you take him at gun point, give him two solid blows on the face and thereafter force him to return your money back, is that really unjustified violence?
Evidently, there is no other way except "just" violence in the above situations. Taking the non-violent way is infact quite foollish in any of the above situations and other situations analogous to these.
regards,
-Neel
However, I believe the word non-violence as preached by Gandhi ji is greatly misunderstood in today's world. If violence indeed had absolutely no business in this universe, then why would mother nature (or God) have created it in the first place?
In India especially, the media projects and the common middle class population believes that violence is *always* wrong and non-violence is *always* right. That is why people like Anna Hazare and Ramdev Baba are thought to be on the right track till the time they are protesting non-violently and are deemed to be on the wrong path the moment they say anything about fighting back in the style of Chatrapati Shivaji or Chandrashekhar Azad respectively !
Infact, you may have heard of the famous Sanskrit verse that says, "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma". What then is the need for Hinsa (violence) in this world at all?
To answer this question, let us go a bit deeper and try to understand what exactly does the word "violence" mean? There were many connotations that I found in the World English dictionary for this word. The top 4 were as follows:
2. Powerful, untamed, or devastating force: the violence of the sea
3. Great strength of feeling, as in language, etc; fervour
4. An unjust, unwarranted, or unlawful display of force, esp such as tends to overawe or intimidate
If you see the top 3 connotations above, they more or less state that violence is merely an act of injuring, killing or breaking something/someone. It is the 4th connotation that uses the adjectives such as "unjust", "unwarranted" or "unlawful". Hence, the default meaning of the word "violence" is not really "unjust violence".
It is this 4th form of violence which according to me is wrong. Just because an act involves breaking or injuring somebody or something doesn't necessarily mark that act as wrong !
Infact, let us look at some examples of situations where violence is indeed quite justified.
1. War situation - A soldier who is defending the country's boundries from enemies is often faced with situations where he has to injure or even kill enemies trying to enter the nation illegally. He is undoubtedly doing violence. However, it is not unjust or unlawful violence.
2. Predator kills a prey - A Lion has to kill a deer if it has to surive and if the balance in the food chain has to be maintained. Hence, this act of violence is justified.
3. A man involved in a rightful fight - E.g. Father trying to save his child from a kidnapper hits the kidnapper with a weapon in order to release his child, or a husband injures or kills a person who was trying to molest his wife, sister or mother.
4. Rama invaded Lanka - Imagine what would have happened if Rama had sat for a "Fast unto death" (aja "Anshan" in Hindi) in front of Lanka's gates hoping that Ravana would feel pity and return his wife Sita to him. Do you think Ravana would've returned Sita? I do not think so. Infact, he would've waited for Rama to die and then would've feasted on his dead body.
5. Lord Krishna's approval of the war of Mahabharatha - After going down on the way of non-violence and agreeing to compromise for as small a territory as 5 villages, the Pandavas under the guidance of Lord Krishna did indeed finally decide to violently fight for their right. They never decided to do an Anshan in front of Duryodhana. Infact, Lord Krishna himself encouraged and motivated Arjuna to kill his own relatives during the war simply because all of them were fighting for an impure and unjust cause.
6. A theif has stolen your life long savings worth several lacs (or crores) of rupees. You are now in a situation where it is difficult for you to even surivive unless you get your money back. Moreover, since there was no visible proof against the thief, he has managed to escape from even the supreme court of law (quite possible) - In this situation, you may continue to do an Anshan in front of his house for several days but do you think that is really going to give you your money back? On the contrary, if you take him at gun point, give him two solid blows on the face and thereafter force him to return your money back, is that really unjustified violence?
Evidently, there is no other way except "just" violence in the above situations. Taking the non-violent way is infact quite foollish in any of the above situations and other situations analogous to these.
I therefore conclude that everything that exists in this Universe has a purpose behind it. Nothing exists without a cause and "violence" is no exception !
"Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" only means that Non-violence should be the first strategy to try out under any given situation. However, continuing to follow non-violence in situations where it is clearly proven to be ineffective in every way only indicates that the problem solver is either a coward or is a fool !
regards,
-Neel
No comments:
Post a Comment