Does Non-Violence Work ?
Does "Non-Violence" work ? Was thinking about this during my drive home from work today. Like all tricky questions the question should be first rephrased as - Whom does non-violence work against ?
I think "Non-Violence" primarily works against someone who knows the power of violence but thinks twice before using them. Take for example Mao, who said - "All power stems from the Barrel of a Gun". He's someone who understood the power of violence and I am sure Non-Violent movements would have probably worked against him. Similarly you have the British who understood the power of violence and consequently build a great navy and Airforce, and these have stood them in goodstead in many a war. Gandhian principles like non-violence can therefore only work on people who understand violence but are civilized enough to never actually use it.(Atleast not on a massive scale.)
Would Gandhian methods have worked if Germany under Hitler instead of Britian were ruling India ? I think not. Masses of Indians would have been just slaughtered and the freedom movement would have been over within a week is my guess. Similarly it wouldn't have worked for people fighting Idi Amin or Pol Pot both of whom had no moral qualms about the use of force. But it did work for Gandhi and MLK Jr. as they were fighting regimes which were unfair but were neverthless civilized and who had some basic respect for Human life. In conclusion I think choice between violence and non-violence should depend on who the enemy is rather than applying non-violence in some sort of "carte blanche" way.
I think "Non-Violence" primarily works against someone who knows the power of violence but thinks twice before using them. Take for example Mao, who said - "All power stems from the Barrel of a Gun". He's someone who understood the power of violence and I am sure Non-Violent movements would have probably worked against him. Similarly you have the British who understood the power of violence and consequently build a great navy and Airforce, and these have stood them in goodstead in many a war. Gandhian principles like non-violence can therefore only work on people who understand violence but are civilized enough to never actually use it.(Atleast not on a massive scale.)
Would Gandhian methods have worked if Germany under Hitler instead of Britian were ruling India ? I think not. Masses of Indians would have been just slaughtered and the freedom movement would have been over within a week is my guess. Similarly it wouldn't have worked for people fighting Idi Amin or Pol Pot both of whom had no moral qualms about the use of force. But it did work for Gandhi and MLK Jr. as they were fighting regimes which were unfair but were neverthless civilized and who had some basic respect for Human life. In conclusion I think choice between violence and non-violence should depend on who the enemy is rather than applying non-violence in some sort of "carte blanche" way.
posted by pentium77 at 7:20 PM
1 Comments:
The problem with the position articulated previously is that it is inherently anti-Oneness. It presumes the One human race can be accurately divided into good guys enlightened enough to understand the undesirable consequences of violence and bad guys who are not as bright.
This sort of thinking is rooted in the same rationale which allows the "International Community" to self-righteously, hypocritically, sanction Iran for, maybe, seeking to develope nukes while accepting America's and Israel's existing nukes. Et al, America and Israel can have nukes because they are good, but Iran cannot have nukes because they are bad.
Such an approach to non-violence has nothing to do with Gandhi's ahimsa, has nothing to do with King's fire that no water can put out, and has nothing to do with the resist not evil Way of the Sermon on the Mount. It is simply a self-serving rationale for excusing the violence of the militarily powerful against the militarily weak.
Et al, non-violence was an acceptable approach for Gandhi and King because they were militarily weak. But, violence is a more effective approach for America and Israel because they are militarily strong.
But, enough of such foolishness. Either non-violence works, period, or it does not, period. I posit that it does work, period.
Non-violence works, period, because its goal is not to prevent a violent response. Its goal is to evolve the collective consciousness of the One humanity toward godliness.
Every act of violence [yes, including the Allies' use of violence against Hitler] inescapably, drags the One human race, collectively, closer to oblivion.
Violence always leads to more violence --- even when violence was perpetrated by the good guys to fight against bad guys.
It is a sad testament to the stubborn spiritual ignorance of men that so many of us still think it was wise to use violence to defeat Hitler. That violence of the Allies introduced humanity to nuclear weapons --- the single most compelling argument ever against the use of violence.
Another compelling reason requires no more than to observe how quickly the violence of the Allies led to the oppressed victims of Hitler picking up the same mantle of violence and using it to oppress others --- Palestinians. WW II ended half a century ago and the Middle East is still the powder keg of the world -- with no end in sight.
This is how it always works. Violence, even when perpetrated by the "good guys", always leads to more violence. This happens because violence inescapably drags the One human race, collectively, back towards our eat-or-be-eaten reptilian past and away from the Homo Spiritus beings into which we are destined to evolve.
Post a Comment
<< Home