An Indian Civilizational Perspective

Violence, Self made Halos and Labels

I have had a long discussion with another blogger Krish on Violence on a post by Nandita Das on Gandhi.

This guy – though well meaning – but is in the same trap of labelling anyone who challenges his thoughts or certain “values”. And the words that he uses are the same culprits – RSS, Sangh parivar, Hindutva. One word.. and swoosh there goes any other argument.

I have faced their likes on IRMA’s group also and although I find such thoughts immature, fundamentalist with no respect for Diversity.

I had never quite agreed with Gandhi’s view and practice of Non Violence – but today I knew why it was so.

Here is one post – where I think I finally “Got it”…Non Violence in its true sense can only be a PERSONAL VALUE.. it aint something that you can expect others to live by because YOU believe in it! Values and Principles are for your own self. When they are used to judge and command or direct others – they become dictats or tools of power!

It was Feb 1947. When my Mothers father came back from Amritsar and told his Mom that he was sure Pakistan was inevitable and they should LEAVE to Amritsar because violence was also going to happen. His mother cursed him and reminded him the words of Gandhiji – That partition will happen on “his dead body”.

Well came August 1947… the family was forced to move. She was the first one to be stabbed.

She was gone. But the person on whose “dead body” depended her existence and hope, roamed around to give false and blinding hope to some more.

Killing happened here. Violence occured. He did not do it. He just let it happen and someone became a victim.

Now, until today I have had a tough time figuring out – who was the killer? The person who stabbed or the person who COULD NOT stop the sword but WOULD NOT ADMIT IT and STILL INSISTED she BELIEVE HIM?

That is why I am asking again – Is Violence of means the ONLY Violence? or is Violence of result also THAT?

At least in case of Jesus and Guru Teg Bahadur – they were the OBJECTS of Violence and did not urge OTHERS to follow to their fate. Non-Violence was a personal value.

Gandhi, on the other hand, LED others to death urging Non-Violence as a mass-principle.. while he was secure.

Non-Violence CANNOT be used as a Principle of Leadership or Statecraft (and your dilemma in the statements on Law enforcement amply demo that!)

Non-Violence is TURNING YOUR OWN second cheek – NOT lead others to do while YOU sit and refuse to drink Juice when HE/SHE DOESNT!!

What do you say? Agree or no.. and why each way??

Get Drishtikone Updates
in your inbox

Subscribe to Drishtikone updates and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Get Drishtikone Updates
in your inbox

Subscribe to Drishtikone updates and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.