Beyond Friend-Enemy Patterns

Towards a Non-Violent Freedom Struggle of Dalits and Tribals in India

This article was published in Vidyajyoti - Journal of Theological Reflection 76, no. 9 (September 2012).

Our global village witnesses various forms of extremism and terrorism every day. Because of
the impacts of media and communication violence is more and more globalized. Very often we
are terrified with new threats of war and mass destruction. The more we advance in science and
technology, the more horrifying become the weapons of warfare. However, if we observe the
sequence of violent attacks very closely, be it local or global, there seems to be a friend-enemy
pattern underlying them. Violence breaks out almost always from antagonism rooted in enmity
and hatred towards the other. At this juncture, this paper attempts to unearth the
anthropological roots of this pattern from the perspective of the mimetic theory of Ren Girard,
one of the leading anthropologists of our times. From this approach it analyzes the logic and
ethic of retaliation and defence, with a special reference to the politics of identity. And finally,
it suggests the non-violent means of forgiveness and reconciliation as the only way to come out
of this pattern which leads to mimetic cycle of violence. Against this background, the need for
a non-violent freedom struggle of the Dalits and Tribals, in the Indian context is also
emphasized. Hence it has three parts.

1. Mimetic theory
1.1 Mimetic Desire
1.2 Scapegoat Mechanism
1.3 Mimetic and Violent Contagion
1.4 The Biblical Difference

2. War of Retaliation and Defence

2.1 Moral Order and Violence
2.2 Identity Politics of Antagonism
3. Transcending Friend-Enemy Patterns
3.1 The Poor and the Non-Poor
3.2 The Dalits and the Other Castes
3.3 The State and the Tribals
3.4 Nature and Humankind
3.5 Love and Justice
1

1.

Mimetic Theory

The word mimetic comes from the Greek word, mimesis which refers to mimic or imitate. This
theory suggests that human beings are basically mimetic. Consciously and unconsciously they
imitate their neighbours whose proximity is the source and attraction of their imitation. This
imitation can be positive as well as negative. And most often it turns to be negative, because
ones neighbour not only becomes the model, but also the rival. This mimetic rivalry thus leads
to violence among the members of the society. And in order to prevent societies from total
disintegration, there emerges a mechanism that solves the crisis by first identifying somebody,
guilty of poisoning the community and therefore being responsible for the disorder in the
society; and then that person is expelled or killed, which in turn brings order back into the
society. And therefore, the victim who is first demonized is later on divinized. This pattern of
single victim mechanism underlies the very origin of religion and culture which are born out of
this collective violence and sacrificial murder. This is the typical trend running across in all the
mythical texts. Nonetheless, it is the Jewish-Christian Bible that finally exposes the deception
of this mechanism. The Biblical texts do not offer different kind of stories other than the myths.
They too tell the same type of stories of collective violence and murder. What distinguishes
them from the myths is the change in perspective. The mythical stories justify the perspectives
of the persecutors whereas the biblical texts challenge them. The myths deceive the innocence
of the victims and the guilt of the mob. On the contrary the Biblical texts reveal both of them.
And this theory can be explained in four parts.

1.1 Mimetic Desire

Girard looks at human nature and relationships in terms of desire that is learned and shaped by
the desires of others. One is drawn from as well as driven by this desire. He or she desires not
only the object the other desires, but also desires it in the same way the other does. And he
therefore calls it mimetic desire1. And to emphasize this connection between desire and
imitation Girard uses the Greek word for imitation: mimesis.2 He distinguishes between human
beings and animals from the perspective of mimesis and also explains the greater danger among
the human beings because of their mimetic nature.

We are competitive rather than aggressive. In addition to the appetites we share with animals, we have a more
problematic yearning that lacks any instinctual object: desire. We literally do not know what to desire and, in
order to find out, we watch the people we admire: we imitate their desires. Both models and imitators of the
same desire inevitably desire the same object and become rivals. Their rival desires literally feed on one

another: the imitator becomes the model of his model, and the model the imitator of his imitator. Unlike
animal rivalries, these imitative or mimetic rivalries can become so intense and contagious that not only do
they lead to murder but they also spread, mimetically, to entire communities. They probably would have
annihilated our species if something had not prevented this outcome. 3

And what is that which prevented the communities from self-destruction? It is the scapegoat
mechanism that saved and is still, to some extent, saving humankind form calamities due to the
excessive rivalries among the human persons.

1.2 Scapegoat Mechanism

Tracing back its origin to the archaic societies, Girard explains its function at two levels. First
there is a situation of crisis or disaster in the society mainly because of envy and rivalry among
its members. But, instead of facing or finding out the real cause for the problem, somebody is
identified to be the cause for the disaster. And secondly that person is expelled or killed, which
suddenly brings harmony and peace into the community. However, this peace does not last for
long, because there are always new desires and new rivalries. And therefore, there is always
need for more and more scapegoats -later on ritual sacrifices- in order to establish order and
peace in the society. And Girard argues:
The persecutors dont know that their sudden harmony, like their previous discord, is the work of contagious
imitation. They believe they have on their hands a dangerous person, someone evil, of whom they must rid the
community. What could be more sincere than their hatred? Thus the mimetic ganging up of all against one, or
the single victim mechanism, has the amazing but logically explicable property of restoring calm to a
community so disturbed an instant earlier that nothing appeared capable of calming it down.4

And Girard illustrates the example of the sudden unity between Pilate and Herod, which was
brought about by the common enemy in Jesus. Though Herod and Pilate had been enemies
before, they were reconciled that same day (of crucifixion) (Lk 23:12). However, this
mechanism was not the invention of humankind; rather it was provided more or less readymade
by the spontaneous course of human relations.5 It also signifies the automatic nature of its
results, as well as the incomprehension and even the unconscious obedience of the
participants.6 This mechanism is best expressed in the words of Caiaphas who said: You know
nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the
people, and that the whole nation not perish (Jn 11:49-50). It is a spontaneous and even
charismatic reaction of a typical politician who seeks to quench the greater violence, caused by
the destruction of social order, with a little violence of a single victim mechanism.7

1.3 Mimetic and Violent Contagion

The passion narratives in the Gospels reveal the mimetic contagion that culminates in the
crucifixion of Jesus. Peter is the most spectacular example of it. His love for Jesus is not in
question; it is as sincere as it is profound. Yet as soon as the apostle is plunged into a crowd
hostile to Jesus, he is unable to avoid imitating its hostility. 8 Moreover the mimetic contagion
is so powerful, that it does not even spare the rulers. Paradoxically, the sovereign powers
submit themselves to the pressure of the crowd. Pilate is ruled by mimetic contagion. Though
he wants to spare Jesus, for whatever reasons, he succumbs to the crowd. In like manner, in the
case of John the Baptist, Herod also wants to save him, but he gives in to the pressure of the
crowd (guests). And hence, it is like a plague that spreads all over. And all those who are
involved in it are ignorant of this mechanism, because the persecutors are caught up in the
logic of the representation of persecution from a persecutors point of view, and they cannot
break away.9

Being aware of this mimetic conflict, Jesus warns his disciples beforehand, you will all be
scandalized because of me (Mk 14:27). He was more than sure that they will all succumb more
or less to the contagion that seizes the crowd; they will all participate to some extent in the
Passion on the side of the persecutors.10 And therefore neither the crowd nor the rulers were
really aware of the meaning and significance of their collective action (murder). They just
imitate one another. The best way not to be crucified is to do as everyone else and join in the
crucifixion.11 This becomes all the more evident in Jesus prayer, Father, forgive them, for they
do not know what they are doing (LK 23:34). And therefore the anthropology of mimetic
contagion reveals the universal phenomenon of friend-enemy pattern transcending the antiSemitic framework. For it is clearly mimetic contagion that explains the hatred of the masses
for exceptional persons, such as Jesus and all the prophets; it is not a matter of ethnic or
religious identity. The Gospels suggest that a mimetic process of rejection exists in all
communities and not only among the Jews.12

However, the Crucifixion reduces the mythology to powerlessness by exposing violent

contagion, which is so effective in the myths that it prevents communities from ever finding
out the truth, namely, the innocence of their victims.13 And the resurrection of Jesus empowers
the disciples to understand this mechanism. And what distinguish the true resurrection from the
false (of the myths) are not thematic differences in the drama preceding it, since all this is very
4

similar. The difference lies in the power of revelation14 that transforms the disciples. And the
converted Peter affirms the ignorance of the persecutors of Jesus when he addresses the crowd
in Jerusalem: Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders (Acts
3:17). And what is revealed henceforth makes up the Biblical difference in opposition to the
mythologies which falsify this mechanism to the detriment of victims and to the advantage of
persecutors of the victim.15

1.4 The Biblical Difference

Girard observes these stereotypes of the scapegoat mechanism in all the myths he analyzed.
And only in the biblical texts he finds them finally exposed. Since the Bible, unlike myths,
reveals the deceptiveness of this mechanism, by just telling the truth, Christian revelation, for
him, demystifies religion-in the archaic sense. The Gospels reverse the verdict of the crowd in
myths: the victim is innocent, and the mob is guilty. 16 The believing community of the
disciples, constituted by the resurrection experience, identifies the divinity of Jesus not only
with his resurrection but also with his victimhood on the cross. Therefore, the decisive point in
this evolution is Christian revelation. It is a kind of divine expiation in which God through his
Son could be seen as asking for forgiveness from human beings for having revealed the
mechanisms of their violence so late.17

And therefore from the perspective of Christian revelation, one can perceive the uninterrupted
link between all cultures and epochs in terms of mimetic violence (cf. Mt 23:35), which
threatens us today in the form of global terror.
The root of all conflicts lies rather in competition, in mimetic rivalry between persons, countries, and
cultures. Competition is the desire to imitate the other in order to obtain the same thing he or she has, by
violence if necessary. Terrorism is undoubtedly connected to a world different than ours. But what gives rise
to it is not this difference, which distances it most from us and renders it beyond our comprehension. What
gives rise to it, on the contrary, is an exacerbated desire for convergence and resemblance. Human relations are
essentially relations of imitation and competition. What is happening today is mimetic rivalry on a global
scale.18

2.

War of Retaliation and Defence

When we look at wars in general and those of the last centuries in particular, they are claimed
to be waged either for the purpose of retaliation or of defence. The 11.09.2001 terrorist attacks
were interpreted by the protagonists as a just response to the Western politico-economic
5

hegemony, concentrated in the political, economical and defence centres of the USA. Nine
months later (01.06.2002), the then American President George W. Bush declared during a
Graduation speech in Washington. If we wait for threats to fully materialise, we will have
waited too long.In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action.
And this nation will actAnd our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking
and resolute, to be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to
defend our lives.19 This idea of pre-emptive war was also actualized in Iraq and Afghanistan
under the banner, War against Terror. And it does not seem to be over till today. However,
from the mimetic perspective, Girard portrays these attitudes to be the war of the defender. He
maintains: Terrorism is the culmination of what Clausewitz identified and theorised about as
the partisans war: its efficacy comes from the primacy of defending over attacking. It is
always justified as being only a response to aggression, and is thus based on reciprocity. The
attacker wants peace but the defender wants war.20 This becomes evident as we are facing
today more and more threats to security and peace at the national and international level on the
grounds of defence or retaliation. In the context of global terrorism, Charles Taylor also
observes: The logic is we have been unfairly treated, so we can strike out. Unfair treatment is
invoked by most terrorist movements today.21

2.1 Moral Order and Violence

Taylor also goes deep into the problem of violence and explores its roots in the very moral
order on which modern democracy is founded. He explicates the paradox in our democratic
order. The benign context is that all peoples have a right to their identity. Where something
goes wrong and this picture cant be carried out, it is because there is some aggression by some
against others. We cant live our identity fully on our territory, so were being prevented by
those who stand in our way. They are the aggressors; hence, we are victims.22 Therefore this
moral order itself promotes war in order to sustain or defend itself. Thus the war of defence
continues. In this connection, the idea of collective security at the international level can also
be reflected, because it claims to maintain peace among nations even with the use of force. And
we should keep in mind, that when we moralise or rationalise the common good or order, it
necessarily polarises between the good and the evil and it also justifies consequentially that the
good has to be preserved and the evil to be expelled. And it even goes to the extent of
demonizing the evil/enemy.23 This tendency has thus promoted and sustained friend-enemy

patterns in social and political relationships all through the centuries in almost all cultures and
societies.

2.2 Identity Politics of Antagonism

Looking from a historical perspective, this pattern has its roots in the identity-politics of enmity
and hatred. As we go back to the political development of various nationalities, we could
identify a close link between the formations of identity, rooted in enmity with their immediate
neighbours. It thus becomes their identity politics. As Samuel Huntington, in his work, Clash
of Civilization argues, people use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define
their identity. We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when
we know whom we are against.24 To cite an example, let us consider M. S. Golwalker, one the
founders of Hindu Nationalism, who defines the Indian identity in terms of Hindu identity. He
claims:

They (Muslims and Christians) have also developed a feeling of identification with the enemies of this land.
They look to some foreign lands as their holy places. They call themselves Sheikhs and Syeds. Sheikhs and
Syeds are certain clans in Arabia. How then did these people come to feel that they are their descendents? That
is because they have cut off their ancestral national moorings of this land and mentally merged themselves
with the aggressors. They still think that they have come here only to conquer and establish their kingdoms. So
we see that it is not merely a case of change of faith, but a change even in national identity. What else is it, if
not treason, to join the camp of the enemy leaving their mother-nation in the lurch?25

No doubt, this text is calling for a spirit of inculturation. But, at the depth of the message one
can find an antagonism towards other religions, especially Christians and Muslims. He not only
identifies Hindu identity with Indian identity but also tries to establish it from the animosity
against other faiths. And if ones identity is so rooted in enmity with and hatred towards the
other, to preserve his or her identity means to be always inimical with those against whom
ones identity is constituted. It therefore even tends to justify wars and violent bloodsheds as
the struggle for the preservation of ones identity. And when this identity-politics is mixed up
with religious beliefs, the tendency towards violence accelerates all the more. History has
witnessed enough holy wars. And in India, starting form cricket match with/against Pakistan up
to the Kargil war in 1999, one can see the antagonism between the Indians-mostly Hindus and
the Pakistanis-mostly Muslims. And the problem of the wars of retaliation or of defence
becomes more and more complex and acute as they are being invariably globalised. The crucial
question therefore remains: How are we going to come out of this mimetic cycle of violence
that always wins?26
7

In order to answer this critical question, we need to consider the biblical perspective of nonviolence. Jesus seems to have been aware of the mimetic crisis among human persons. He
forgave the perpetrators of violence against him not only because they did not know what they
were doing, but he also wanted to reconcile the entire humanity to the Father (cf. Rom 5:11)
and we have in turn received the ministry of reconciliation from God (cf. 2 Cor 5:18). What
does it mean in the age of global terror? Can we really forgive those who killed our beloved
ones? Can we love those who have oppressed us for centuries? It is very difficult to answer
these questions on either side. However, we have seen good many examples in the past, which
unequivocally confirm the fact that it is painfully possible to forgive ones enemies.

3.

Transcending Friend-Enemy Patterns

Ivan Illich, a post-modern mystic, exalts the example of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of
Luke, who overcomes the political enmity fostered by religion and culture. He argues:
Perhaps the only way we could recapture it today would be to imagine the Samaritan as a
Palestinian ministering to a wounded Jew. He is someone who not only goes outside his ethnic
preference for taking care of his own kind, but who commits a kind of treason by caring for his
enemy. In so doing, he exercises a freedom of choice, whose radical novelty has often been
overlooked.27 He was not convinced by the conventional friend-enemy pattern of his society
and could therefore go beyond it and see a kind of wounded humanity in the Jew, lying halfdead on the roadside, whom he cared for and whom he was expected by the culture and
religion to hate. And therefore, the biblical invitation to forgive our enemies is not only a
challenge but also the only hope for the survival of the humankind threatened with nuclear and
biological weapons.

And Wolfgang Palaver also brings into light the universality of this conventional friend-enemy
pattern in the context of anti-Semitic readings of the scriptural texts when he articulates the
nuances of the love command of Jesus in the Gospel of Mathew. You have heard that it was
said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your
enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in
heaven (Mt 5:43-45). He then argues:

Often this passage was read in order to prove that Christianity broke completely with its Jewish past, a
parochialism that had to give way to universalism. Such an anti-Semitic reading, however, does not do justice
to the biblical text. Universalism did not begin with Christianity but with the Jewish prophets. The saying

against which Jesus puts the exhortation to love our enemies can only partly be found in the Old Testament. In
Lev 19:18 we can find the commandment to love the neighbour but there is no Old Testament command to
hate your enemy. What Jesus quotes has to be understood in a much broader way. It is a saying that refers to
humanitys affinity to parochial altruism and general folk wisdom going along with it. Jesus antithesis poses a
new standard for obedience to God, not in opposition to the Torah but over against conventional attitudes and
interpretations of the Torah.28

3.1

The Poor and the Non-Poor

In order to overcome this conventional pattern in the context of social transformation, Michael
Amaladoss suggests an inclusive approach which would combine the option for the poor as
well as the option for the non-poor.29 The non-poor are not only the rich and powerful, but
also the middleclass intellectuals and the spiritual leaders who can actively contribute to the
transformation of the society.30 For, he believes: We cannot build up a community without
involving everyone. We cannot struggle against the exclusion of some (the poor) by excluding
others (the non-poor). We must include everyone in the struggle and the constructive efforts
that follow.31 And even in the struggle against various forms of oppression and exclusion he
suggests that the means of non-violence would accomplish the desired goals more probably and
peacefully than the violent ones that polarise the people and provoke more and more
antagonism among them. And the non-violent action, on the contrary, empowers the poor and
challenges the consciences of the rich and the powerful. Taking for granted that at least most of
the rich and the powerful, individually and as a group, are not evil, it makes them reflect. 32 At
the same time, it is not a question of appealing to the rich to be generous and charitable
towards the poor. ...It is a demand for justice. It may have to start with confrontation, but will
have to lead to a dialogue, negotiation, persuasion, compromise, execution and slow
progress.33 And I do believe, this way of bridging the poles -between the powerful and the
powerless- by means of non-violent and inclusive efforts would result in relatively more
enduring harmony and peace.

3.2 The Dalits and the Other Castes

Amaladoss also pinpoints on the growing antagonism between the Dalits and the dominant
castes in India. It tends to undermine the fact that the socio-political liberation of the Dalits
depends on the ideological liberation of the dominant castes. One cannot be liberated without
the other. When we look at the liberation of Dalits from this holistic perspective, it would pave
ways and means that could reduce the heat of antagonism between the Dalits and the other
castes and promote mutual trust and collaboration between the two groups. For, he believes,
9

without changing the views on the humans and social groups of the dominant castes we
cannot really bring about social equality in the community. Such an attempt at the conversion
of the non-Dalit may involve a strong self-assertion by the Dalits and a non-violent struggle to
change the mind-set of everyone.34 After all, the rights of the Dalits are precisely human rights
and hence we need a common platform that could unite diverse communities in creating a
better world for all to live.

And to move further in this direction we need to overcome the temptation of identifying people
with evil structures, because the relationship between the evil and the evil-doer is contingent
and it very often leads to the demonization of human persons under the grounds of retribution
and retaliation. On the contrary, history has provided us with ample examples to prove that
human beings are capable of overcoming the evil within and outside. When we understand the
anthropological roots of violence -in terms of mimesis- it could also liberate us from the
tendency to scapegoat or demonize men and women who happen to do evil, as they are caught
up in the mimetic cycle or contagion of violence.

This mimesis also facilitates us to understand the current trends of the Dalit Movements in
India, which try to create a renewed sense of consciousness among the Dalits about their
subordinate condition in socio-politico-economic-religious life. The formation of Dalit identity
is often fostered by a kind of animosity against those of the other castes. The members of the
dominant castes are demonized and therefore, the self-conscious Dalits very often assert, that
they have to fight against and win them over. Though we can understand the historical reason
behind this tendency of retaliation, in reality this approach creates more and more antagonism
between the Dalits and the non-Dalits. And in this context, M. S. S. Pandian attempts to
redefine the goal and path of Dalit politics.

Our problem is not one of becoming owners of wealth or richer or crypto-Brahmin. To become owners, we
need several workers. Likewise, to become rich, we need several poor. To become a crypto-Brahmin one needs
a series of lower castes including the Dalits. That is why we do not need the order of domination and
subordination. Only when the Dalit protest culture destroys this order, we shall arrive at the consciousness that
one need not either be a crypto-Brahmin or a drudging Dalit. [Instead] let us be human beings We call those
who are not bound by domination and subordination as human beings. 35

The desire for power as a solution to the powerlessness of the Dalits will only reinforce the
mimetic rivalry leading to violence between those who are now in power and the Dalits who
want to overthrow them by climbing up in the power ladder. And our goal is not a reversal of
the present situation where those who are now poor will dominate and those who are rich today
10

will become poor. This will be the victory of one group over another. What we are looking
forward to is a new community of justice, equality and peace.36

Pedro Aruppe, the former Superior General of the Jesuits, draws our attention to the futility of
violence as he highlights the intrinsic goodness of the human. And he also cautions us against
the justification of violence for the sake of some good.

In the very core of his being, man feels an impulse towards good, towards progress. He anxiously seeks his
own happinessThe human person who pursues evil for the sake of evil does not exist. If man turns to war
and violence it is because they seem to be necessary means for arriving at a truly human, just and happy,
society. But is war the remedy for mans problems and tensions? History shows that neither war nor violent
revolution have ever solved mans problem; nor will they ever. They are born of hatred and though hatred
harms, it does not healThe antidote to hatred is what we call love, and the effect of love is the counter-sign
of war: peace.37

3.3 The State and the Tribals

In this context, we also need to reflect on the growing tension and violence between the Indian
State founded on the modern idea of democracy and the Maoists who are mostly Tribals and
extremely poor. Though India has not waged any actual war against its neighbours/enemies in
the last fourty years, Indian soil has been witnessing much more violence in the forms of
Maoism and Terrorism during the past twenty years, than at the time of the freedom struggle
against the imperial regime of the British. Notwithstanding all the causes for these types of
terrorist violence, they exhibit a typical friend-enemy pattern of mimetic violence. According
to many political scientists, one of the fundamental reasons for violent revolt, especially in the
developing countries, is that the policies of the State that is very often caught up in the mimetic
contagion of power politics and the mode of its governance, caught up in the mimetic
contagion of corruption and criminality result in severe poverty and unemployment which in
turn motivate and attract more and more young people towards terrorist organisations which
demonize the State and unleash violent attacks against innocent people. Who are these innocent
people? In my opinion, they not only constitute the common people in public places but also
the police and military personnel who have to fight in defence of the State which is again ruled
by the mimetic contagion of the modern idea of development. So in either side the victims are
the innocent people who are caught up in the mimetic cycle of violence between the State and
the Maoists.

11

The very moral nature of the democratic order, as Taylor has pointed out, polarizes between the
good and the evil. It views the Tribals who resort to violence in the struggle for their
fundamental rights, as enemies of the development and progress, in short, enemies of
democracy itself. And recent examples show that even the non-violent struggles of various
groups of people are suppressed with greater and more sophisticated military forces. And in
this context, Amaladoss articulates the relationship between the terrorist violence and the State
violence: The powerful, often backed up by military means will not hesitate to impose order
in their favour. In such a situation the poor will resort to terrorist violence, as we are seeing in
many parts of the world today. Terrorism provides an excuse for greater military oppression. In
an era of globalisation both military might and terrorist revolt tend to take international
dimensions.38 And at this juncture, it may also be fitting to reflect on the notion of
development as freedom by Amartya Sen.39 He defines the quality of and criteria for
development in terms of freedom which will be manifested in various spheres of life. And
democracy has to ensure more public debates and discussions on the need and types of
developmental process which would bring down the antagonism between the State and the socalled Maoists, in this case, the Tribals who have lost their very identity and livelihood because
of the nature and kind of the developmental process undertaken by the State.

3.4 Nature and Humankind

As we go deep into the problem of Maoism, mostly affecting the central India where more than
30 millions of Tribals live in the interior forests, social critic Arundhati Roy indicates the
inseparable relationship between the violence done to the nature in the name of development
and the violence done by the Maoists.40 The exploitation of the natural resources mostly for the
sake of the profit of the big corporate capitalists, intermediated by the State, results in the
deprivation of the fundamental rights of the Tribals. Though (their) violence can be justified
under no circumstances, it calls us for a deeper and critical reflection on the developmental
models which are very often inherited or blindly imitated from the developed countries. And
ever since the Tsunami in 2004, the ecologists assert more emphatically and warn us against
the reciprocity between the violence/exploitation against the rhythm of the nature and the
violent reactions of the earth in terms of natural catastrophes, i.e. Tsunamis and volcanoes.
However, we need not demonize the nature in the sense that it retaliates for the offences done
to it by the human. Rather it is the way nature is made or functions. The human action and the
natural re-action (of the nature) are therefore mimetic and reciprocal. And it thus throws light
12

into the interrelationship between the violence among human beings and the violence against
nature by the human. Mimesis is therefore not confined to the human relationships and it also
governs the cosmic order.41 Hence we see the close link between the ecological degradation
and the deterioration of human relationships. It therefore demands a collective responsibility on
our part to evolve developmental models and life-styles which would make us more and more
non-violent to nature as well as to humankind.

3.5

Love and Justice

History has witnessed that non-violence, though extremely difficult, can be the only
appropriate way -both from the ethical and practical point of views- to respond to the problem
of violence and to bring about peace and harmony. And the response of non-violence cannot be
possible without the process of forgiveness and reconciliation. And to become more and more
aware of the mimetic contagion, operative in and around us and also rooted in friend-enemy
patterns could take us one step ahead in this direction of non-violence. At this juncture, John
Paul II invites us to rise to the Civilization of love. He believes: Christians know that love is
the reason for Gods entering into relationship with man. And it is love which he awaits as
mans response. Consequently, love is also the loftiest and most noble form of relationship
possible between human beings. Love must thus enliven every sector of human life and extend
to the international order. Only a humanity in which there reigns the civilization of love will
be able to enjoy authentic and lasting peace.42

And very often in the fight against different forms of social injustice there is a tendency to
dichotomize love and justice, under the assumption that love tends to be passive and inactive
whereas justice ensures prompt action and effective change. This polarization, however, does
not help us arrive at a holistic model for freedom struggle. We need to evolve a more integral
approach combining these two aspects. The Indian concepts of ahimsa and karuna do not
connote non-violence in a passive sense. They aim more at active engagement of loving and
being merciful to all beings, in other words, to promote the wellbeing of the entire cosmoslokasamgraha. And any non-violent liberation struggle should take into account the
complementary and inextricable relationship between love and justice. Love makes justice
more human and justice makes love whole/complete. And in our struggle towards harmony and
peace we have to overcome their separation. And John Paul II reiterates: The full truth about
man makes it possible to move beyond a contractualistic vision of justice, which is a
13

reductionist vision, and to open up also for justice the new horizon of solidarity and love. By
itself justice is not enough. Indeed, it can even betray itself, unless it is open to that deeper
power of love.43 Justice requires that everyone should be able to enjoy their own goods and
rights; this can be considered the minimum measure of love.44 And we also have to keep in
mind that absolute justice is the fruit of moralization or rationalization and therefore it is
limited. For, it may lead to and even justify retribution and retaliation. On the contrary, love
can transcend hatred and lead us towards peace and harmony, the fruits of forgiveness and
reconciliation, which facilitate our liberation from the mimetic cycle of violence rooted in the
friend-enemy patterns. And John Paul II, very much aware of the political significance of the
Eucharist that is capable of liberating us from enmity and hatred, concludes:

In the light of faith, solidarity seeks to go beyond itself, to take on the specifically Christian dimension of total
gratuity, forgiveness and reconciliation. One's neighbour is then not only a human being with his or her own
rights and a fundamental equality with everyone else, but becomes the living image of God the Father,
redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ and placed under the permanent action of the Holy Spirit. One's
neighbour must therefore be loved, even if an enemy, with the same love with which the Lord loves him or
her; and for that person's sake one must be ready for sacrifice, even the ultimate one: to lay down one's life for
the brethren (cf. 1 Jn 3:16) (Sollicitudo rei socialis No. 40).

Conclusion

In the light of the mimetic theory, we can better understand the anthropological roots of
mimetic violence which is threatening the world today. However, the theory of mimesis also
provides us with hope. It reminds us once again that we are basically mimetic and are therefore
capable of imitating non-rival models that renounce all forms of violence and struggle for the
cause of truth and love through the means of non-violence. Hence the choice is crucial and
totally ours. Are we going to respond to the problem of violence in the same language? Or are
we going to imitate the models of non-violence and work for peace and harmony? To quench
greater violence with the help of a little violence is the tendency that has its roots in the
scapegoat mechanism. Only the non-violent struggles against violence itself, no matter who
does it, can reveal the deceptive nature of violence that pretends to bring peace. And they alone
have the power to render it meaningless and inoperative.
For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax
collectors do as much? And if you save your greetings for your brother, are you
doing anything exceptional? Do not even the Gentiles do as much? You must therefore
set no bounds to your love, just as your heavenly Father sets none to his.
(Mt 5:46-48)

14

Notes
1

Ren Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, trans. James G. Williams (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 10.

See Wolfgang Palaver, On Violence: A Mimetic Perspective, http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/leseraum/texte/137.html.

Girard, Violence and Religion: Cause or Effect?, The Hedgehog Review 6/1 (Spring 2004): 9-10.

Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 36.

Girard, Violence and Religion: Cause or Effect?, 20.

Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 28.

Girard, The Scapegoat, trans. Yvonne Freccero (London: The Athlone Press, 1986), 113.

Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 19.

Girard, The Scapegoat, 39.

10

Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 24.

11

Girard, The Scapegoat, 155.

12

Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 26.

13

Ibid., 138.

14

Ibid., 135.

15

Ibid., 137.

16

Girard, Violence and Religion: Cause or Effect?, 15.

17

Girard, Battling to the End: Conversations with Benot Chantre, trans. Mary Baker (Michigan: Michigan State

University Press, 2010), ix-x.

18

Girard and Henri Tincq, What Is Happening Today Is Mimetic Rivalry on a Global Scale, Interview with

Henri Tincq, South Central Review 19 (2/3) (2002): 22.

19

George W. Bush, Graduation Speech at the 2002 Graduation Exercise of the US Military Academy, 1 June

(2002), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html.
20

Girard, Battling to the End, 10, 15.

21

Charles Taylor, Notes on the Sources of Violence: Perennial and Modern, in Beyond Violence: Religious

Sources of Social Transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. James L. Heft, S.M., 30 (New York:
Fordham University Press, 2004).
22

Ibid., 29.

23

Palaver, Collective Security: Opportunities and Problems from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching,

in Peace in Europe - Peace in the World: Reconciliation, Creation and International Institutions, ed. Iustitia et
Pax - sterreichische Kommission (Iustitia et Pax Dokumentation 4), 92 (Wien: Sdwind-Verlag, 2003).
24

Samuel P Huntington, Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster,

1996), 21.
25

M. S. Golwalker, Bunch of Thoughts (Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu Prakashana, 1996), 125-6.

26

Girard, Battling to the End, xvii.

27

Ivan Illich, The Rivers North of the Future: The Testament of Ivan Illich as told to David Cayley (Toronto:

House of Anansi Press, 2005), 50-51.

15

28

Palaver, Referat zum Thema: Parochial Altruism and Christian Universalism: On the Deep Difficulties to

Create Solidarity without Outside Enemies, 9. International Conference "Bonds and Boundaries: New
Perspectives on Justice and Culture", Kyoto, 18.03.2010 - 20.03.2010.
29

Michael Amaladoss, An Option for the Non-Poor, in Negotiating Borders: Theological Explorations in the

Global Era. Essays in Honour of Prof. Felix Wilfred, edited by Patrick Gnanapragasam and Elisabeth Schssler
Fiorenza, 575 (Delhi: ISPCK, 2008).
30

Ibid., 579.

31

Ibid., 581.

32

Ibid., 578.

33

Ibid., 581.

34

Ibid., 583.

35

M.S.S. Pandian, Stepping Outside Histroy? New Dalit Writings From Tamilnadu, in Wages of Freedom: Fifty

Years of the Indian Nation State, ed. Partha Chatterjee, 308 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998).
36

Amaladoss, An Option for the Non-Poor, 579.

37

Pedro Aruppe, A Planet to heal, (Rome: 1975), quoted by Michael Amaladoss, An Option for the Non-Poor,

576.
38

Amaladoss, An Option for the Non-Poor, 577-78.

39

Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 4.

40

See Arundhati Roy, Gandhi, but with guns: Part One, The Guardian, 27 March (2010). In this essay, she

discusses the dark side of the Indian democracy that has made the tribal people refugees in their own land, by
depriving them of the resources of their livelihood, i.e. lands, mountains, forests, rivers, valleys, etc. in the name
of development and progress. And she also elaborates the history of their struggle towards dignity and peace.
41

Raimon Panikkar asserts that reality is basically trinitarian, cosmotheandric. That is, the divine, the human and

the cosmic are inextricably interrelated to each other and hence the three dimensions of reality.
42

John Paul II, Message for the 2004 World Day of Peace, 10.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20031216_xxxvii-world-day-forpeace_en.html.
43

Ibid.
Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 99, quoted in Compendium of The Social Doctrine of
The Church. No. 391(Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, 2009).
44

16