REVISITING NON-VIOLENCE

Shift from being an alternative to violence into a Hobson’s choice for humanity

-Tanshi Bajaj
20151061

What is life? Anything that is not death would suffice as a simplistic answer but since death is

inevitable another question which arises is pertaining to importance of life, and what is one to make

of it? Religions have been giving their own versions of how to lead life since the beginning of time.

Non violence though neglected has been in existence since the origin of mankind. Attributes as

kindness, love, goodness of heart, brotherhood, were existent even when languages were yet to

come and started defining non- violence. Non-violence hence was existent in parts as manifestations

through these attributes and emotions. They along with other synonyms of kind come together to

form first definitions of non violence. Jainism and Buddhism called it ahimsa. Hinduism, in yoga

sutras reiterated the belief by stating Ahimsa to be one of the observances necessary for living ideal

life. Greek concept of Agape defined as unconditional love which replenishes itself by giving more

love without expectations is another manifestation. What then has been the reason for ignoring this

principle which is only suppose to be natural for man?

Narrowly construed and twisted meaning of power. All consuming power gives man an illusion that

he is invincible and many great men in history have let this madness get on their heads and waged

unfortunate wars to continue to be in that power. This cycle of violence once started, it begets more

violence. More people aspire to as powerful as those men in history and more. They fail to consider

that it wasn’t any defect in their strategy but the very foundations of their strategy was violence and

that is fallacious. In order to state the obvious and reason with why violence is bad, the need first
arises to define violence and thereby elucidate distinguishing factors that differentiates non-violence

from it.

Violence in simplest of words can be defined as harm. Harm caused due to personal bias, prejudice,

discrimination et cetera are all encompassing in definition of violence. There is no one type of

violence that ever served any good. It has multiple manifestations too; physical, mental

interpersonal, self-indicted, systemic, state-induced et cetera. Non-violence on the other hand, quite

far from simply being an antonym is proactive resistance to violence. The former has complexities

which cannot be oversimplified by calling it simple, non harm. Jamila Raqib once said that, ‘ there

have been elaborate studies conducted and critical works written on art of war and violence, but

nonviolence has been long neglected as there a only few who know about it, and fewer who practice

it. The numbers further decrease when it comes to people studying it as a systemic discipline.’ It is

true and first and by far most important distinction which has lead to generations of humanity

internalising violence.

Gene sharp, a collegue of Jamila, and pioneer in the study of non-violence is probably the first to

write about non-violence as a systemic strategy. He has identified 198 methods of non-violence

resistance around the world. A lot of his critics have called him out for leaving context out when

enumerating the ways of non-violence resistance but such was done in an attempt to indicate the

universality of the approach and leave it open to those who wish to employ them to be adjudicators

of which methods work best for their society.

Another distinguishing factor between violence and non-violence which needs to be understood in

order to employ strategy for non violence lies in answer to the question of how and why violence

had been employed in the history? Violence works with a believe that if one wants something one

must snatch it. If the goal has been unsuccessful, it is because not enough force has been used. Non-
violence counters it to the core as it is need which governs if any force needs to be employed not

wants. Secondly, force employed must at all times be directed against oppressor, in a manner to

arrest his conscience, not forcibly take the power from him without giving him any reasons.

Political struggle by means of nonviolent action against violent repression creates a special, asym-

metrical conflict situation. In it, the nonviolent resisters can use the asymmetry of nonviolent means

versus violent action to apply some- thing like the Japanese martial art jiu-jitsu to their opponents.

This throws the opponents off balance politically, causing their repression of the resisters to rebound

against the opponents’ position and weaken their power. By remaining nonviolent while continuing

the struggle, the resisters can improve their own power position. 1

Gene Sharp might have been one of the first to study non-violence as a discipline but traces of the

understanding that non-violence is the ultimate recourse towards all socio-political problems and

even economic problems to some extent have been shown by some remarkable leaders throughout

history. Mahatma Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Martin Luther King, jr, Nelson Mandela are only few names

which one associates with non-violence. Even violent revolutionary leaders according to popular

media and mainstream history have later at some point realise the importance of non-violence and

converted to what King famously refers to ‘the good side’. Malcolm X is one such leader who

underwent this transition in later and final years of his life having failed at resorting to violent

means to accomplish his goals during black civil rights movement in America. A more localised

example, in Indian context would be that of Bhagat Singh who is remembered as a revolutionary

martyr. He though is remembered famously for bomb throwing on April 8, 1929, his statement at

lahore court hearing which was a reflection of his non-violent ideology is often not brought to light

in a vague and dangerous attempt to over glorify heroes. He famously said in a statement made to

the court, ‘Bombs and pistols don’t make a revolution. The sword of revolution is sharpened on the

1 Gene Sharp, 2013, Page 111, ‘How non-violent struggle works’

whetting stone of ideas.’ His work, ‘why I am a atheist’ further elaborates his ideology of non-

violence as basis for revolution. It is saddening indeed that, today his ideas and context are

misplaced and cannot be further from truth. Nevertheless, it is safe to conclude that traces of non-

violence existed in most of great leaders of whose strongest strain is found Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi is remembered as most important figure in the history of non-violence. His teachings

transcended boundaries of state borders and stood the test of time. He was a practicer of principled

non violence who later during his struggle in South Africa and India employed some pragmatic

means to further his cause. Gandhi’s non violence was no stranger to this understanding of

nonviolence based on morality, conscience and benevolence. His nonviolence in fact to promote

social change was a result of his spirituality for him personally as has been claimed in documented

history, nonviolence was derivative of Ahimsa which finds its roots in religions like Hinduism,

Jainism and buddhism. He was also influenced by works of Tolstoy, who authored ‘the kingdom of

god is within you’ wherein he shunned state, church as evil and called out the violent means of

obtaining obedience by aforementioned institution consequently providing nonresistance to evil as a

solution.

Gandhi’s criticism of modern industrial civilisation in an attempt to make people go back to

simplistic way of life where resources were allocated and utilised on need basis and not greed

stemmed from greed he witnessed in colonisation by the Britishers. In his opinion the modern

industrial civilisation was characterised by rationalism, secularisation, science, technology, and

globalisation. Gandhi saw the impact of modern civilisation essentially through the eyes of its

victims. For him, all civilisations are inspired and energised by specific human conceptions, which,

if corrupted could become sources of evil. The corruption he spoke of related to the neglect of the

soul as a consequence of the emphasis on materialism and reason. It made for an aggressive,
violent, and exploitative world sustained by regimentation and abuse of the natural environment in

which the poor and the weak were treated with contempt.2

Gandhi during freedom struggle, went everywhere and talked to people of all religions, spreading

the noble message of not retaliating against the other violent attacks made by the fanatics of any

religion. Propagandists at the time mired by hatred misconstrued him to be on side of any religion

but their own. In such a situation, an important observation is in regard to Gandhi and his

methodology of intermixing religion with politics, yet keeping it distinguished from each other to

the extent that ills of religion did not in any manner what so ever seep into politics of which should

obviously be concerned with policies alone and not power play.

He used religious justifications to preach that non-violence is validated by all religions and it is

greedy and twisted interpretation that point one towards violence. Tolstoy had a role to play in this

liberal new understanding of religion. Tolstoy in a letter exchanged with Gandhi on 7th September

1910 mentions of this one incident where a young girl whilst being asked by a bishop about ten

commandments goes against the bishop to iterate that Killing is bad-no matter the situation. This

influenced and reaffirmed Gandhi’s belief in new liberal interpretation of original texts of various

religions in order for those interpretations to be on the side of humanity. The more earnestly he

pursued his religious beliefs, the deeper his love for humanity grew. This love made it all the more

impossible for him to ignore the political realities that shaped people's lives. At the same time,

contact with these political realities strengthened his conviction that nothing is more essential than

the love for humanity that religious faith can inspire.

2 Surendra Bhana, ‘Gandhi, spirituality and social action’

This placed him, however, in the position of being denounced by both religious figures, who saw his

involvement in the sullied realm of politics as driven by personal ambition, and political leaders,

who called him ignorant and naïve.

Because he walked the middle way, the true path of humanity that seeks to reconcile apparent

contradictions, his beliefs and actions appeared biased to those at the extremes. So on one hand

where he used intermixing of religion with politics in a bid to bring about moral revolution in

individual. This double edged sword hit Gandhi back when people politicised religions and used it

to counter Gandhi’s view on religion and politics forcing Gandhi to resort his emphasis on

spirituality rather than religion. He focused hence on individual and true conversion instead of

gathering numbers to support his cause.

People shifted temporarily to side of non-violence when Gandhi’s movement gained impetus and

started to follow the path of truth-satryagraha to attain certain leverage on Britishers, so that

consequently Britishers will be forced to leave the country. Once they started this possibility

realising itself, People resorted to the old means and violence. Gandhi addressed this issue as non-

violence of weak and condemned it. In his belief such temporary conversion to non violence is of

little of no help in a test for saving humanity in long run as it does not address the problem at cause-

people’s inherent belief that non-violence is just an alternative. For Gandhi, non-violence was a way

of life for the brave as it required one to remain highly disciplined having controlled emotions at all

times. He emphasised, on genuine and unusual behaviour of oppressed to arrest the conscious and

invoke the dormant morality of the oppressor.

In his opinion, non violent struggle found its roots in universal ideal morality. Premise of nonviolent

struggle is that willingness of oppressed to suffer voluntarily awakens the conscience of the

oppressor and forces him to introspect. This address of deep unconscious roots emerges as a way to
lessen social distance between two different classes of people who are in the relationship of

oppressed and oppressor. It works by weakening fear and insecurity of dominating people sitting at

top of power structures and facilitating violent oppression and systemic exploitation of those below

them in this power hierarchy. Through nonviolent means, this hierarchy is challenged thereby

attacking the inherent superiority which is used as the justification for any oppression. When notion

of equality condenses and forces superiority to fade, it opens path for a dialogue on equal footing.

None of the classes of people have a leverage and consequent dialogue in such an environment

often results in constructive solutions.

Additionally, through critical perspective Gandhi’s biography is necessary to be understood to

understand the context of his inclination to nonviolence without glorification of heroes. He was a

frail, man of small stature for whom physical violence was out of question whilst responding to

injustice and oppression. It is safe to assume he thus relied on only other alternative; non violence.

Had he employed this justification, he wouldn’t have earned the title of Mahatma. Additionally the

need was at the time to attack something more universal than fragility of body and ideal response to

such could only be found in spiritual realm. Spirituality transcends all religions and was an

excellent pragmatic tool essential for mobilisation. He hence called his nonviolent way of life soul

force. Gandhi believed that because the basis for all life was truth, reflected in natural world through

uniform patterns and polarities we call laws of nature, any attempt by men and women to live for

truth would be supported by the complete intelligence of the Universe, God.3

However his methods employed in the nonviolent struggle, whether in South Africa or India can be

distinguished to the extent they were unique and had pragmatic manifestation even though Gandhi

claimed otherwise.

3 M Stephan,2009, Page 41, ‘Civilian Jihad: nonviolent struggle, Democratisation and governance
in middle east”
For instance, he refused to be a propagator of non violence. For in his belief it wasn’t a doctrine in

which people can be indoctrinated. It was a way of life which people had to realise if they were to

hope for living a better life. It is basic principle of psychology, brain intercepts more through

experience in a subconsciously free environment as opposed to when forced in a setting were

objective is explicitly set out as-to learn. It is not preoccupied with cramming what is being taught

and hence more is retained. Taking advantage of this understanding of Human psychology, Gandhi

despite claiming otherwise, in limited sense of word propagated nonviolence. And history has been

testimony to the fact that a leader as he was, Indian soil at least has never seen a second come close.

Also in response to his critics, another trait unique about Gandhi was that he exercised leadership

by example. There was nothing, which he expected his followers to do that he wouldn’t himself first

do it. That was also the beauty of his propagation. people idolised him, and by setting an example

The context in which he rose to fame, was a new world at the brink of dismantling previous unjust

beliefs. Notions of equality, fraternity, freedom and liberty were romanticised. Amidst the setting of

an unjust, oppressive government and authoritative state he used this soul force to weaken the core

source of power for these institutions claiming their authority as justification for oppression.

Having problematisiced Gandhi, and his nonviolent struggle, now comes the final question of can

waging conflict nonviolently through advocacy and activism ideally ripens the conditions for

transforming relationships and structures while stopping the cycle of direct and structural violence?

The simple answer is yes. Upon problematising the question further, it is evident that correct

question in this scenario to ask would be how can waging conflict nonviolently through advocacy

and activism ideally ripens the conditions for transforming relationships and structures while

stopping the cycle of direct and structural violence and what other factors need to be dealt with to

make this possibility a Reality? This question is best answered with localised illustration of
Gandhian principles and their possible implementation to curb highly violent naxal movement in

India.

All unjust systems are vulnerable to nonviolent struggle. The universal reach of nonviolent struggle

rightly allow its proponents to claim it is only way to bridge the enormous social distance between

two classes of people. In "Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place", published in 1944,

Gandhi emphasised on possibility of an armed revolution if divide between rich and poor continued

to exist in independent India. His words read as "Economic equality is the master key to non-

violent independence. Working for economic equality means abolishing the eternal conflict between

capital and labour. It means levelling down of the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk

of the nation’s wealth on the one hand, and a levelling up of the semi-starved naked millions on the

other. A non-violent system of the government is clearly an impossibility so long as the wide gulf

between rich and hungry millions persists. The contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the

miserable hovels of the poor, labouring class cannot last one day in a free India in which the poor

will enjoy the same power as the richest in the land. A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty

one day unless there is a voluntary abdication of riches and power that riches give and sharing them

for common good. I adhere to my doctrine of trusteeship in spite of the ridicule that has been

poured upon it. It’s true that it is difficult to reach. So is non-violence difficult to attain. But we have

to climb.”

Gandhi foresaw the future whilst penning these words. He witnessed poverty while on tour across

India, and in quest of knowing people’s grievances he realised if poor and hungry reached saturation

in being at brunt of violence they faced in terms of economic inequality. There would be no choice

between violence and non violence as taking up arms would be only inevitable resort. Before the

poor reached their saturation, he made sure not just to identify the problem but also give solutions to

resolve the problem. Charkha was the weapon proposed by Gandhi to combat and fight this war
against poverty. His belief was such that in every hand, Charkha a symbol and means of economic

self sufficiency would have never let to such economic divide, thereby not leading to a possibility of

poor being pushed off the edge of economy and forced to take up arms. Had he lived to see the

course India took fostered by greed of some haves, neither would he have approved of such

behaviour nor let such practice flourish in the name of politics. He instead would have launched

another civil disobedience campaign for upliftment of tribals. His upliftment would have been

realised by self sufficiency and not being planned by handful of bureaucrats whose policies more or

less fail to leave the paper.

Gandhian Solution would be two fold. It would initially find its genesis in appeal to the haves to

embrace spirituality and voluntarily stop exploitation of have nots. The second solution will be a

derivative from Hind Swaraj wherein, have-nots would have been encouraged to find economic self

sufficiency rather than being dependent on the state to protect them and provide for them. An apt

illustration would be the naxal movement, which was birthed amidst displacement an exploitation

of tribals at the hand of greedy contractors, corrupt politicians, and violent police with a biased

against tribals. Admit these aforementioned conditions, illegal minings, killings of innocent locals,

constructions of dams etcetera under the garb of development in a very narrow sense became

routine and were sufficient for poor tribals to unify and revolt. Limited radicals encashed on failure

of state and degrading morality of society and enticed the poor tribals to pick arms. Had

development not been given a narrow interpretation by politicians, had capitalists still maintained

some moral integrity and had police really stayed true to its motto of ‘to serve’ to people and not

people with full pockets, there is no way naxals would have gotten a breading ground for such

violence. Moreover, these gigantic projects could have not undertaken without support of poor

local; whether forced or not is irrelevant as they had a choice initially. Resistance has proven to be

an excellent means of nonviolent protest and could have worked if unification of people was in

numbers which those in power took seriously. The mobilisation of nonviolent protestors was a
missing variable which could have initially curbed the problem but lack thereof just facilitated it to

unfortunate chain of events which whole of India and world is witness to today.

In Conclusion, It is safe to say that despite Gandhi’s idiosyncrasies and the anachronism of some of

his ideas, there is much to his beliefs that is relevant of which most important is that non-violence is

the highest form of humility; it is supreme courage and only option if humanity is to thrive and even

survive. Wrath of war, arms trade, violent revolutions have proven how unsuccessful violence has

been. If lessons are not learnt today despite history constantly reminding us of the consequences of

neglect of non-violence as a mere alternative, does that not take away our belief that humans are

most intelligent species for only a fool does not learn from his mistakes.