Revolution and Non-violence

Q.    Usually there are three ways of ushering in a revolution- through constitutional means, through violence or non-violence. Some people are of the opinion that violence alone can bring about a revolution, whereas others favor constitutional means or non-violence. Which of three ways is effective and enduring, according to you?

A.    Revolution means a sudden and far-reaching change. What looks impossible to you, if it comes about as a result of the circumstances being right for it later, comes to be regarded as a revolution. A change sweeping the whole country needs equally powerful and wide-spread means. For it to happen it is rightly said that three methods - constitutional, violent and non-violent are available. They have been termed law, murder and compassion by Jai Prakashji. Since the earliest times man has used in greater or lesser degrees, all these three methods in his social relations.

        A constitution mainly aims at preserving a system. It is also responsible for social development. However, it cannot bring about a structural transformation of society. Mostly it happens only when people resort to extra constitutional methods and concentrate all power in their own hands. Infact constitutions are made to create revolutions, but to smoothly work on commonly agreed systems. Therefore it is  not reasonable to accept a constitution to deliver a revolution.

        We are now left with the choice between violence and non-violence. Between the two the latter has always been held superior, since there can be nobody openly championing violence, bloodshed and war. People resort to violence only after having failed to achieve their goals by any other means. Even those communists who believe in violence admit that if non-violence could bring about a revolution it could be the preferred means. But unfortunately there is not a single instance in the history of the world of a revolution made through non-violence. That is why people got inclined towards violent ways.

        But it can never be conceded that under no circumstances can non-violence usher in a revolution. The truth is that even violence is intended to culminate in non-violence. Perpetual violence is not possible. Therefore non-violence as an instrument of revolution cannot be all together ruled out. It is mentioned in our ancient literature that - their was no government, no ruler, no punishment and no magistrate there. Everyone protected everyone  else by following Dharma.

        All this cannot be dismissed as pure fiction. Even communism aims at creating a stateless society, i.e., it too seeks a non-violent culmination. In the light of the above the potential of non-violence cannot be completely negated.

        History may be devoid of any example of a non-violent revolution but it is full of example of people who, having been fagged out by violence, sought relief in non-violence. Does it not prove that violence fails ultimately ? Further, history does not record any case where a violent revolution reached it's goal completely through violence. As a matter of fact, I believe that humanity would have been extinct long ago if revolutions had taken place through unrelieved violence. We think the nation will be able to solve its economic and political problems through a revolution. But i dare say that in case of a violent revolution even if the problems are temporarily solved its long term repercussions are bound to prove disastrous. it is said that the allopathic system of medicine does have a cure for itching, but its after effects are much more dreadful. This is exactly the case with a violent revolution. Infact the world is already partially suffering from the ill effects.

        Therefore the true and enduring in the success of a revolution lies only in non-violence. Ofcourse I must say that here I am not using the word "non-violence" in its fine sense. by a nonviolent revolution, I simply mean a revolution without arms, fighting, bloodshed, and violence. In its refined form non-violence is free from all kinds of pressure and admits only change of heart as the operational principle. But it does not seem feasible to sustain a whole social system or to bring about a revolutionary transformation in it on the basis of mere change of heart. On the contrary, If together with non-violence on also accepts the legitimacy of collective of social pressure. One comes by the most effective and appropriate means of revolution.

Q.    From one point of view India has been for centuries dominated by the theme of non-violence but the voice of non-violence has become much louder here during the last twenty five years. However, it has not yet born any fruit. Infact people are getting increasingly inclined towards violence. What could possibly explain it ?

A.    I think it is due to a lack of commitment to non-violence among those who believe in non-violence they do talk of non-violence but their voices comes out only from the teeth not from the heart. Gandhiji wanted to apply non-violence even to politics but today opposite is the case. Politics is being applied to non-violence. No wonder, non-violence has lost all it's lustre and appeal.

        There is one more reason. Non-violence means not killing other living beings, not injuring them and treating them with utmost friendship and love. It is not opposed to courting death or sacrificing one's own life for attaining one's goal, for these activities do not fall within the pursuit of violence. But, the modern believer in non-violence while eschewing killing others is much more concerned with avoiding death and personal discomfort, or with the love of one's own self. For him non-violence also means avoiding sacrificing one's life. This is the height of unwisdom. No principle can be successfully implemented without a readiness for self-sacrifice, if needs be. If violence cannot succeed without sacrificing ( others ), how can non-violence , the very base of which is sacrifice and renunciation, succeed without sacrificing oneself. Today nonviolence needs people who are honest and willing to sacrifice, else talking non-violence is no better than crying in wilderness.

Q: How far do you agree to the view that a society believing in nonviolence lacks bravery and vigour as it is naturally given to pity and compassion? Can it not be said that India remained a slave for such a long time only because she believed in nonviolence?

A: While conceding that a society believing in nonviolence is necessarily given to pity and compassion, I consider it to be a false insinuation that for that reason it is devoid of bravery and vigour. The insinuation comes from those who do not believe in nonviolence. Only such people can be confused by the insinuation as have not properly understood nonviolence. The insinuation can have substance only if  bravery and courage are compatible with pity and  compassion. I believe not only that there is no compatibility between them but also that they are mutually consonant. Since this consonance is being denied, both pity and compassion and bravery and courage are in disrepute these days.

            Indian philosophers have made avery deep study of nonviolence. Many religious texts have treated nonviolence as an obligatory element of lifestyle. It does not mean that they prohibit the use of resistance, where necessary. No religious text can do so, so long as society continues to be plagued by property and acquisition.

            I was in Delhi during the Indo-Pak conflict. There Dinakarji met me by chance. The first thing he said was," You should be facing a great dilemma these days in view of the Indo-Pak war. You are opposed to war and would not allow your followers to participate in it. Infact you would prohibit their participation. How do you think you are going to preserve you are going to preserve you principles at such a critical time?"

            This question betrayed a great misunderstanding, which was not confined to a few people. We do not regard wars as a good thing, nor are we in their favour- this much is true. But it is not true that we prohibit people's participation in war. I think violence and war are inevitable so long as society is base on acquisitiveness. Acquisition is allied with uncontrolled desires. The latter gives birth to fear and fear is a sure invitation to strife and war. Anyone who lives in this society and therefore bears the responsibility of preserving and protecting it knows the compulsive nature of war and therefore from him to pretend otherwise will be mistaken belief.

            When I turn over the pages of history of jains, I come across the names of many rulers and ministers who managed the governance of their states very efficiently. Similarly, I read about many jain commanders who fought bravely and returned victorious. If jainism or the nonviolence associated with it had rendered them cowards, they could never have won these victories. During the period of the first Tirthankar, Rishabhdava, a fierce war was fought between Bharat and Bahubali. And during the period of the last tirthankar, Lord Mahavira, it was a historic war between King Kuinik and Chetak, even though both of them were his disciples. All this prove beyond doubt that all times because of the urge to posses and acquire power, wars have been inevitable and that even believers in nonviolence have taken part in those wars with complete loyalty and bravery. It was done in those because those people were aware of the needs as well as limitations of acquisition, violence and nonviolence.

            There is a casual relationship between acquisitiveness on the one hand and uncontrolled desires, fear and violence on the other. It cannot be that we accept one and negate other. ofcourse, with non acquisitiveness one can think of nonviolence. Non acquisitiveness, fearless and  nonviolence constitute a concentric circle. But I consider it sheer cowardice for someone given to acquisitiveness to nonviolence when it comes to the security of the country.

            For the man living in society war is an obligatory  violence- a kind violence the giving up of which is incompatible with man condition as a part of society. It does not mean my equating the violence associated with war with nonviolence. some religious text preach that participation in a war is a duty, the fulfillment of which entitles a man to a place in heaven and into salvation. I disagree with it. Infact it amounts to negating the relevance of nonviolence.

            India remained slave for centuries but to attribute it to nonviolence will be sheer ignorance. History itself bears evidence to the fact that the country always made progress whenever nonviolence was in ascendancy. The effect of Lord Mahavira and Gautam Buddha's teachings on nonviolence and compassion lasted for about fifteen hundred years after them. The Gupta period, which is regarded as a golden era of Indian history, also falls within the same period. The history of these fifteen hundred years is full of glory and is remembered as such to this day.

            Thereafter nonviolence began to decline. The religions and sects which preached nonviolence themselves got embroiled in internecine struggles. Mutual wrangles, jealousy and rancour did not spare anything- politics , society, religion.
            In the name of religion people got divided into warring camps and the country disintegrated into numerous small units which themselves into sects, castes and colour. Ritualism gained increasing dominance. These were the factors responsible for creating external splits and internal weakness .

            One could have understood the relation between slavery and belief in nonviolence, provided people had entirely become pacifists. On the contrary, hundreds of small skirmishes have taken place on the Indian soil during the past On e thousand years. there has been unrest at the frontiers of small states and kingdoms. How can then one talk of belief in nonviolence in the face of countless strifes and persuasive violence?

Nonviolence: A Solution To War

Q: How far are the civil disobedience movement, satyagraha (passive resistance as a policy ), sit-ins, strikes and gherao, (coercion of employers, by which their workers prevent them from leaving the premises until certain demands are met ) legitimate in the context of nonviolent resistance ?

A: If we want to talk of nonviolent resistance, we will have to find out appropriate methods of resistance . Ghandhiji used such means as civil disobedience , satyagraha, sit-ins etc. for this purpose. Even today we sometimes hear about their use. But it appears that they have lost the effectiveness they had in Ghandhijis time. Why has it happened ? According to me it is because they have lost their purity.
 
        Those who employ these methods even today swear by the name of Ghandhi and his ideals, but the common man feels that they are not inspired by pure motives. I have already said that decisions relating to nonviolent resistance have to be taken in the light of prevailing circumstances, though undoubtedly they should be informed with an unbiased, neutral and extremely courteous attitude together with a willingness to sacrifice oneself. In the absence of such an attitude the methods lose their purity and lustre.

        According to me, nonviolent resistance is compatible with cooperation given by the resister as well as with noncooperation aimed at compelling the other party, but it is absolutely incompatible with coercion, for coercion is in itself violence. It is one thing to cooperate with the opposition to get ones things accepted, it is quiet another to coerce it into accepting them. For example, let us take gherao. It is true gherao does not involve the use of violent instruments--- those capable of causing physical injury. Even then I cannot accept it as a nonviolent means, because it is devoid of the feeling of self-sacrifice. In a way it amounts to holding the opposition captive . Nonviolence can compel acceptance by the opposition through ones own sacrifice, but it cannot compel submission through group-pressure. use of force -- in whatever form -- is nothing but violence.

        Therefore, in my opinion, if civil disobedience, satyagraha, gherao etc. are resorted to after due considered of the prevailing circumstances and if they are informed with the feeling of self-sacrifice, their can be no hesitation in calling them nonviolent. those methods can be a success only when their bases are pure.

        When the purity of this bases is pushed in the background, success becomes doubtful. Gandhiji did not take women with him when he embarked on the Dandi march to violate the laws relating to octroi on salt. Kasturba (his wife), Sister Meethu and others felt very bad about it. In a complaining tone they said to Gandhiji, 'Why don't you include us in the satyagraha even though you talk in terms of equality of the sexes? Do you doubt our competence or willingness to sacrifice? If not, you cannot exclude us from participation in the satyagraha.'

        Gandhiji replied, 'I don't for a moment doubt your competence or willingness to sacrifice. There is a different reason why I am not allowing you to participate in this movement. You know the British are a civilized people. It is possible out of sheer courtesy they may use no force against women and in the process may spare us too. But I do not want them to refrain from lathi charge or shooting only because we have women amongst us. Further, other people will think that we included women as a shield. I want there to be no obstacle to the movement so I can't permit women to join the satyagraha.'

        The above incident makes it clear which thinks , in what context or background can be subsumed under nonviolence. The same means in the absence of a particular background can become unacceptable. At present i see a total lack of a pure background. How can then any means be deemed good? The real question is not what means adopted, but with what purity of background they are adopted.

Q: Can non violence be a solution to war?

A: Undoubtedly the openly solution to a war is nonviolence .Violence implies a never-ending resort to arms , which can never end wars.

        It is only through nonviolence that wars can be ended. Balance of power marks only lull , not an end of war and that lull is a prelude to a new war, allowing fresh preparations and accretion of power. That is why peace today marks an interlude during which preparations  for next war was made.

        In theoretical terms nonviolence alone offers a real solution to war. In Practical terms, we know that war is an inevitable outcome of certain cicumstances. Clash of mutual interests and a collision course create condition leading to war, but is war also a solution to those conditions? Only mutual goodwill and friendliness can provide a solution. Therefore it is clear that war can only temporarily can suppress those conditions, it cannot wipe them out.  Anything that has been suppressed issues forth with redoubled force whenever it gets an occasion to do so. The second world war an and the frightening signals of their third world war are a clear proof. Non-violence provides the only hope, for avoiding a catastrophe.

        Non-violence has the potential for wiping out the conditions leading to war, but it is operational either before or after the war. The role of non-violence during a war, though not difficult to define, is certainly difficult to put into practice. For in order to practice it there is an imperative need for the right background, effective leadership, unflinching devotion to non-violence an d availability of volunteers ready for self-sacrifice. In the absence of all this non-violence is lacklustre and lacklustre non-violence is worse than violence.

        War connotes a terrible fever. To cure it the inner temperature has to be brought down. From this point of view war is sometimes regarded as a necessity. That the fever should come down is unexceptionable. But it is well worth considering whether war is the only way to bring it down. Physicians are ot the view that to bring about a sudden drop in body temperature or to bring it down through unnatural means is to give rise to reactions which may result in other illnesses. On the contrary, to effect it in a natural manner by degrees to get rid of many ailments. Fasting, balancing cold and heat and other similar methods can turn even serious types of fever into a blessing.

        The same is the case with non-violence. As a matter of a fact even the code of conventions followed during wars is inclined towards non-violence. The provision of hospitals, places of worship, keeping educational institutions and thickly populated areas and civilian installations out of the bounds of destructive operations like bombing and other attacks is based on humanitarian considerations.

        The same principle can be further expanded. When a war between Bharat and Bahubali became inevitable, they wondered why the ordinary innocent people had to be embroiled in it. If there was a conflict between two individuals, there was no reason why the rest of the citizens should be subjected to unspeakable suffering. Let there be a duel so that the trial of strength might take place and yet a massacre of millions of people might be avoided. This is exactly what happened ultimately and a disastrous mass slaughter could be easily avoided.

        Such a thought is a step forward on the road to non-violence. It was an important experiment in those circumstances. We face different circumstances in the present. Even so it is my firm belief that the above example can be made use of to find a practical solution. Theory needs to be transformed into a practical reality. Seeing the dire prospects of going to war, our faith can be reposed only in non-violence. All that is needed is a global leadership and the fulfillment of this need is imperative.

A Challenge To Non-violence

Q:    Martin Luther King, a priest od non-violence, has been murdered. Such a savage incident happened in a developed country like America. Does it not show that human values are declining in the world despite all the scientific progress? Shall we take it as a defeat of non-violence? How should believers in non-violence face this challenge to humanity?

A:    There is no doubt that modern man has made a great progress physically, economically and intellectually. That such barbaric thing should happen despite all this development clearly shows that in the absence of human values physical, economic and intellectual progress cannot yield the desired results. Physical development means increase in competitiveness which cannot but result in strife and clash of interests. Power derived at the cost of human unity and equality is a source of destruction, not development. Therefore, as far as I am concerned the criterion for development should be a balance amalgam of the intellectual and emotional aspects of life.
        The struggle of the coloured people in America is a direct consequence of a lack of cordiality. The whites think themselves superior to the blacks. Therefore they practise discrimination against the latter by insisting on having exclusive hotels and clubs. It is extended to public parks, residential areas and schools. This lack of cordiality gives birth to arrogance based on considerations of high and low. The arrogance begets hatred and as a reaction to hatred terrorism is born which for purposes of self-defense resorts to violence.
        Lack of cordiality, arrogance of the high towards the low, hatred and terror act as the seeds of violence. They will continue to grow and flourish spreading poison in the minds of the people so long as the values of unity, equality and liberty do not get established.
        The desire for self-advertisement also sometimes contributes to such incidents. One of the Americans historians has reached the conclusion that personal ambition plays a major role in the conspiracies of murder. According to him a western man is so pathetically obsessed with the desire for publicity that he can go to any extent to gain it. The murder of German youth leader after Luther King's assassination confirms this analysis. People think that by murdering some great man they would earn global publicity. Be it as it may, the fact remains that it is impossible to resolve this problems without checking the increasing mental fixations and obsessions.
        King's defeat is not a defeat but a glorious triumph of non-violence. It highlights the cowardice inherent in violence and illustrates the invincible power of non-violence by showing how an insignificant person can throw a challenge to the entire state power. By sacrificing himself, King has added lustre to non-violence.
        Now the question arises as to how believers in non-violence can face this challenge. It is indeed a very complex question. But it is certain that non-violence can be robbed of it's glory by violence. It is hoped that such incidents do not succeed in agitating the minds of the believers in non-violence or in making them succumb to gloom or despair. From the point of view of non-violence the acts of arson, plunder and killing indulged in by the blacks in the wake of King's murder cannot be justified. Violence aims at just this ----- that non-violence gets agitated ti the point of denying itself and resorting to violence. Therefore believers in non-violence by losing their calm in trying circumstances only concede victory to violence. Those who hated blacks had killed king physically; the blacks who indulged in arson and disorderliness tried to kill his soul. How wonderful it would have been had King's followers, taking inspiration from their leader's death, redoubled their efforts to complete his mission, not allowed his non-violent movement to lose it's elan and invested it with greater glory by sacrificing themselves! In her husband's absence King's wife truly held out an ideal by taking in her hands the command of the rally in the preparatory stage of which King had to lose his life.
        It is a testing time for non-violence and it is a sacred duty of the believers in non-violence not to let it get enfeebled. For this purpose they should have a common platform for collective thinking and united efforts. The common man can find non-violence acceptable and practical only when it develops the stamina to resist. Modern men cannot subscribe to an impotent non-violence. I think to make non-violence a powerful instrument it is necessary to unite in thought and action.
        If the followers of non-violence are unable to unite, it denotes the weakness of non-violence. It is true that some believers of non-violence sense a danger in institutionalized organisation, but I consider it useful for non-violence to be organized. Any compulsion or imposition involves violence. Those treading the path of spirituality can be as pure in a group as they are individually. Infact group practice of spirituality has a greater degree of refinement.
        Organised training in non-violence is vital for making it a success. People will be naturally drawn to it if extensive experiments are made in the use of non-violence through the setting up of training centres in every nook and cranny of the country. Nobody has faith in non-violence. Everybody knows very well that violence can solve no problems. In the absence of proper guidance and training in non-violence, they have to take the path of violence. I hope considering the above facts people committed to non-violence would pay more attention to training and experimenting in the use of non-violence.

[ Home Page of Acharya Tulsee ]       [ Impression Gallery ]        [ Feed Back ]        [ Email ]