Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Revisiting Non-Violence
Revisiting Non-Violence
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
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
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
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
solution.
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
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
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
involvement in the sullied realm of politics as driven by personal ambition, and political leaders,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.