NON-VIOLENCE: HOW RELEVANT IS IT TODAY?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Mahatma Gandhi

Non-Violence is one of the most misunderstood concepts of today’s world and look at the consequences. Countries are fighting wars to achieve peace and violence is justified as the only means through which peace could be achieved! When military leaders say they are planning to bring peace to a nation, one can safely assume that they mean that a war is being planned. The result of this form of peace is death, anger and more people who want revenge. They end up starting a war of their own. Therefore, we end up with a vicious cycle of grief-anger-violence that wreaks havoc on innocent millions. It appears our so-called knowledge–based civilized societies are stepping back to the Bronze Age where this kind of wars was the norm.

WHAT IS PACIFISM?
According to William James, American philosopher and psychologist, “Pacifism is the moral equivalent of War.” Simply, pacifism is an active form of protest against wars, injustice, and violence in an organised manner using non-violent means. It is the alternative to war, where people express their opposition as a conscientious objector but do not kill or resort to violence.
Refusing to participate and demanding the end of an unjust practice is what pacifism is all about. It is an effective tool but it takes time, work, and patience. The results are always better than a quick war with many casualties and long, bitter memories that continue the cycle of hate.
However to practice pacifism successfully and effectively, the pacifists need to achieve four objectives first.

An environment favorable to peace must be established.
The potential causes of conflict, which include factors as the quest for power, fear, foreign occupation, and economic competition, must be greatly decreased or eliminated.
Means for the resolution of clashes must be provided, as in negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and trial procedures.
Ways must be found to ensure adherence of the agreements that are made.

Pacifism has taken many forms in modern history. Refusal to work and wear foreign clothes made by the colonizers and demanding freedom as Gandhi and his fellow Indians did was pacifism in practice. When Rosa Parks refused to move from her seat, this was another form of pacifist protest. It takes more courage to confront an armed person or an angry mob non-violently. This act by Rosa Parks set off the boycott of buses by African Americans in Montgomery, Alabama led by Martin Luther King in the 1960s demanding de-segregation of buses was another act of pacifism. A boycott of goods and services of a particular country like the one almost all peoples of the world did when South Africa practiced Apartheid is a pacifist act. The anti-war demonstrations around the world along with the candle light vigils before the US and UK invasion of Iraq were all pacifist acts. The reason the anti-war on Iraq protests failed were primarily due to the non-elimination of the fear factor and the reason Iraq will continue to be a problem is because the “foreign occupation” and means of resolution are lacking in today’s Iraq.

ORIGIN OF PACIFISM
While many assume that, the origins of Pacifism lie in the Holy Bible and “Turn the other cheek” as the way pacifism works, the real origin of pacifism lies in the teachings of Buddha in ancient India. Buddha says, “I have never yet met with anything that was dearer to anyone than his own self. Since to others, to each one for himself, the self is dear, therefore let him who desires his own advantage not harm another.” Buddha and his disciples used silence and non-cooperation as forms of protest when they were confronted with threats or bodily harm. Later on, Confucius and other eastern philosophers advocated this form of protest. All religions advocate pacifism with varying degrees.

TYPES OF PACIFISM
Pacifism can be divided into two main streams namely absolute pacifism and relative pacifism.

Absolute pacifism: People who follow absolute pacifism are against all wars and violence irrespective of who, where or when it takes place. Absolute pacifists totally bar the use of force and rely on moral persuasion. Absolute Pacifism expects that the people who practice it will have the moral courage to face the aggression of their opponents and uphold their creed of non-violence despite provocation. It also assumes that this kind of non-violent defiance will end with the aggressors being affected by divine intervention and will be forced to change or face hell when they die. Absolute Pacifism has a more religious connotation, is advocated by several religions, and followed by members of religious groups like the Quakers.

Relative pacifism: Relative pacifism as the name implies doesn’t totally rule out the use of force. In this type, force is permitted in self-defense when attacked by another nation but not providing help to nations being attacked! This is because relative pacifists believe this will only end in formation of rival alliances making the world a more dangerous place. Relative pacifists encourage passive resistance instead of expecting divine intervention or urging moral persuasion of the aggressor. Resist but non-violently. This usually takes the form of civil disobedience movements like the independence movement in India against the British, American Civil Liberties Movement, Vietnam War protest and the movement to abolish Apartheid in South Africa. Relative pacifism is usually devoid of religious context as it is a people movement.

RELEVANCE OF PACIFISM TODAY
We are in the Age of Weapons. Many countries seem to take pride in the destructive force of the weapons they can build – nuclear, thermal, biological, antimatter, etc. Every day, the military-industrial complex is spewing out some new weapon or an upgrade of an older one. We have more military bases than shelters for homeless. However, more people die from hunger everyday, our governments are concentrating on building or acquiring the latest military technologies!
Religious zealots worldwide seem to ignore the very tenets of pacifism in their own religion – be it the Buddhist fundamentalists in Sri Lanka, the Hindu zealots in India, Islamic fundamentalists in Asia, Christian zealots in North America and Europe, Jewish fundamentalists in Israel, etc. It is astonishing they are doing this in the name of the very religion, which forbids them to commit violence! That this is happening all at once is not surprising as pacifism is misunderstood and scorned today. However, many great people of the past took great pride in being pacifists. Some famous pacifists include Buddha, Jesus, Hajar, Mahavir, Khadijah, Guru Nanak, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Abdul Gaffar Khan (also known as Frontier Gandhi), Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Albert Einstein, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Vida Goldstein, Dalai Lama and Aung Sang Sui Kyi.
The Tibetans are the only ones who reject violence and have been waging a peaceful struggle against China for over 50 years. Unfortunately, they are not getting the respect or coverage that is due to them. When the media does choose to cover their plight like in the movie,“Seven Years in Tibet” the lead actor Brad Pitt was banned from entering the country! Other media like print and TV has failed world wide to create awareness about the Tibetan struggle. However, China, which is a nuclear weapon state and a superpower, is afraid of them. So much so, that Chinese who have annexed Tibet has a law which makes it punishable to carry a picture of His Holiness, The Dalai Lama in Tibet even though he lives in exile in India. In the end, Tibetans will win without having resorted to violence and terrorism.

Mahatma Gandhi in a speech advocating pacifism and non-violence said, “Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to another law—to the strength of the spirit.” Looking at our world today, one will easily realise that pacifism is more necessary today than ever as this age of weapons is proving destructive.

For those who say they are not a violent people, re-examine your premise for all of us are practicing double standards in violence. If a teacher or a fellow student hits your child, all of us take objection to it and make the other child apologize. If a female was attacked, we scream harassment and object to the violence. However, we continue to cheer on our governments or militant organizations to commit acts of violence and war in the name of freedom and justice! We cannot have double standards on violence. Let us hope we all find the strength within to maintain an era of peace and destroy the scourge of war for otherwise we will be stuck in the vortex of violence and death, which is the insane alternative.

Copyright © 2007 by Deepa Kandaswamy