“Idea of non-violence"

                                                “Idea of non-violence: creating a culture of peace”

In our times Thomas Payne holds that the emphasis of non-violence is not the pattern in Muslim culture. To the contrary, violence has been a central, accepted element, both in Muslim teaching and in the historical conduct of the religion. For over a thousand years, the religious bias in the Middle Eastern Culture has not been to discourage the use of force, but to encourage it.  We have every reason to disagree with Payne because we know Islam means “peace” to millions of us. But one must rethink about the first statement, which is that we have failed to create a culture of non-violence. All of us have failed whether it is a Hindu, a Christian or for that matter a vulnerable Muslim.  

There have, however, emerged voices who have made an appeal for peace. Mahatma Ghandhi is one amongst the various. In the immediate aftermath of Madanlal Dhingra’s assassination of Curzon Wyllie, Gandhi published a strongly-worded article in Indian Opinion, a South African journal for Indians, in which he called Dhingra ‘a coward’. He did not wholly dismiss Dhingra, arguing that ‘one can only pity the man’, but argued that Dhingra had been led astray by the wrongheaded teachings of those (Sarvakar) who believed that violence was the solution to British colonialism. Without naming the people he meant, Gandhi wrote: ‘It is those who incited him to this that deserve to be punished’. He described Dhingra as being overcome by a ‘state of intoxication’, influenced by a ‘mad idea’ that was produced by ‘ill-digested reading of worthless writings’. Gandhi concluded that ‘every Indian should reflect thoughtfully on this murder’, and urged his countrymen and women to consider why violence would be unsuccessful in meeting the conditions of national liberation.

Gandhi took to Hind Sawraj for making an appeal for peace. He discussed with the young revolutionists of his country who strongly disagreed with him on the idea of non-violence. Ghandhi was not interested in immediate freedom of getting India free from the British colonialism. He was more interested, phisophically, in the idea of freedom within. The freedom which will shape the future of country towards progress and prosperity, which for him was possible only through a non-violent method. The freedom which must be experienced, and which cannot be snatched. He knew that for snatching the freedom military might is needed.

All those people who are willing to die must be appreciated for their will to sacrifice. However, for Ghandhi such a sacrifice is even misdirected. One does not agree with this idea when it comes to statecraft, which demands violence. Some people may even say that Ghandhi taught us about peace in a graveyard and that non-violence is a hoax when it comes to statecraft. He himself knew it. He had understood indispensability of state and violence.  He, however, fought opinion. Ghandhi knew that there are hundreds and thousands who love the violence of Dhingra. He also knew that there are those who want to live and sacrifice. He wanted to create a culture of identity for those who want to live and sacrifice. He tried for an ideal ideology devoid of violence.  He wanted to create a culture in which not all Dhingra’s but also those who want to live be also glorified.

The problem with our culture is that it is trying to admire living as dying for the sake of religion and nationalism, which has entered into the DNA our younger generation. We have created a DNA which is violent by default now. It needs immense training to change it. The violent method to achieve independence/objectives has got deeply centralized into our beings. We are not even making an effort for peace. The counter argument to the idea of peace is an old argument, which is ‘as there is nothing left’, and that ‘we have tried diplomacy and dialogue for years’. The failure of peace process is not violence. It must be more striving for peace. It is making an extra effort for peace. It is walking an extra mile for peace. It is creating a smile in the midst of ambiance of provocation. It is staying patient till end, otherwise, patience will lose its meaning. Peace means bringing everyone together on platform. It includes ‘other’ secular or religious, state or non-state actors. Importantly, it should mean listening the story of a solider and fringe both. It means respecting the differences among religions and cultures. It should mean talking to the opposites without a language barrier. It means hugging a stranger. Let peace be our mission and compulsion both. Don’t get easily irritated by divergent’s. Love all and shoot the problem and shoot for peace. 

I guess it is the right time to deconstruct S C Bose’s saying “Give me blood I will give u freedom” and uphold this saying that “Give me life I will give you freedom”.

    creating a culture of peace”

In our times Thomas Payne holds that the emphasis of non-violence is not the pattern in Muslim culture. To the contrary, violence has been a central, accepted element, both in Muslim teaching and in the historical conduct of the religion. For over a thousand years, the religious bias in the Middle Eastern Culture has not been to discourage the use of force, but to encourage it.  We have every reason to disagree with Payne because we know Islam means “peace” to millions of us. But one must rethink about the first statement, which is that we have failed to create a culture of non-violence. All of us have failed whether it is a Hindu, a Christian or for that matter a vulnerable Muslim.  

There have, however, emerged voices who have made an appeal for peace. Mahatma Ghandhi is one amongst the various. In the immediate aftermath of Madanlal Dhingra’s assassination of Curzon Wyllie, Gandhi published a strongly-worded article in Indian Opinion, a South African journal for Indians, in which he called Dhingra ‘a coward’. He did not wholly dismiss Dhingra, arguing that ‘one can only pity the man’, but argued that Dhingra had been led astray by the wrongheaded teachings of those (Sarvakar) who believed that violence was the solution to British colonialism. Without naming the people he meant, Gandhi wrote: ‘It is those who incited him to this that deserve to be punished’. He described Dhingra as being overcome by a ‘state of intoxication’, influenced by a ‘mad idea’ that was produced by ‘ill-digested reading of worthless writings’. Gandhi concluded that ‘every Indian should reflect thoughtfully on this murder’, and urged his countrymen and women to consider why violence would be unsuccessful in meeting the conditions of national liberation.

Gandhi took to Hind Sawraj for making an appeal for peace. He discussed with the young revolutionists of his country who strongly disagreed with him on the idea of non-violence. Ghandhi was not interested in immediate freedom of getting India free from the British colonialism. He was more interested, phisophically, in the idea of freedom within. The freedom which will shape the future of country towards progress and prosperity, which for him was possible only through a non-violent method. The freedom which must be experienced, and which cannot be snatched. He knew that for snatching the freedom military might is needed.

All those people who are willing to die must be appreciated for their will to sacrifice. However, for Ghandhi such a sacrifice is even misdirected. One does not agree with this idea when it comes to statecraft, which demands violence. Some people may even say that Ghandhi taught us about peace in a graveyard and that non-violence is a hoax when it comes to statecraft. He himself knew it. He had understood indispensability of state and violence.  He, however, fought opinion. Ghandhi knew that there are hundreds and thousands who love the violence of Dhingra. He also knew that there are those who want to live and sacrifice. He wanted to create a culture of identity for those who want to live and sacrifice. He tried for an ideal ideology devoid of violence.  He wanted to create a culture in which not all Dhingra’s but also those who want to live be also glorified.

The problem with our culture is that it is trying to admire living as dying for the sake of religion and nationalism, which has entered into the DNA our younger generation. We have created a DNA which is violent by default now. It needs immense training to change it. The violent method to achieve independence/objectives has got deeply centralized into our beings. We are not even making an effort for peace. The counter argument to the idea of peace is an old argument, which is ‘as there is nothing left’, and that ‘we have tried diplomacy and dialogue for years’. The failure of peace process is not violence. It must be more striving for peace. It is making an extra effort for peace. It is walking an extra mile for peace. It is creating a smile in the midst of ambiance of provocation. It is staying patient till end, otherwise, patience will lose its meaning. Peace means bringing everyone together on platform. It includes ‘other’ secular or religious, state or non-state actors. Importantly, it should mean listening the story of a solider and fringe both. It means respecting the differences among religions and cultures. It should mean talking to the opposites without a language barrier. It means hugging a stranger. Let peace be our mission and compulsion both. Don’t get easily irritated by divergent’s. Love all and shoot the problem and shoot for peace. 

I guess it is the right time to deconstruct S C Bose’s saying “Give me blood I will give u freedom” and uphold this saying that “Give me life I will give you freedom”.