You consider the non-violence approach because you know for sure it is ineffective for insensitive people. Let me ask you, how will the pro-violence approach convince the insensitive people to change their views and support mine? I agree, being peaceful does not usually echo as intensely or as powerful as being violent. But while violence might bring short, momentarily victories, a peaceful resistance, practiced through the satyagraha principles of patiently and diplomatically insisting on presenting the truth as one sees it, increases the chances of long-term victories.
Satyagraha, or the militant non-violent resistance (Hardiman 239) might seem to you, my skeptic friend, a cultural trait specific to Asian countries, which is mostly successful in India due to its focus on universal relations, emphasized in the Hindu traditions (Parekh 35). Again, I agree that through its philosophic development, Indian culture is more fit to successfully implement the non-violent philosophy for imposing the truth with peaceful means. But let me remind you some principles of the satyagraha philosophy. One such principle states “gracefully accepting [] punishment” (Parekh 6). For me, this is just another way of saying “turn the other check” (The Bible). You know where you heard this principle and for whom is available nowadays. Christians all around the world still hold Jesus Christ’s words as rules for their Christian practice and for their moral behavior towards other beings and towards themselves. Turning the other check is a more common way of practicing satyagraha. In India and outside it, all over the world, turning the other check has gone beyond the perception of a humiliating act, being understood and practiced as satyagraha, for the purpose of demonstrating justice through peaceful manifestation, obedience and goodhearted firmness.
The concept of non-violence is enrooted in the Sanskrit word ahimsa, which promotes the principle of not harming nobody, not destroying life (Parel lv). In the world in which we live, practicing ahimsa may seem to you as refusing to defend, because others will always hurt the less powerful ones. Gandhi stated that non-violence implies love for others, activating the soul-force or the love-force (prembal) and the nitibal – the justice force, while the violence triggers the body-force (Parel vi). The principle of non-violence implies that everybody is able to engage his or her prembal and then to be convinces on the truth with the activation of the nitibal. I know what you are going to say: “Where there are arms there is violence and many non-violence practitioners will be victims of the guns of those who practice violence”. This may happen, just as it happened in Gandhi’s times. Indians were daily being victimized and abused by the British forces of orders as they were peacefully manifesting. They experienced beating, aggression, harass, even death, but they got something they fought for: their independence. Similarly, the famous “I have a dream” of Martin Luther King Jr., inspired from Gandhi’s non-violence philosophy, also preaches the same values of suffering in the name of justice. With consistency in firmly and diplomatically sustaining their view, people can change hearts. Not today, not in an year maybe, but in time change does occur. King’s voice is still echoed to erase racism and t institute equality between individuals. People are still suffering while trying to advance their credence, their values, views and philosophies of what they think is just. But if they would stop from firmly holding their positions they could never make a progress in changing perceptions and convincing others of their values and opinions. Gandhi was convinced that every human being is available of human emotions, such as empathy and understanding the others (Parekh 68). The non-violence strategy was targeting at melting the ice around the ones who had to be convinced of their wrongdoings by activating their soul force. Thinking that this cannot happen in the real world and that the ones who try melting the ice around the hearts of the wrongdoers will only suffer means not relying on the history and not trusting the human potential of changing the evil into good. If you are convinced that nothing good can happen from peaceful manifestation against an unjust behavior or politics you are depriving the humanity from a powerful and solid resource of bettering the world. In addition, the skepticism also keeps people from being able to identify their true potential, their energy, and their actual nature.
It takes courage to stand out and confront the ones who exert an unjust behavior and consistency and determination for continuing to peacefully protest against the wrongdoers. The ones who do not possess this quality, the courage, are not to be blamed in any way. The courage is a quality that characterizes leadership (Parekh 15). It is difficult for the skeptics to discover that they too, can exert leadership qualities through courage. Gandhi chose to use his courage to influence others. On the other hand, the skeptics choose to think of why the non-violence strategy is not effecting, demonstrating the lack of courage and positive thinking for considering that this strategy could actually be effective.
Gandhi was convinced that non-violence is superior to violence, because the tactics of non-violence: truth, compassion, suffering and justice are exerted naturally by the soul, which has the power to influence the mind and to control its passions (Parel lvi). By understanding how the mind works, one can influence it. So, you see, my skeptic friend, the non-violence principle implies knowing something that the violence principle will not ever teach you. By violence you only use force or weapons to sustain your point of view, to fight for a cause. By employing the non-violence, on the other hand, you have the advantage of not hurting anybody. You can practice ahimsa, while actively pursuing your goals to change the others’ perceptions. In addition, the beauty of the non-violence practice is that it allows its practitioners to reach further into their souls and into the souls of their opponents and find some common values and principles that connect them. This is the beginning of communication, which leads to listening and really understanding one another. In time, this will lead to consensus and compromise. Compromise is a distinctive particularity of human nature, because one cannot be permanently totally convinced that his or her perception is the right one. As Gandhi stated “I am essentially a man of compromise because I am never sure that I am right” (Parekh 69). Violence is similar to letting go, to letting your anger show, to allowing one to get overwhelmed with passions such as the desire to revenge, to hit back, to harm the wrongdoers. Non-violence, on the other hand, gives people so many more qualities and dispositions that they can optimize and maximize for reaching their purposes. Satyagraha allows its practitioners to make use of their human emotions to convince others and in this sense it is so much more creative than violence. Primarily, non-violence imposes a change in its practitioner, by changing his or her mind from acting violently toward embracing peaceful manifestation through suffering, compassion, empathy. In Gandhi’s philosophy, satyagraha is a virtue, one that emphasizes the value of rational discussion and moral persuasion (Parekh 73). The practice of satyagraha allows people to better themselves, to explore their potential of changing others’ opinions through appealing to kindness, tolerance, love, which are human values. Once the practitioners of satyagraha are convinced of the utility of these human values, they can further promote them for peacefully sustaining their goals and making the others sensitive to their causes.
Without satyagraha, what do you think it would have been today the situation in India, or what path do you think that the racism against the Africans or other races and ethnicities would have taken? If India, through Gandhi, would have not confronted England by peacefully requiring its independence, and instead it would have done nothing, do you think India would have been independent today? Do you think it would have been a country with an emerging economy, as it is today? Or fi India would have violently manifested for its rights to receive independence and equal treatment, do you think it would have had any chance against England, which was one of the greatest military force of the world? I am also curious about what success would have Martin Luther King had on convincing Americans to be more tolerant and to allow equal rights to African Americans, should he approached this issue violently.
As you preach that non-violence is ineffective you demonstrate lack of self-confidence in your abilities to peacefully influence others through the use of ethos, logos and pathos, which are the three Aristotelian principles form the foundation of argumentation (Sager 240). These Ancient Greek levels of persuasion (Sager 240) traveled through history, being as current as they were more than 2000 years ago. Gandhi incorporated Aristotle’s oratorical mode, and so did Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, and many others influential leaders (Sager 241).
Pathos is considered the strongest level of argumentation, as it incorporates human emotions from the speakers’ side, which transmit their feelings to their audiences, making them feel the same. The pathos element activates the feeling component in the audience, hence confirming Gandhi’s believe that everybody is capable of human emotions, because everybody loves somebody: parents, spouses, children or pets (Parekh 68).
If you still consider that the ones in power will only laugh at the non-violent approaches to solving problems, ignoring them or continuing to abuse their victims, I would like to tell you something about the human nature. As Parekh (49) observes, the Western civilizations consider humans superior to any other form of life. However, following the Indian traditions, Gandhi thought that human nature is part of the cosmos just as the other elements that compose it. Similarly, as the Indian traditions stipulate than man should not harm any other living being, not even for nutrition, unless there is no other resources available for food, otherwise the principle of ahimsa would be violated (Parekh 50; Parel lv). Moving forward with this human nature concept, harming another human being automatically implies harming yourself. Of course you will argue that there are heartless people in this world, who have other interests at heart other than to consider Indian philosophy of human nature when they aim to enrich at the expense of others, or when they simply intend to harm others for their pure pleasure. Gandhi would contradict you by counter argue your view according to which the wrongdoers are not affected by their own evil actions meant to harm their victims. According to the human interdependence principle, when somebody harms another, the one who causes pain degrades more than his or her victim, inflicting physical or moral damage on himself or herself, while intentionally doing so on his or her victim (Parekh 52). Subconsciously, when people harm others or treat others badly, their moral suffer, because they are connected with their peers into a collective moral, and they lower their level of humanity (Parekh 52-53). Morbid fears, irrational obsessions and self-abuse are other consequences of violently treating others, as Parekh explains (53).
I can agree that people can harm others easily and they might not be easily persuaded by the non-violent manifestations, having the power to harm those who practice satyagraha. However, you cannot expect that the ones who harm other humans to remain sane or to be unaffected by their wrongdoings.
You should not consider the human morals mentioned earlier the attributes of humanity as inherited from parents and society. While their value cannot be argued, the human morals are connected to the cosmic morals, which are under a supreme authority. At this point I will connect the non-violence (ahimsa) principle by religion and God. These are abstract concepts, which cannot be demonstrated and do not appeal to human reasoning. As Gandhi stated, reasoning is not humans’ most important capacity (Parekh 39). Starting from here, assuming the existence of a supreme force, religion is highly important for the practice of non-violence manifestations, as it preaches love, compassions, truth and justice. Suffering is preached by Christianity, while Hindu tradition teaches about non-violence, ahimsa. However, the ahimsa concept included a non-active component, and this is why Gandhi added the active involvement by appealing to the Christian caritas (Parekh 46). I plead to you, do not underestimate the power of religion and humans’ connection to cosmic morals. The principle of non-violence is written in the stars and enrooted also in the human body, mind and soul.
Now, my skeptic friend, I want to re-state strengths of non-violence. The non-violent principle is not solely successful in India, as it comprises moral principles of the universal religion. The consistent and firm determination of practicing non-violent activism generates more long-term results than the momentarily appeal to violent actions, as history demonstrated so often. Courage is a characteristic of leaders and a manifestation of peaceful values, incorporated in non-violent actions. Not exerting courage shows lack of self-confidence and the inability to discover one as he or she truly is. Human nature preaches non-violence through its cosmic existence and through the interdependence principle that the one who harms others will also be harmed by his or her actions. Religion preaches the universal moral values of love, compassion, truth and justice and non-violence is a condition for supporting these values. With all these being said, as Gandhi said, compromise follows in your acceptance of the non-violence principle.
Works Cited
Brown, Judith M. & Parel, Anthony. The Cambridge Companion to Gandhi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parel, Anthony J. Hind Swaraj and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parekh, Bhikhu. Gandhi. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sager, Lynn Marie. A River worth Riding. San Diego: Aventine Press.
