World history is fraught with violence. From time immemorial, violence has been regarded as the only solution to all human conflicts. There have been two world wars within a gap of less than 20 years. Both the world wars were the deadliest in nature that history had even seen, with WW1 claiming over 37 million lives and WW2 over 60 million lives, about 2.5% of the total world population then. Going back to the history of medieval and early modern Europe, we would see an era embroiled in bloodbath. Violence and lawlessness describe the tumultuary state of medieval Europe best when kings and knights followed only one strategy in the combat of power: kill as many opponents as possible. Moving back to the present, we see that violence is committed in the form of torture executed by the government in about 40 countries. For example, Syrian government in a bid to end the uprising raging the country for last few years has been carrying out a policy of torture against the rebels who are being tortured in prison in the most inhumane ways possible (Ivan Watson, CNN). There is an ongoing debate among the philosophers of the world about violence being justified or not. If I need to take a stance between violence and non-violence, I think non-violence is more powerful strategy wise and in consideration of the violent history of human, non-violence is the ultimate option for ending strife because non-violence acknowledges the interconnectedness of all human beings, does not alienate people, employs constructive harmless tactics and completely practical.
Prima facie, violence may seem to be finer technique for achieving the desired objective and resolving conflicts because it involves apparent strategies of weapons practicable to resist an opponent. All the human violence is triggered by the same sentiment of denying the interconnectedness among all of us. Non-violence is set on the belief that despite our differences, we all are alike, interdependent and interconnected. Non-violent techniques may not carry any obvious threat to intimidate an enemy, but non-violence destroys the barrier between hearts. It is a potent weapon to break down the chain of violence and counter-violence. It opens the gate of resolving conflicts through peace.
The proponents of violence argue that when all the options are exhausted, violence is the only option. If a country is attacked, then it is totally justified to respond back violently but violence is never justified. If we examine the world history, we will see that violence begets violence. The United States is a classic example of that. After 9/11 the US set its army in Iraq killing thousands of people including rebels and innocent civilians. As a result, Iraqis too started revolting against the US. The US has its base set in almost all the Middle East Countries, yet this forceful occupation has not resolved the problem of terrorist attack in US, the recent Boston Marathon bomb attack being a proof of that. Non-violence on the other hand has the strength to resolve a conflict without alienating people. Non-violence stirs the conscience and heart of the opponent. When violence is opposed by affection and forgiveness, the hearts of the enemy are bound to change from one of animosity to good will. If the US would have approached to resolve the conflict with the Middle East states in non-violent way through discussion and negotiation, we might not have witnessed the series of violent terrorist attacks in our country.
The tactics used in violence are destructive committed with the purpose of killing people. The common violence tactics include high tech weapons, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bombs, missiles and all such lethal weaponry useful for genocide. Non-violence does not involve any murderous tactic to kill an enemy. Non-violence believes in peaceful way of resolving conflict by the means of persuasion through exchange of dialogues and negotiation. If dialogues and negotiation don't work in abating the conflict, there are other non-violent ways to show resistance. Non-violent tactics involve candle march, boycotts, public fasts, demonstration, street theatres, strikes and civil disobedience.
People in favor of violence argue that non-violence is impractical and that it sounds good only in theory and not in practical implementation. After carefully studying over a century of uprisings, Scholars Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan have come to the finding that non-violence far outweighs violence in the strength of resolving a problem. They conclude that strategically non-violent resistance is better than its violent counterpart and results in the establishment of a democratic and stable society (Thanassis Cambanis). Mahatma Gandhi is a true example of the success of non-violence. The principal tactic employed by Gandhi in his fight against the British regime was Satyagraha meaning 'soul-force'. Through the non-violent ideology Gandhi's Satyagraha changed into civil disobedience and non-cooperation movement. The Salt March of 1930 when Gandhi crossed over 241 miles from his village to Dandi, a small coastal village in India was the greatest success of civil disobedience in the world history. The other tactic used by Gandhi was the non-cooperation movement which comprised of renouncing everything that has to do with British, like discarding the British products, refusal to work for the British and not paying taxes. Gandhi's Satyagraha led by the non-violent ideologies was successful in terms of earning India its independence in 1947. Though the struggle of non-violence had been long and painful, at the end the British was simply forced to give India its freedom. Not only in Indian Independence war, there are a lot of other exemplifying incidents that indicate the success of non-violent tactics. For instance, in Tambogrande, Peru, civilians using the weapon of strikes and petition led a mass movement against the government in order to save their fertile agricultural land from being turned into a gold mine by the evil government and corporate firms. However, though non-violence is practical, it requires certain prerequisites for its successful implementation. First, the opponent must be willing to acknowledge their fault. Second, non-violence requires an open society in which gates are open for negotiation and third, some shared belief and understanding between the two conflicting parties (Eknath Easwaran).
Human history is steeped in gore and blood. From medieval period to present time, we see human beings resorting to violence as the only option to put an end to all the conflicting issues. But as violence begets violence and kindness begets kindness, we have seen the futility and the massive destruction caused by violence. Violence may succeed in suppressing the voice of an opponent, but it never succeeds in removing the problem from the core. Non-violence on the other hand through its steadfast peaceful tactics of civil disobedience, candle march, strikes, public fasting, petition, demonstration and street shows draw more attention and change the hearts of the oppressors. Non-violent ways may appear difficult but if applied with unyielding resolution may bring about a fascinating change in the world in harmonious co-existence.
Works Cited
1. Easwaran Eknath, Gandhi the Man: The Story of His Transformation, Nilgiri Press, 1997.
2. Watson Ivan, Report describes brutal torture in Syria, July 3, 2012. Retrieved on 2nd May 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/03/world/meast/syria-torture-report
3. Non-violence Another Path, Retrieved on 2nd May 2013 http://www.cscsisters.org/aboutus/media/publications/Justice%20Publications/csc_nv.pdf
4. Cambanis Thanassis, Non-violence vs. Violence, 5th, 2011. Retrieved on 2nd May 2013 http://thanassiscambanis.com/2011/08/05/non-violence-vs-violence/
5. Butigan Ken, Bruno Patricia, From Violence to Wholeness, O.P., Pace e Bene, 2002.
