In one of my previous blogs titled 'Ahimsa is not just physical violence',I had discussed at length about the meaning of 'non-violence' as advocated by Gandhi.Today,I would shed light on the practical applicability of the much cherished principle of non-violence and the extent to which the principle holds good in today's world.Gandhi's principle of non-violence should be seen in the larger context of 'Satyagraha'.Satyagraha is a soul force,unlike physical or brute force.which implies holding on to the truth for the cause of one's principle.It is an infliction of suffering on oneself without causing any physical harm to the enemy.
A recent survey states that almost 70 percent of cases involving countries struggling for democratic regime were successful through their non-violent struggles.Eminent personalities like Nelson Mandela,Martin Luther King Junior,Aang Suu Kyi,the Dalai Lama advocated non-violent measures to achieve their aims and objectives.Most recently,during the so-called 'Arab Spring',activists in Egypt,Yemen and other countries,hold the pictures of Gandhi and closely studied his principles.Back home,the anti-corruption movement spear-headed by Anna Hazare relentlessly relied on the principles of non-violence.The movement was so effective that it led to the downfall of a political party ruling at the centre as it was involved in various big-ticket scams.
However,the principle of non-violence is not without flaws.Gandhi believed that by inflicting self-suffering and doing no physical harm on the enemy,the crimes committed by the enemy would stand exposed.But,it is applicable only when the enemy realises that the acts committed by him are morally wrong.It could work only against opponents vulnerable to a loss of moral authority and governments responsive to domestic and international public opinion.For instance,countries got the freedom from colonial rule partly due to the rulers respecting the sovereignty and freedom of the colonies.
But when the oppressor believes in the justice of his cause and refuses to accept that he was wrong,adhering to non-violent satyagraha might not yield results.It has also little effect on those who are already seeking to punish you whether you disagree with them or not.For them,your willingness to undergo punishment would make things easier as it would corroborate that they were neither wrong nor oppressive.Therefore.in more complex situations,the applicability of the principle of non-violence might not universally hold good.
A recent survey states that almost 70 percent of cases involving countries struggling for democratic regime were successful through their non-violent struggles.Eminent personalities like Nelson Mandela,Martin Luther King Junior,Aang Suu Kyi,the Dalai Lama advocated non-violent measures to achieve their aims and objectives.Most recently,during the so-called 'Arab Spring',activists in Egypt,Yemen and other countries,hold the pictures of Gandhi and closely studied his principles.Back home,the anti-corruption movement spear-headed by Anna Hazare relentlessly relied on the principles of non-violence.The movement was so effective that it led to the downfall of a political party ruling at the centre as it was involved in various big-ticket scams. However,the principle of non-violence is not without flaws.Gandhi believed that by inflicting self-suffering and doing no physical harm on the enemy,the crimes committed by the enemy would stand exposed.But,it is applicable only when the enemy realises that the acts committed by him are morally wrong.It could work only against opponents vulnerable to a loss of moral authority and governments responsive to domestic and international public opinion.For instance,countries got the freedom from colonial rule partly due to the rulers respecting the sovereignty and freedom of the colonies.
But when the oppressor believes in the justice of his cause and refuses to accept that he was wrong,adhering to non-violent satyagraha might not yield results.It has also little effect on those who are already seeking to punish you whether you disagree with them or not.For them,your willingness to undergo punishment would make things easier as it would corroborate that they were neither wrong nor oppressive.Therefore.in more complex situations,the applicability of the principle of non-violence might not universally hold good.
No comments:
Post a Comment