MAN has a tendency to cling to catch-words and to allow his action to be determined by them almost mechanically without bringing his action into direct relation with the living perception which these words embody. Going behind words Words have their own place and use in life, but if action is to be intelligent, it is imperatively necessary that the meaning which these words are intended to convey should be carefully analyzed and fixed. Among the words which need such exploration few are as important as "violence" and "non-violence." They have a direct bearing upon the ideologies which shape not only particular actions but also the entire tenor of life.
Spiritual life is a matter of perception and not of mechanical conformity to rules, even when these rules are meant to stand for the highest values. Spiritual understanding goes beyond formulations It implies an understanding which goes beyond all words or formulations. All words and formulations have a tendency to limit the Truth. Therefore those who seek to bring out the spirit underlying these formulations often have to launch upon a searching analysis of the formulated principles, and supplement this analysis by constantly retaining touch with concrete examples taken from life. This is particularly true of those guiding principles formulated through the opposite concepts of violence and non-violence.
The words "violence" and "non-violence" are, in ordinary references, applicable to such diverse situations in practical life that no exposition of the issues involved can be complete, unless it Starting with representative situations takes note of these diverse situations and uses them as a starting point. However, for the purpose of exposition, it is not necessary to exhaust numerically all the possible diversities which would be covered by these words. It is enough to consider some of the most representative situations. The representative situations mentioned below have been selected because of their capacity to shed abundant light on the fundamental values which centre round the concepts of violence and non-violence.
Situation No. 1. Suppose a man, who does not know how to swim, has fallen into a lake and is drowning and that there is another person nearby who is good at swimming and wants to Case of drowning man save him. The drowning man has a tendency to grasp desperately at the person who comes to his help and the hold is often so restricting that it may not only make it impossible to save the drowning man, but may even cause the drowning of the one who came to help. The one who wishes to save the drowning man must therefore strike him unconscious by hitting him on the head before he can help him. Striking the drowning man on the head under such circumstances cannot be looked upon either as violence or nonviolence.
Situation No. 2. Suppose a man is suffering from some disease which can only be cured through an operation. Now in order to cure this suffering man as well as to protect others from Case of surgical operation catching this infection, a surgeon may have to remove the infected part. This cutting of the body by a knife also cannot be looked upon either as violence or non-violence.
Situation No. 3. Suppose an aggressive nation invades a weaker nation for selfish purposes, and another nation, inspired solely by the noble desire of saving the weak nation, resists Case of aggressive nation this aggressive invasion by armed force. Fighting in defense of the weak nation cannot be looked upon as either violence or non-violence, but can be called non-violent violence.
Situation No. 4. Suppose a mad dog has run a muck and is likely to bite the school-children, and the teachers Case of mad dog in the school destroy the mad dog in order to protect the children. This destruction of the mad dog does imply violence, but there is no hatred in it.
Situation No. 5. Suppose a physically strong man is insulted and Case of non-violence of the strong spat upon by an arrogant man who is nevertheless weak, and suppose that the strong man who has the power to crush the arrogant man not only desists from hurting the arrogant man, but calmly explains to him the gospel of love. This action implies non-violence, but it is the non-violence of the strong.
The Need for delicate considerations first three situations mentioned above clearly bring out that the question whether a situation implies violence or non-violence cannot be decided except by entering into many subtle and delicate considerations: (1) regarding the diverse details of the situation, and (2) regarding the motive which prompts action. The last two situations show that even where violence or non-violence are implied, certain other factors give meaning beyond the ordinary sense attached to these words "violence" and "non-violence."
A detailed analysis of situation No. 1 shows that though it involves the use of force without prior consent of the victim, the motive was to save the drowning man. Comments on case of drowning man The application of force without the consent of the man on whom it is used, may be termed a case of violence. But the force is used for the good of the drowning man and not with any desire to inflict injury or harm on him, and in that sense it may be said that it is not a case of violence. In these special senses the situation can be said to involve violence and non-violence respectively, but in the ordinary sense of the words it cannot be looked upon as a case of either violence or non-violence.
Situation No. 2 is slightly different. Here also there is application of force (even to cutting of the body), which is for the good of the patient. But in most cases the patient gives his prior consent Comments on case of surgical operation to the operation. Further, the operation is intended not only to protect the patient himself from the further ravages of the disease, but is also intended to protect others from the spread of infection. The application of force here springs out of the motive of doing unmixed good, both to the patient as well as many others who might come into contact with him. Since no harm is intended, the application of force does not amount to violence in the ordinary sense. Nor can it be adequately looked upon as non-violence, since it is a clear case of cutting a part of a living body.
Situation No. 3 is also very interesting and instructive. Here the fighting involves offering resistance to aggression, with no selfish motive or personal interest, but solely with the purpose of defending the weaker nation. Comments on case of an aggressor nation This may inflict much injury and even destruction upon the aggressor nation, and the use of force is not only without its prior consent but against its deliberate and conscious will. Even in this situation we do not have a clear case of violence. In spite of the injury and harm involved, the application of force is not only for the good of the weaker nation, which is the victim, but in a very important sense it is also for the good of the aggressor nation itself, because through the resistance encountered to its aggression, it is gradually cured of its spiritual weakness or disease of having a tendency to invade and exploit the weaker nations. This violence is really not violent and so we call it non-violent violence.
The case of fighting with an aggressor nation is very similar to the case of surgery on an infected part. Comparison of case of aggressor nation In the case of fighting with the aggressor nation, the good of the weaker nation appears to be the primary result and the good of the aggressor nation (against which force is exercised) appears to be a secondary result. In the case of the operation, the good of the patient (on whom force is exerted) appears to be the primary result and the good of others appears to be a secondary result. But this is only a minor difference in benefit and when the two situations are carefully analyzed and compared, it is found that both promote equally the good of the target of force as well as many others involved in the situation. Defending the weak is an important form of selfless service and it is a part of Karmayoga. Use of force, when necessary for this purpose, is completely justified as an indispensable instrument Defending weak a form of selfless service for securing the desired objective. But any fighting undertaken to defend the weak must be without any selfish motives or hatred if it is to have unalloyed spiritual importance. It resembles the case of a man who defends a woman being attacked by another man for vile purposes, thus saving the woman’s honour and life and correcting the attacking man by punishing him and making him repent.
Situation No. 4 is definitely a case of violence, but it is justified because there is no hatred in it and because it is intended to promote the Comments on cases of a mad dog and non-violence of the strong greater good of the children who might be attacked by the mad dog. The case of the strong man, who gives a sermon instead of seeking revenge (situation No. 5), implies non-violence, but it is not a case of inaction. It neither implies passivity nor weakness but strength and true creative action of an impersonal nature. It is non-violence of the strong.
The detailed analysis and comparison of the above diverse situations bring out Spiritual understanding above rules, requires divine love the fact that questions concerning violence or non-violence, their justification or otherwise and the ascertainment of their true value or lack of value, cannot be decided by any formal enunciation of a universal rule. They involve many delicate spiritual issues and implications. A right understanding of the status of violence and non-violence in the scheme of spiritual values requires true perception of the meaning of the purpose of existence. Action, therefore, should not be governed by means of any slogans (however high-sounding) based upon incomplete and insufficient ideas of mere violence or mere non-violence. It should be a spontaneous outcome of divine love, which is above duality, and of spiritual understanding, which is above rules.