NONVIOLENCE

Due to many idealistic Western misrepresentations concerning Gandhi's
views on Asimha, i.e. Non-Violence, too many people are of the opinion
that Gandhi was a fool who would have opposed the right of anyone to
use violence in self-defense. While it is true that Gandhi himself was
convinced that he would never need to resort to violence to ever defend
himself, and would prefer risking death in a non-violent manner, he did
make what seems to be several statements throughout his life that would
seem to suggest that he respected and understood the right of any
person or group of people to resort to violence to defend their property
and lives, but only if they had first exhausted every real opportunity to
find a non-violent compromise solution. In this latter view there is a
degree of self-contradiction, but no one should doubt for a single
moment that what Gandhi meant was that while violent acts in
self-defense may happen and even be justified they should be avoided at
all costs.

Another important point to keep in mind is that the world of today is
many times more dangerous and definitely much different than the world
in his times. One might even argue that his assassination by that fanatic
was the beginning of the end of the original message of Non-Violence
and a new form of Non-Violence has since been waiting clear definition.

To my way of thinking Non-Violence is something we must strive for by,
first and foremost, reducing the sources of violence, which are poverty,
person-directed-hate, irrational fear and insecurity-spawned-corruption.

Keeping weapons for self-defense is not a negation of the need to be
Non-Violent. While Gandhi abhorred violence and the tools (weapons)
used to perpetrate violence, he also respected and understood the right
of all persons to dissuade violence and attack by violent persons by
having weapons that might inhibit one from initiating attack. After all,
Gandhi was never opposed to allowing the police weapons for
self-defense and a native military from having weapons to defend itself
and the nation from attack. In Gandhi's mind, the reality of a threat from
any enemy was an even stronger calling to find some way to apply a
Non-Violent approach to changing such an enemy into a friend!
Unfortunately the world of today is full of drug-crazed and mentally ill
(psychotic) violent people and traditional old-time Non-Violent methods
do not work and do not make sense in dealing with such intoxicated or
warped individuals and groups. Which is why I am convinced Gandhi
would have altered his definition of Non-Violence to allow for reasonable
self-defense and the defense of the innocent. All that notwithstanding,
Gandhi was by no means a full Pacifist, and he made that perfectly clear
over and over again. Sure, he was more like a Pacifist than not, but he
did not go so far as to admonish those caught in the chaos of violence
who may have been forced by circumstance to act violently. And one
cannot also fail to take into consideration the fact that Gandhi had a
significant set of supportive circumstances, including a huge political
organization with plenty of means to buffer Gandhi from everyday
hardships, such that Gandhi's views on Asimha were often a bit on the
"rosy and unrealistic side. Because of this very artificial shielding one
has to read deeper into Gandhi's views to find the right interpretation of
what really constitutes Non-Violence.

In a sense, Gandhi was more right than wrong, and sometimes a little bit
of a hypocrite himself, something he often admitted!

But all of the few truly great thinkers and activists of history were
imperfect people with their own set of contradictions and hypocrisy.
What distinguishes a great person worthy of praise and a despotic and
ruthless leader is a matter of degree and intention. That is to say, even
the good greats of history had moments where they risked becoming evil
doers themselves! Some of Gandhi's comments are actually known to
have unintentionally, as it were, added fuel to the fire of Hindu-Muslim,
Muslim-Sikh, and Sikh-Hindu violence! Yet, Gandhi's overall message
and words were nothing short of Saintly! While we would be perfectly
right in discrediting a man like Hitler who may say one single true thing
after ten big lies, we would be very wrong to discredit someone like
Thomas Jefferson ( or Gandhi) for telling nine truths and one lie! Gandhi
never caused the strife between Indians, even though he often failed to
stop it and inadvertently made things worse by pushing too high an ideal!

A Non-Violent person may even be a person who prepares for conflict,
and violent self-defense while seriously working hard to promote the
message and values of Non-Violence. And India's development of its
nuclear deterrent arsenal must also be considered as working to avoid
violence (war) by making the cost of any massive violent attack too great
to risk! Non-Violence and modern weaponry are hard to reconcile, but
not impossible. At least India spends much more on creating peace and
working to improve the quality of life of its people than on weapons. No
doubt India would prefer not to have to spend a single Rupee on a single
grain of gunpowder! Keep in mind that a philosopher may be truly wise
and once in a while do and/or say something unbelievably foolish ! We
must not be too quick to discredit and destroy potential heroes,
especially at a time when heroes are hard to find!

By the way, I have been a lesser man myself!