The Gandhian Confusion

The meaning of Violence

Resistance to aggression is not only justifiable but imperative: Non-resistance hurts both altruism and egoism.
- Herbert Spencer’s ‘Ethics’

‘Violence’ (Atyachar) is one of those few words which have played a havoc of meaningless pomp in the politics in the last 7-8 years and hoodwinked people’s sensibility. Even now the word is being misused due to lack of analysis of its meaning and has resulted in the blindfolded national polity groping in irrational confusion.  That the very word ‘Atyachar’ is indicative bad, condemnable behaviour is clear from its etymology. The behaviour that is extreme, improper, injurious is ‘atyachar.’ Any act that is called ‘atyachari’ creates a feeling of rejection, condemnation. Same is true of the word ‘violence’. As this word is used to indicate an action that may cause unjustified pain or harm to others, the very mention of this word naturally creates a feeling of abhorrence in the mind of a gentleman. Whether it is ‘Atyachar’ or ‘Violence’, both suggest a torturous use of force or power. This suggested meaning has its limits. But those extremists ignorant of the limits have started misusing these words for other words with wider meanings while creating a bogey of ‘ahimsa’ in Indian politics. Hence, these words have wreaked an antinational distortion of politics.

The basis of the meaning of ‘Atyachar’ or ‘Violence’ is force or power; hence these words came to be used initially to talk about acts in which force or power were used. This resulted in disgust or contempt about those acts in the people’s minds. If someone says ‘Don’t do this bad deed’, we naturally tend to agree with him, because what is ‘bad’ is associated with ‘condemnable’. Similarly, when it is said that ‘We should not indulge in violence.’, everyone, particularly the public tends to regard approval to it as our duty. This is how everyone in the Madras session of the National Congress, without any fuss, took the oath to shun violence. To object to the oath amounted to admitting that one will indulgence in violence. And since ‘violence’ per se is regarded as condemnable, nobody was naturally prepared to object. Just as no one would say, ‘I will do something bad.’, no good-natured person would say, ‘I will indulge in violence.’ But when, under this label of ‘good nature’, when any act involving force or power came consistently to be labeled ‘violent’, the masses were misled. From ‘Violence involves force.’; they wrongly inferred that ‘Whatever involves force is an act of violence’, a distorted and too wide a conclusion. Thus the terms ‘ahimsa’, ‘anatyachar’, non-violence created a mess in politics. All those deeds that were since ages being extolled all over the world suddenly were blacklisted. Bravery, valour, martial skills, command over arms or the prowess capable of snubbing the enemy – all these, just because they require the use of force, came to be listed under ‘Violence’, condemned as vices. That was inevitable when the nation blindly accepted ‘Any action that involves the use of force is violent.’ as the definition of violence.

Matters came to such a stage that even smashing the leg of a statue with a stone also was counted as violence, and carrying a stick too was regarded as a deed violence-prone and therefore inconsistent with non-violence. What was left was a diktat to uproot the arm which makes such deeds possible!

Human emotions are associated with the meanings of the words.
Therefore, the moment a word is uttered, the emotion associated with it influences our mind even before we realize it and thence affects human actions. If, just before a stranger’s entry, someone tells us that he is a pucca scoundrel, the emotions connected with the word ‘scoundrel’ affect our mind adversely and hinder our objective assessment of the person.

To highlight this point, the Vedas and Puranas contain stories about how a slight variation in accent led to distortion of meaning and led to disaster for Gods. That is what happened in the last few years to the meaning of the word ‘violence’. Violence is bad. It necessarily involves use of force.