There is no victory in violence
By Raj K Machhan

"Mother do you think they’ll drop the bomb
Mother do you think they’ll break the wall"

— Pink Floyd, The Wall

FOR all those die-hard Pink Floyd fans the lyrics from one of their most popular singles rings a bell in the context of the recent Indo-Pak conflict. Yes! they did drop the bomb and reinforced the wall of hatred between the two estranged cousins. The aftermath of the violent conflict between the two neighbours, in which scores of young people from both sides shed their blood, leads us to ponder over the paradigm shift of a society with a predominantly pacifist culture to that of a state where violence is occupying centrestage increasingly. This is not to say that we were wrong in defending our borders from the rag-tag rogue state. On the contrary, the whole nation is indebted to the sons of our soil who gave their today for our tomorrow. As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavadgita"Waging a war to defend your rights is the duty of all right-minded people".

If one dwells upon the various aspects of this macabre event, one is shocked to notice that our countrymen are actually celebrating a violent happening in which hundreds of young men have died. We have glorified war in its entirety. For most people this event has been seen as another source of gossip. So much so, that some corporate houses are using Kargil as a marketing gimmick to increase sales. One can notice numbers of eateries, general stores and other commercial ventures exploiting Kargil for their own self-interest. Scores of movies with Kargil as their central theme have been launched to set the box office ringing. And imagine this is happening in the land of Buddha, Ashoka The Great and Mahatma Gandhi — all great men who preached non-violence or Ahimsa to the whole world. We will have to probe deep inside our national conscience to find an answer to this one.

In Sanskrit himsa stands for violence. The ‘a’ placed before the word negates it, thus forming the word ahimsa. It stands for gentleness and non-injury whether physical, mental or emotional, Ahimsa or non-violence is steeped in the ethos of the Indian culture since time immemorial. This is basically because of our belief in karma and reincarnation, which leads us to believe that what we have done to others will be done to us, if not in this life then in another.

Alienation of the youth in Modern India from our rich heritage is partially-responsible for the increasing trend of violence in our society. The present-day young generation are not really aware of the true meaning of non-violence. Any young person using violent methods as the means to an end is said to have guts. A youth who does not believe in violence is considered a "sissy". In order to distinguish between the two we need to dwell more carefully upon these two concepts as a way of life. What does violence stand for or from where does violence emanate? Violence is the extreme manifestation of anger. A person gets violent only after he loses control of himself after getting angry on any particular issue. Somebody has very rightly said "Anger is a sign of weakness". An individual not able to control his anger, gives vent to his feelings, through acts of violence. Such an individual does not have control over his senses and is basically a mentally weak person, though he may compete with the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger in terms of his bodily strength.

It is a proven fact that it is the mind which rules over the matter. Ahimsa or non-violence is certainly not cowardice; it is wisdom. Contrary to violence, patience and a greater control of the self are virtues associated with ahimsa. These people are generally at peace with themselves. Peace is the reflection of spiritual consciousness while violence reflects a base consciousness. Ahimsa is associated with a superior form of human existence where an individual has achieved some degree of control over his senses. At the same time violence is a base element where an individual succumbs too easily to his weaknesses.

A violent personality may seem to be stronger at one point of time, but in the long run one’s true strength lies in his ability to exercise restraint over one’s emotions and deal with different situations in an objective manner. You would agree that exercising control over oneself requires much more inner strength than simply lashing out violently at others.

Youth in contemporary society only respect strength and more so the outward manifestation of physical strength. But then who is stronger?One can clearly make out from the above that it is really the attitude and not the size which matters. A mentally strong person will emerge a winner hands down when we set out to compare the two. Violence has come to be eulogised as a virtue in our society especially among the youth. Even a soldier engaged on the battlefront will invariably count on his patience and self-control as virtues which would stand him in good stead while facing the enemy.

Mahatma Gandhi, not exactly the right example of a body builder, has been one of the strongest individuals of this century. He was able to withstand the might of the British Empire purely on the basis of his strong convictions and ideals, subduing the much stronger empire without any acts of violence. A truly courageous person develops the ability to rise above the occasion and assess a situation objectively before taking any action.

A person who was previously violent can become non-violent. It is just a matter of realising what life is really about and harming others is violation of one’s own inner peace. It is a solid fact that when an injurious act is committed, it makes a mark deep within the mind of the violator. Those individuals who are penitent are slowly able to heal this mark.

To conclude forthwith, one can say that a person having inner peace can lead a happy and satisfactory life as opposed to an individual constantly at conflict with his inner self. In the long run, the race does not go to the strongest and the fastest, the person who thinks he can win, is the winner.