The two words - "violence" and "possessiveness" seemingly connote two different meanings, but their ultimate significance revolves round the same axis. For, "possessiveness" plays a vital role in giving birth to "violence".
Similarly, "non-violence" and "non-possessiveness" may appear to have different verbal meanings, but essentially both are concomitant, the non-possessiveness being the cause and the nonviolence its outcome.
In Lord Mahavira's philosophy, both violence and possessiveness have been stated to act as an impediment to the development of soul or consciousness.
Today however the index of development is related with the economic development only. The modem (present-day) economics too is centered more around the prosperity of an individual rather than that of the society. The result is that only a section of society is getting richer while another section is reeling under the pangs of hunger and stark poverty.
The principle that 'the minimum basic needs of the entire society should be fulfilled first' can serve as a great fundamental principle of economic system. It means that everyone would be able to get food, clothes, shelter, medicine and education. Let us not bother about other economic equity. Let us accept that all individuals have their own way of earning and own professional skill. Some would earn more, some less. We cannot have mechanisation of economic equity. It is difficult to conceive that all become millionaire. The only possibility is - everyone would at least have his basic and primary needs got fulfilled. If individuals' earnings are unequal due to difference in their individual dexterity, others should not have objection to it. Both Ruskin and Gandhi held that both the judge and lawyer should get the same remuneration. It implies that one should definitely get at least that much through which one can fulfill the needs of life. But this condition cannot be fulfilled in absence of self-restraint over one's accumulation and consumption.
The problem that prevails is due to the fact that more emphasis is given on economic development, that is, on more and more production, more and more income and distribution, but it lacks two important things - restraints over accumulation and restraint over desires. The result is that the economic problem remains unresolved.
This fact can be put in another way: the socio-economic system sans 'righteousness (dharma)' would jeoparadise. If the latter would have been assimilated in the former, the modern economics would have added the element of restraint with the economic development and consequently, a new equation would have been created. If restraint over desires and restraint over consumption had been a part and parcel of economic development, then there would not have been created such a great disparity between the poor and rich, there would have existed a scope for the society to think in new terms and the problem of money and possession would not have become so dreadful as it is today. When we have a glance at the big metropolitan cities of India, we find there a long row of sky-scrappers on one side and even larger area of slums on the other and this pathetic view would fill our hearts with strong repugnance.
So long as man catches hold of the ownership of possessions, greediness would continue to raise its ugly head, and violence cannot be terminated. It means that the root is not violence, but it is the possessiveness. In the Acharanga Sutra (a sacred scripture of Jains), the root causes of violence are mainly considered to be greediness, possessiveness and desire to acquire power. Once the Director of Zoo at Munich (Germany) said that when the monkeys are brought to the Zoo from the forest, they don't like to stay in the cages, but once the monkey establishes its right over its own cage, then it would not allow any other monkey to enter into its own cage. This is the instinct of possessiveness or ownership. Unless it is given up, the objects become the cause of attachment or infatuation.
At the advent of the 21st century, the SAARC conference had made a resolve" We shall eradicate poverty totally within seven years". But such resolve by any government cannot become successful without the cooperation of the people. It is unfortunate that people's cooperation is not sought for to realize the governmental resolve. Hence, the dreams remain unrealized. We should pay more attention to the truth whether our consciousness is involved in our activity or not. The secret of success of Mahatma Gandhi lies in the fact that he stuck his consciousness to the spinning wheel (Charkha) and the broom, and hence the spinning wheel became his sudarshan-wheel and the broom became his unfailing weapon. The broom and the Charakha cannot become powerful without being related with consciousness. We failed to make India the country of Gandhi's dream, because the consciousness of people could not be involved.
Can we conceive the idea of "relativistic economics" and "relativistic system of economics", in which there would be scope for huge industries, and huge business houses, and also millionaires and billionaires, but at the same time the system for providing everyone the primary needs of life and the required employment organisation to fulfill them would not be neglected. Such systems of self-dependence can be evolved through developing small industries and small entrepreneurs, and then we can prevent the reactionary violence that erupts due to the dearth of bread and reduce the chasm that has got widened between the rich and poor.