Acharya Tulsi
War is an enteral problem. Some people have been fighting wars tofind solution of problems and some people have been thinking of providing solution of the problem of war. According to some people's perspective accumulation of power is the only solution of war while according to some other people the solution of it is non-violence those who believe in acquiring power they rely on arms. It simply means they believe in war. Non-violent people believe in disarmament which means they do not believe in war. If all the people turn non- violent then no trace of the word war would be found but unfortunately every person is not like that. Those who want to expand their empire, those who are afraid and thrive on doubts, those who have a steadfast faith in material bliss; they only want war to exist. Those who have discerned war as a dreadful problem, those who have steadfast faith in non-violence they do not want war. Even then they have not found a way by which the existence of war could be wiped out.
From material point of view man has made a radical development but from non-violent point of view he is not yet quite developed. The day when the entire human race considers war, abduction, exploitation and so on as an inhuman act akin to the evil tradition of slavery that would be the day when man would certainly make a radical progress. To reach this state it would take many aeons and relentless efforts. The voice that was raised against the system of slavery got materialized after some thousands of years. Similarly the voice that would be raised against war would end it someday. We need not be disappointed and keep on raising our voice against war.
How to Provide Solution to the Problem of War
The subject worth contemplating today is—how to provide solution to the problem of war? Should it be done by means of violence or non-violence? Should it be done by means of arms or by disannulments? China attacked India and then a surging enthusiasm of defence with arms was observed among Indian citizens. This wasn’t something that compels one’s wonder. Defence through violence has always been prevalent in our society. Man has a steadfast faith over it. As far as solution through non-violence is concerned man is not aware of this phenomenon. The solution of the problem of war through non-violent means is not even depicted properly in the ancient texts. Lord Mahavira’s shravakas (disciples) used to take vows of not attacking anyone but even then they would never leave the right of counter-attack. Emperor Chetak would never attack anyone and he would not even strike more than once at his enemy. This wasn’t however a non-violent solution but surely a courageous steps in that direction.
War is caused by Both the Parties
If man loses faith in war, power of arms or beastly power, then he can put an end to war. A war never takes place from one side, when both the party’s fight then only it takes place. If one fights and the other don’t then it could be an attack but not war. If there is no counter- attack then the attack also loses its power and becomes inactive. The way one’s enemy gets strength by rumours, in a similar way counter- attack also provides strength to the enemy. Fight with a demon and your power will diminish and his strength will be twice as much than what he had. If you don’t fight him then his strength will diminish. It is applicable for almost every emotion. War is also a kind of emotion. If it becomes one-sided it cannot have the same power. It becomes powerful only when emotion gives rise to emotion, when attack is responded with counter-attack. But those who believe in such moral statements, as 'विषस्यविषमौषधं' या 'कण्टकात्कण्टकमुध्दरेत्' अथवा 'शठेशाठयसमाचरेत्' how would they believe that emotion must not be responded with emotion or an attack must not be responded with counter-attack.Boiled milk gets calm and cool when few drops of water are sprinkled over it. People are aware of this method. This method applies everywhere, they do not believe in it. No evidence of non-violent solution of war is found in the world, so how can it be approved so easily? It is enough for us that we talk over the subject and contemplate over it. There is a possibility that a conclusion could be drawn as a consequence of it. Someone attacks one to full his selfish desires and he attacks only when the other appears to be weak and a coward. To stop attacking there are only two ways—power and invincibility.
Power lies in displaying arms and also in fearlessness. Invincibility lies in body as well as in mind. Those who are afraid losing their kingdom to anybody else they use the power of arms and body to prevent the attack. Those who are not afraid of anything, who have an ardent belief in human integration, they try to disarm their enemy by the strength of mind and fearlessness. Attack is unbearable for both but the way of preventing it is different. To be not afraid of death is the first condition of a soldier as well as a non- violent person. To be well-equipped with arms is the second most condition for a soldier but it is not so for a non-violent person. To employ the power of brain is the third condition for a soldier but it is not followed by a non-violent person.
Ways of Finding Solution through Non-Violence
To resist the attack by non-violence inner power has to be enhanced. There are three conditions for the follower of it. Here they are being presented —
- He has to be fearless and would not be afraid of death.
- He would be full of love, would have immense faith over human integrity. He would not indulge or allow any ill- feelings for even his enemy.
- He would have immense strength of mind; he would never leave his principle of protesting against any injustice at any cost.
Fearlessness, love and strength of mind are the three virtues if initiated with, one may easily disarm his enemy within such a short span of time that even soldiers who are well-equipped with arms and physical powers would find difficult to disarm their enemies with so much ease. Acharya Hemchandra had written ventilating his emotion—‘In war the victory is uncertain but mass killing is certain, therefore, as long as the second option is avoidable no war must be waged. I interpret it in my own way—even if the victory in war is certain then also it should be refrained from because it is not a solution to any problem. A man of modern age of science would never like to travel by a bullock cart leaving the option of travelling by air. The intellectual human being of this modem age would leave the dream of creating a global village and would like to cause war, doesn’t it sound a little awkward? War is a shame for the modern developed human beings. Only by wiping the stain of this curse can human being call himself intelligent in the true sense of the term.
Substitute of Counter-Attack
Those who believe that attack can be resisted by counter-attack, are devoid of the ability to think of finding a substitute. But a non-violent person is never without options or substitutes? From his point of view the substitute of counter-attack is to find a solution through non-violence. Some people believe that in comparison with violent solutions non-violent solutions are much better but the question is how to implement them and establish them? I believe that discipline, fearlessness, love and strength of mind, if these virtues are developed and inculcated then finding solutions by non-violent means would not be so difficult. We must teach the masses these three significant factors to protest by non-violent means and that is one must not co- operate with the enemy; he must not accept his subjugation and protest against his ulterior motives. The fourth point is that unless the enemy returns from the nation such methods must not be dealt with leniency. The method of finding this solution of protesting against violence would never go futile. It is true that if one doesn’t co-operate with one’s enemy then he has to bear much pain. Not accepting his subjugation one has to bear oppression one has to face barriers, if he protests against one’s enemy. But all these inconveniences can be endured when non-violence becomes one’s nature and for the penance of it one becomes disciplined, fearless, loving and mentally strong.
Mahatma Gandhi used to consider non-violence as religion congress had accepted it as a moral code. He was an inspiration for the masses; Congress had taken the responsibility of ruling. This is the reason why Congress had encouraged equipment of arms and chose the way of defence through violence. Had non-violence been the nature of these people then it would have never taken place. But it was just a moral code which is why the changes took place. Religion is always unchangeable but morality changes. For me non-violence is not merely a moral code of conduct but self-nature. I cannot think of any other option. Supporting violence is always impossible for me. I would suggest all Indian citizens that they gather enough power to solve any dispute through non-violence and standing on the verge of war they offer a new substitute before the world.
