Acharya Tulsi
The conflict between violence and non-violence is not new. The history of non-violence is no less ancient than that of violence. The seeds of violence and non-violence are found to be present in one and the same individual. When the conditioning of violence gets stronger, the virtue of non-violence stands dimmed. When the spirit of non-violence gets activated, that of violence becomes superseded. The factors of violence as well as those of non- violence exist within each individual. ln a climate of violence, the hidden violence in man easily finds its requisite opportunity. But when the fountain of non-violence flows strongly within, man grows unanimous. What makes a man violent or non- violent? To know that, it is necessary to analyse that man’s inner disposition and to understand the currents of violence and non-violence active in his brain.
If violence is an unavoidable part of living, non-violence is of the very essence of beautiful living. A man desirous of a pure life will never indulge in violence. Of course, some violence is inevitable in the very process of living, but a virtuous man's ideal is non-violence. He believes in the none—violent way of living and this is reflected in his conduct. Firstly, he renounces the violence of thought; secondly, the violence of feeling; and finally the violence of action. From the point-of- view of non-violence, no violence, of whatever kind, is desirable. However, a man who is identified with his family, society and country, cannot be wholly free from violence. He who is attached to his family, society and country and is, therefore, goes on amassing wealth avaricious on their behalf, less inevitably possessed by violence. Avarice and violence go together; they are the two faces of the same coin. Unless you are free of one, you cannot be free of the other. All consciousness of possession must come to an end before one can be totally free of violence. But even he who is committed to a life of possession can avoid many complications if he at least renounces violence in thought.
Violence proceeds from intolerance which is of three kinds—intolerance of thought, intolerance of speech and intolerance of action. As long as intolerance is confined to the sphere of thought, one’s conduct is relatively free. The moment intolerance extends to speech, it destroys goodwill. With the destruction of goodwill, man is assailed by many kinds of fear and misgivings. The man caught in fear is liable to forget the principle of co—existence. He is all the time worried about being assaulted. ln consequence he loses faith in the people around him. He cannot trust anyone, nor does he feel secure in their company. lf one would ride the horse of non—violence, one must command the reins of fearlessness, otherwise all talk of -violence would remain impractical.
There was a time when man was not conversant with the culture of war. His means were limited. To fulfill his meagre needs, he did not have to labour hard. Whatever little he could earn was sufficient for his living. ln those days every man was content with just a little profit. In course of time, dissatisfaction with the little created in man's mind a desire for more and more commodities.This gave rise to a mentality of usurping what belonged to other people. When he could not easily get that, man became aggressive and took to forcible appropriation of other people's property. The field of ambition is quite extensive, ranging from the acquisition of foodstuffs to the establishment of a world-wide empire.
In order to wrest what belonged to other people man perfected all kinds of weapons. The primitive man used stones.
Gradually, wood and iron were utilized. The lance, the dagger, the arrow and the sword evolved as an essential part of the aggressive culture. All these weapons became out-dated the moment man discovered the power of the atom. The atomic power can certainly be utilized for constructive purposes, but in a climate of active violence, the constructive approach is thrown overboard and destruction becomes the dominating motive. The complete annihilation of two big cities of Japan—Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War is emblematic of active violence pending man's consciousness.
For some time past, the great powers of the world have been preoccupied with the preparations for space war. The main factor behind these preparations could be nothing but fear and misgivings. The agreement between Russia and the U.S.A. on the delimitation of medium—based unclear missiles was a small step towards non-violence in a world dominated by violence. This development received an enthusiastic welcome. The next summit conference is expected to finalize agreement on the total destruction of all kinds of nuclear weapons. Such an agreement and instant action thereupon is essential for the maintenance of peace in the world.
The whole of the world is in turmoil today. The main factor behind this tumult is violence. Along the path of violence, no progress is possible towards individual or collective peace. The fundamental basis of peace is non-violence. Non-violence is not something merely negative. For acquainting the world with the positive character of non-violence and making it the basis for the realisation of world peace, the prospective International Conference on Non-violence and Peace, might prove to be a good starting point. That the ideal probability, nourished by thought, should become a living reality, is our earnest hope.
