Acharya Tulsi
Violence can never be Non-violence
Lord Mahavira glorifying the significance of non-violence said— ‘तत्थ पढमं अहिंसा तसथावरसव्वभूयखेमकरी’. Within first five doors non-violence stands first. It is for the well-being of all living creatures. It is everlasting. Some people talk about defending non-violence through violence. They consider it a religious act. The question arises whether it is possible to defend non-violence through violence and how does it become a religious act? The solution to this problem is inherent within its immensity. Here it needs to be understood that while defending non-violence the living creatures that become victims of violence, how non-violence would become beneficial for them. The truth is violence is after all violence, even if it is used for the defines of non-violence or some other noble cause.
Duty versus Non-Violence
I don’t ignore the fact that sometimes a person while fulfilling his duty may have to resort to violent means. That is his prime need, a sort of indispensability. But whatever the need be violence after all is violence; it cannot be regarded as non-violence.
We must understand it deeply that non-violence and duty are different aspects altogether. Sometimes they meet and merge but still they are not the same because every duty is not non-violent. Non- violence certainly is a duty but to regard every duty as religion would be not fair.
We often see that mad dogs are being killed but mad human beings are not being killed. Why? Is it so because human beings hand,protector. But this much is clear that to kill a mad dog is also not an act of non-violence, therefore, it is not a religious act either. If killing a mad dog is non-violence and religious then why not killing a mad person also non-violence and religious?
Non-violence is equal for all. It is beyond every partiality. It has neither got any attachment to small creature. It is nourishing for every living creature. It shows every big and small living creature the way to well-being.
The Two Sides of the Same Coin
Metaphorically, violence and non-violence are like light and darkness almost like the two sides of the same coin. Light and darkness never meet each other; in a similar way violence and non-violence never get mixed. Their spheres are quite different. Does a man eating sweet never indulge in opium? He may indulge if necessary. But one thing is certain that he must possess the knowledge of the difference between sweets and opium. If unconsciously someone consumes opium instead of sweets the consequences are loud and clear. I don’t need to remind him. In a similar way one must discriminate between violence and non-violence. To regard an act of violence as non-violence leads to the same disaster as having opium taking it to be sweets.
