Acharya Tulsi
Question—There are three means by which a revolution takes place in a nation—constitution, violence and non-violence. Some philosophers are of the view that a revolution is only possible by means of violence whereas of constitution or non-violence. Among these three means which, do you think is more effective and permanent?
Answer—The wood revolution means any radical change-that takes place suddenly. The change that seems impossible in today’s circumstances, when that same change emerges before us tomorrow or when the base for that change is prepared we call it revolution. The change that we expect to cause throughout the country needs a means that spreads throughout the country. From this point of view we find three ways before us—constitution, violence and non- violence. The famous judge Jai Prakash Narayan has called them law, murder and compassion as well. In the beginning of social life these three had always been a part of it.
The sole purpose of a constitution is to maintain the system. Although the responsibility of the development of society also rests upon its shoulder but it never becomes the medium or means for a radical transformation. This transformation takes place only when people get over law and snatch the power to get control over system. The constitution never gets involved in revolution but of the septum. In a situation like this it wouldn’t be fair to expect any kind of revolution from it
Now the question remains of violence and non-violence as means. Non-violence had always held the first position. In the whole world there hardly might be a creature that would be in favour of violence, bloodshed and war. When its object of desire is not received by other means then it takes support of violence. The Communists also admit if revolution is possible through non-violence then no other way would be as good as this one. Unfortunately in the history of the world there had not been a single instance that brought revolution through non- violence. This is the reason why people’s inclination had shifted from non-violence to violence.
Non-violence is incapable in causing any radical change or revolution, this idea cannot be expected. The truth is violence also takes in non-violence. The fire of it never extinguishes. Therefore, the possibility of revaluation through it can never be fully refuted. In our ancient literature it is found-
नैव राज्यं न राजासीत्,
न दण्डो न च दाण्डिका:|
धर्मेणैव प्रजा: सर्वा:,
रक्षिता: स्म परस्परम् ||
Neither there was any kingdom nor was there any king, nor was there any punishment, nor any executer of punishment. Every subject was mutually secured by religion. All these descriptions are objects of sheer imagination, cannot be accepted.
In the process of ruling out of some important methods socialism is one of them. It sets its goal to have a stateless state. The last consequence of it leads to non-violence. In this situation taking out the entire possibility from non-violence wouldn’t be right.
Non-violence has ever been a cause of any revolution, although any such instance is rarely found in history but there are good many examples where violence had got fatigued and took rest in non- violence. Is it a burning proof of violence’s failure? In history even such instances are not found when through violence alone any revolution had reached its destination. My belief is that if any revolution had moved ahead by means of violence only then the human race had been wiped out long ago. Some people think that by revolution the solution for economic problems would be solved in a nation and the political problems would also be shall. I can certainly say that if that revolution comes through violence then perhaps some problems might be solved but the consequences as its reactions would be even more dreadful. The disease of itching has a cure in Allopath but it is said that the medicine of it creates so many other diseases that are even more harmful than it. Just the same happens with violent revolution. The world is suffering the ill-consequences of it to a certain extent.
This way the success and permanence of a revolution rests only on non-violence. I would like to clear a point here that I am not getting into the subtle definition of non-violence. By non-violent revolution I mean a revolution that is possible without any bloodshed, violence, and war and employing weapons. In subtle non-violence not even any pressure is given. Only the principle of heart transformation is granted here. Only on the basis of transforming heart maintenance of the entire system or to bring a radical change in the present system seems a little impractical. At the same time if putting pressure or compulsion is added with non-violence then it becomes a more effective and appropriate means for revolution.
Question—India has been a nation popular for non-violence for centuries. In the last twenty-five years she has raised the voice of non- violence eloquently but even then no positive results seems to have come. People are getting inclined toward violence every day. What possible cause does you find behind it?
Answer—I feel that the sole cause of it is lack of honesty among non-violence people. They surely raise the voice that seems to be coming from their vocal cord and not from the inner core of their heart. Gandhiji tried to use non-violence even in politics but now just the opposite is happening these days and that is politics is being used in the sphere of non-violence. This is the reason why the power of non-violence is diminishing gradually.
There is another reason behind the diminishing power of non-violence. The meaning of non-violence is not to kill any living creature, not to cause pain to anyone, to establish a relation of love and friendship. To reach one’s goal, sacrificing oneself is not forbidden here and nor is it considered a violence. The non-violent people of today refrain from killing (it is doubtful whether they have the courage to kill someone) in as much the same way or perhaps more than that. They hold their life dear; they make sure that they do not die or go through pain. The modem non-violent person has incorporated not getting killed or his own safety in non-violence. This is a yardstick of measuring inhibition. No principle can ever get successful without self-sacrifice. Even violence doesn’t get success without sacrifice. Then how on earth non-violence that stands over renunciation and self-sacrifice, get successful without them? Today non-violence needs honesty and persons willing to sacrifice otherwise it, would be nothing more than crying in the wilderness.
