Violence is never a real solution for resolving disputes/political crisis.

Violence is never a real solution for resolving disputes/political crisis.

9:40 TO 10:10

During the course of human history, civilizations have risen and fallen but one aspect has not changed. Conflicts are a frequent symbol of society from ancient to modern times. Conflicts often arise due to unfair rules, divisions in social class, differences in religious beliefs and divisions in wealth. The most influential form of division in the modern world is of the Malthusian ethic. The Malthusian ethic emphasizes that societal divisions originate from wealth and power disparities. However, unfortunate citizens who don’t fit the “well to do” category are at a disadvantage than their wealthier and powerful counterparts. These divisions often spark adverse reactions from citizens, and the most severe is violence.

 Firstly, consider when violence is a solution for solving a political dispute. A notable example, is during the anti-Colonial movement during India’s fight for independence from British imperial rule. One of the renowned freedom fighters at the time was Baghat Singh. Singh, was a young revolutionary of the HSRC organization took the violent, himsa, path to fight for independence.  Both revolutionaries were popular but for sometime competition was intense between them, where Bhaghat Singh’s himsa  approach appealed to the younger generations. The major turning point for Bhaghat Singh’s popularity was the Amristar Massacre in the early 1900s where a peaceful demonstration by Sikhs was held to bring unity against the British rule was intercepted by British Colonel Dyer. Colonel Dyer ordered mass executions of innocent Sikh protesters, which angered many people, especially Bhaghat Singh, and turned to violence as a permanent solution to overriding British imperial authority. Violence appealed to many because it allowed them to express their true feelings of discontent and embarrassment from the British oppression. The 1929 Bomb Case in the Viceroy General Assembly was a sharp reminder by Singh that the British were not welcome anymore in his homeland and they should leave. Bhaghat Singh’s ideology of violence towards the British was to weaken their morale to enforce authority in India. As a result, many view Bhaghat Singh as a true martyr by leaving an unforgettable legacy of sacrifice and patriotism, but failed to bring independence for India through violence. 

On the other hand, violence may not be the right path to resolving political disputes. Mahatma Ghandi supported a “non-cooperation” movement that emphasized the concept of satyagraha where truth and non-violence would prevail. Due to unfair and often controversial legislation by the British, the only approach that would succeed was passive resistance and satyagraha. Gandhi along with Nehru founded the Congress party that emphasized the importance of indigenous traditions and culture. One of the most prominent incidents under Gandhi’s leadership was to avoid the usage and support for British manufactured goods and services. He ordered Indians to burn all western clothing and wear dotis made by weaving their own cotton from the fields. Also, another prominent event was the Salt march of 1929. The salt march was a significant turning point in the fight for independence, because many Indians including Gandhi wanted to avoid the unfair tax. Individuals brought their own containers and evaporated sea water to extract salt for themselves. This sparked anger amongst the British Raj and viceroy for disobedience against the  salt tax. Despite this disobedience, he continued to sacrifice his life by encouraging citizens not to resist police beatings and follow non-violence. Eventually, Gandhi’s non-violent path reached global attention which showed that civil disobedience was a solution to injustice and oppression. Eventually in 1947, India gained independence under Gandhi’s leadership and succeeded to end the British imperial rule.

 In all,  violence may be appropriate in certain situations and depends on the circumstance. When people are working towards a common purpose such as independence from imperial rule, either approach can be used. However using the violent path, as shown by Bhaghat Singh, was not successful but brought temporary solution to the British imperial rule. In contrast, Gandhi’s non-violent path was more effective in demoralizing British authority and granted India its independence. As a result, violent is not a real solution to solving any dispute and may result in further problems.