Violence vs. Nonviolence

Judging by key events in history, it would seem like human beings have the innate quality of being forceful. After all, our superior nervous system does give us an advantage over other the other species that inhabit this planet. This sounds fascinating but, in actuality, this has an incredible potential of being more destructive than constructive. From the beginning of our existence, it seems like we had to fight for our food, our land, our freedom, our civil rights, etc. In fact, it may just be the case that we became civilized as a result of revolts and war; as a result of fighting for what earlier groups of activists believed in. Even so, if we compare modern societies with those pertaining to ancient history, it would seem like the drive for violent uprisings has diminished. Over the course of time, exemplary leaders who believe in peace have come forth and expressed their ideas on how to channel our energy, astuteness, and passions in a way that causes no harm to our neighbor, while still yielding results. Among the most recognized leaders of this kind is Mohandas Gandhi who devoted his life to achieve peace, equality, and tolerance among people through non-violent means. Inspired by authors such Leo Tolstoy, he became a teacher, for many, of Passive Resistance. Passive resistance goes by many names- Truth-Force, Soul-Force, and Love-Force, to name a few. In one of his writings he described it as follows: “Only those who realize that there is something in man which is superior to the brute nature in him, and that the latter always yields to it, can effectively be Passive Resisters”1. Therefore, refraining from violence does imply submissiveness; non-violent approaches, he believes, entail spiritual and moral strength. In his own words, “It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one’s whole soul against the will of the tyrant”.2
1 Gandhi, Mahatma. “The Theory and Practice of Passive Resistance.” Cultural...