Violence has to be understood in a more spiritual way rather than intepreting it from the physical or emotional standpoint. The whole Vedanta is based on the fundamental of non-violence but defining what non violence is is extremely difficult. It is entirely dependent on the situation as you said, Padavas killing the Kauravs. Infect Pandavas killing the Kauravas can be categorized as an act of non violence. It’s your saw dharma which should make you take the right step. In which case causing physical violence may be a spiritually a non violent activity. So I say non violence should be judged entirely at the spiritual plane and not at physical, or emotional.


Let me tell you a story. This was told to us by a Swami in Ramakrishna Mission.Once a sadhu gives 2 of his disciples one card each.Each card is partially white and partially black. Sadhu tells them, that currently your spiritual development is 50% and the idea is to make your cards completely white by doing good deeds. So both the disciples head out in the jungle and on the way they see a thief assaulting a woman. The first disciple thinks.There are so many evil deeds going on in the world.why should I interfere in this situation and just ignores the event and goes ahead. The second disciple goes and kills the thief. Immediately his card turns white.

So the meaning of non violence is very subtle. Like in this case already an act of violence was in progress. By killing the robber another act of physical violence was carried out the first act was tamasic and second act was having satva in the rajas (As Ramakrishna used to say this  satva in rajas. Violence entirely depends on the mental view of the fact. In other words, I’d say that violence is anything that makes someone else feel bad about it.


I really think it can happen as violence. May be arjuna felt it right, and if he had any physical pain for it, he would feel he did the right thing every time and he was not violent. However, what happens today is not like that. Lots of people go to war because of something that he don’t really care, and die for it. That is violence. At least to them. What i am trying to say is that if you go to war to protect your father, if you die, if you suffer  that won’t be violence to you! Because you know that you did it for love. you knew this could happen and you won’t feel bad about it. You will feel like a hero. But if you were forced to do it.. Then it is violence. to kill civilians. that is violence.

what is violence? In short to kill the qualities of soul is violence. In general to hurt others is violence. The battle fought according to geeta and mahabharta was a violence. we have to accept it and meanwhile study it deeply. In that story kauravas also comitted violence and at a stage pandavas also committed violence.
But there was a difference that pandavas and krishna tried a lot to maintain peace by mutual understanding. And even after the announcement of war krishna declared that he will not use weapons. The geeta epic doesnt seems to be totally narrated in the battle-field. It seems it is a collection of krishnas thought expressed in different situations. Mingling them all to battle-field has made it awkward. Leaving one or two chapters whole geeta has nothing to do with war. But still it is compiled as a single text and cannot be denied. Krishna was really a great warrior. He was very brave indeed. But when talking about geeta we see krishna narrating the path of liberation also. Whoever narrated geeta but a person in search of liberation can find many helpful versus there. I would like to elaborate some of them.

Ideological Violence: A critique
I would prefer to use the word ‘human evolution’ instead of human development without meaning any offence to the second word. The other day one senior academic was telling me – “There is so much violence around us that we can hardly claim that it is the land of the Mahatma Gandhi.” But we tend to forget that Mahatma Gandhi himself saw so much violence during his lifetime – partition causing worst-ever violence- that he spoke so much about non-violence. Hence, possible, he chose the most unconventional path for liberation.

I can talk about violence that is prevalent in nature and human nature. But what disturbs me most in these days, is the violence in the name of culture. It is an irony that culture, which is supposed to erase violence from human nature, has in fact resulted in more violence.

Hence, I intend to talk about one dominant form of violence that is ideological violence. I do not even tend to use the word – political violence which cam mean violence due to power struggle. Ideological violence is more subtle, but also more brutal. Its effect is much more intense and longitudinal, more subliminal and dangerous. It can turn violent against all hapless communities, against women, children, minorities, dalits, adivasis and all other subaltern groups. Our own belief in one form ‘development’ can cause immense violence and also subvert ‘human development’ itself.

How does ideology cause violence? In essence, ideology is a system of belief. If it is not open for criticism and self assessment, it becomes a dogma. If it doesn’t introspect, it becomes fundamentalism. If it has shades of religion and if it indulges in power politics, it becomes communalism. If the end starts justifying the means, violence also becomes an acceptable methodology. Ideology starts defending ‘clash of civilizations.’

History is replete with such organized ideological violence, heralding the message that blood cannot be washed with blood. While Ingmar Bergman’s film ‘Seventh Seal’ most colquently discusses the futility of Crusades, both Hitler and Stalin are the semiotics of the ideological violence. Even before condemning international terrorism, it is imperative to be critical of the violence caused by the American neo-imperialist designs.

Now I am more concerned with our own contemporary scene. It is a tragic irony that two great apostles of non-violence – Jesus and Gandhi – confronted violence even in their twilight. One was crucifies and the other was assassinated. Commenting on Gandhi’s assassination, sociologist Assha Nandy says that Godse was just the tooth of a long poisonous snake.

It was not just Gods who desired to kill Gandhi, but it was also the hidden fantasy of all those who endorsed Godse’s point of view – which has even become politically quite significant today. The Gandhi- Godse interface is the semiotics of confrontation between Hinduism and Hindutva and the present is an episode in this long narrative.

From the demolition of Babri Masjid to the recent attack on Christian prayer halls, from Gujarat violence to the recent attack on women in Mangalore pub, vandalism against inter-religious socialization, threats issued to professor (Pattabhiram Somayaji) or to the journalist – these are basically different manifestations of the same ideological violence which has unfortunately become the opium of the masses today. But such acts are basically an assault on Hinduism itself. They are irreligious acts in the power-play of politics.We often hear many ideologues (senior BJP leader L.K. Advani’s recent condemnation of attack on women in pub, is a case in point) even condemning such acts of violence. But what they don’t realize is the fact that such violence is the extension of their own ideology; such violence is in-built in their own ideology; what they practice is not religion, but corruption of religion. Anything that breeds hatred cannot be religious. Anything that disrupts this delicate web of human relationships cannot be religious.

Violence is the anti-thesis of humaneness. It is the anti-thesis of Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and Gandhi. It is the anti-thesis of humanity itself.Let us examine both violence and non-violence and most importantly why and where their need arises. Whenever there is an adverse situation where we have conflicting interests among two or more parties/entities the need to use either violent or non-violent methods arises to serve our purpose or safeguard our interests.The decision is taken after evaluating various options. Now what compels someone to prefer one over another? In any case the major determinants are the defense mechanism, sources, belief system, position with respect to the opponent and the situation which determine the choice.Violent methods means ( here I intend the popular or common belief or understanding ) using disruptive methods or physical assaults or using brute force on the opponent in to make him/her submit/surrender or defeat and sometimes eliminate. In this methods we often see the entity is more aggressive or powerful or in commanding position or simply doesn't have any other resources to use and it is the last resort. More often than not those who use this method after long analysis of the situation understand that there is no way out other than violence.

Non-violent methods means ( here again I intend the popular or understanding ) using peaceful methods ( physically, whether they psychologically or emotionally peaceful or not is altogether a different debate ).The entity uses a series of psychological moves on his/her opponent in order to inculcate guilt, raise sentiments of majority against the adversary. The entity which uses non-violent methods is often physically weak or have less physical resources to overpower its opponent, so frankly non-violence becomes its only feasible choice. Whether we agree or not but more often we see that choice of non-violence is based on the available resources which can safeguard personal interest in best possible manner rather ethics. We can see more potent use of non-violent methods in recent times to achieve objectives irrespective of the fact whether the objectives are right/wrong or justified.

Non violence, is actually a very intellectually evolved, and considerate concept. But perhaps, many people who are very intellectually evolved, and considerate, may not be non violent. Non violence is acutely a process of trying to control oneself, and hence, in anger, when one is non violent, then one is trying to be considerate to oneself, and to the object which our anger is directed to. Perhaps, violence is an attitude, more than an action. Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa was non violent, even though he slapped his disciple, once. To teach his violence shunning disciple the true meaning of non violence, he began to kill pests, and remarked, that the pests were a nuisance. If one kills another, indirectly, or perfectly in self defense, then is that one violent? For example, killing a mosquito, is it violence? Did Mahatma Gandhi never kill mosquitos? If Mahatma Gandhi felt, that he was acting in anger, then to practice self restraint, he would not kill the mosquito. Perhaps, this is the concept behind non violence.