War. What is it good for? Many things, but those things could be achieved without war being a necessary factor. I was interested in discussing the topic of social change in the form of riots, movements, revolutions, and even wars after learning about the independence of India as well as learning about Gandhi and Savarkar. I personally do not believe in absolutes so, I would like to argue that these social changes require both peace and violence in order to reach their goal.

When it comes to reaching a goal, Gandhi takes the most peaceful route. India was under the control of the British Empire since the 18th century when they first arrived as traders who eventually began to take land and starve people (Chaturvedi). In response to British rule, Gandhi wrote a book titled Hind Swaraj which described his suggestion on how to create a self-reliant independent India. In his book, he says that in order to achieve freedom, one must work on improving themselves spiritually. Only then can they begin to influence the nation and result in peace (Gandhi).

     On the other hand of the movement, V.D. Savarkar takes the violent approach. He believes that violence is a solution and that there must be a “bloody and relentless war with the Foreigner” (Chaturvedi). Savarkar wrote The Indian War of Independence of 1857 which describes his views on the revolution and how he believes India can be freed. 

     This duality between peace and violence is presented in many other events. For example, during the Civil Rights movement in America, there were two sides fighting for rights. One side was led by Martin Luther King Jr. who used nonviolent methods such as sit-outs and marches to peacefully reach their goal. On the other hand, a more violent group was led by Malcolm X who was trying to achieve the same thing. Both of the methods are very different from each other but ultimately resulted in success.

     Although this was one major example, I believe that when it comes to some sort of revolution or social change, both peace and violence are necessary for the success of the movement. To Gandhi, religious pluralism is good because those other religions are taking different routes that lead to the same goal (Gandhi). In the same sense, both peaceful and violent parties take different routes toward the same goal. Therefore, they are both justified to behave the way they do since they are achieving the same thing. In addition, it is impossible to be absolutely violent or absolutely peaceful unless it is at the individual level. Gandhi’s philosophy on Karma, (which is shockingly similar to Newton’s third law by the way) explains that if you need to reach peace, your method must be peaceful but if you respond with violence, you will result in violence. This is also only effective on the individual level and depending on the situation; it is nearly impossible to have an entire nation behave in an absolute peaceful or violent way. There will always be a few people who will use violence while the majority acts peacefully or vice versa. Since this will naturally occur, why not use both sides and guide them to the end goal? Because of this, both sides of a movement whether violent or peaceful play crucial roles in the revolution.

     Most often, the use of these methods vary from situation and its length of occurrence. For example, in the American Revolution, the colonists sought to break apart or lower their taxes but when Britain refused, they revolted. They used the peaceful route first, or as peaceful as a large community can be, then they used violence and then resulted in peace and independence. Using these methods is like giving a warning first and then using violence if the warning was not enough and then returning to peace. This reminds me of Gandhi’s definition of real history which is the account of both brute-force (violence) and love-force (peace) over time (Gandhi). Even though he opposes violence, he acknowledges that it is important to history and can never be stopped. Peace and violence play a very crucial role in the shaping of history. They are almost as interdependent as Savarkar’s idea of Swadharma and Swaraj. To Savarkar, Swaraj, love for one’s country (power) and Swadharma, love for one’s religion (ethics) are as interdependent and reliant on each other as much as a sword and shield are in a battle (Savarkar). In the same sense, violence and peace work together like Swaraj and Swadharma do to achieve the same end goal.

Photo by Jonathan Meyer on Pexels.com

The Inca and Roman empires used similar strategies which involved both peace and violence. Before conquering a village, they would give an ultimatum: join or die. They use peaceful means first and then use violence if the peaceful method does not work. During the discovery of America, there was peace among the conquistadors and the natives who met but eventually, it lead to violence which resulted in growth of the Spanish empire and peace. Then the native people revolted which led to their independence and the establishment of their own nations and peace once again.

This was a very interesting topic that I wanted to discuss because it was a complex concept that attempts to describe the nature of a revolution and how a nation can achieve a goal effectively.

 

Works Cited:

Chaturvedi, Vinayak. “Lecture 13.” Februrary 25, 2019.

Chaturvedi, Vinayak. “Lecture 15.” March 4, 2019.

Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. “Hind Swaraj” and Other Writings. Edited by Anthony J. Parel. Centenary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2009. ISBN 9780521146029.

Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. “The Indian War of Independence of 1857.”