Can my non-violence lead to your violence?

This and many such questions came to my mind after I saw a Marathi play ‘Mi Nathuram 

Godse boltoy’ (मी नथुराम गोडसे बोलतोय). It’s about Nathuram Godse, the person who killed Mahatma Gandhi.

It made me think what is the first thing that comes to my mind when I say or hear Gandhi, the answer is – Non Violence – अहिंसा and may be the next to follow would be    सत्याग्रह.

Since the beginning I have been skeptical about Gandhi’s idea of non-violence - कोई एक गाल पे थप्पड़ मरे तोह दूसरा गाल आगे करो.

To me non-violence means seeing that no act of mine should lead to any violence (be it physical, emotional, psychological) to others and to self as well. And thus an act of walking fast is to me a form of violence to self, to one’s own body, mind and heart.

In the play, the character Nathuram Godse explains why he disagrees to Gandhi’s value of non-violence and the fact that any action taken to protect self is not violence but one’s कर्तव्य to oneself.

This got me thinking – Did Gandhi’s value of non-violence led to violence on/for others?

Well I don’t really have an answer to this question but I want to illustrate couple of incidences which if thought deeply may give us some insight.

# Just before Independence when there were discussions about who will be our first Prime Minister, Gen. Jinnah expressed his wish to be India’s Prime Minister and threatened that if not fulfilled it will lead to communal riots. Gandhi to avoid violence decided to go partition. Partition – A thought and act which was born out of value of non-violence led to killing of so many innocents, led to violence for so many people!

# Post Independence, when Gandhi wanted to support Pakistan by providing financial aid, India’s entire cabinet was initially against it…so Gandhi went on a hunger strike. It created a pressure on the cabinet who ultimately decided to support Pakistan with an aid of 55cr. If we look at this incidence closely, there is so much of violence that was born out of the hunger strike.

Firstly, post this decision, Nathuram Godse decided that before it’s too late he needs to bring an end to this and thus killed Gandhi. Gandhi’s act of non-violence brought to an end by Nathuram’s act of violence!

Secondly, Gandhi’s hunger strike created lot of pressure on the Ministry who had to take a decision in favor of Gandhi. This is the case of emotional violence and also an emotional blackmail. Gandhi was well aware of how much he was loved by everyone and hence knew that seeing him in danger would led to melting of hearts.

Thirdly when Gandhi sat on a fast he deprived his body of some of the basic things that it needs to function. Thereby being violent to one’s own body. This although being a very subtle form is also a form of violence which is not very easily accepted by people. We sometimes forget that we owe a lot to our own body and an act of fasting although being purely non-violent is actually a form of violence!

While each one of us as individuals hold certain values, ethics for us to live a better, more harmonious, responsible life; we sometimes forget that these very values can lead to an exact opposite impact on someone else’s life. Do values also have paradox, are they also relative and not absolute in its purest form. I am not saying that every act of non-violence by Gandhi was with an intention of creating violence, but history shows that some did…

BTW…I still don’t have an answer to my question but I think it’s one of those question which if unanswered helps you more than if it is answered!