When non-violence facilitates violence: An un-conventional perspective

In the minds of most people, the demarcation between the concepts of violence and non-violence is simple, total and definite. However, in reality, the relationship between the two conflicting notions is more complex and it plays a vital part in moulding human behaviour.
To begin with, here’s what the words mean in common dictionaries.
Meaning of Non-violence:  Peaceful resistance, without the use of force.
Synonyms: Peace, passiveness, peaceable.
Popular connotations: Love, kindness, amiability.
Meaning of Violence: Brute force, harm to others, hurt others.
Synonyms: Brutality, barbarity, savagery, fierceness.
Popular connotations: Hate, cruelty, chaos.

My motive here is not to state the obvious, but to endeavour to expose the limitations of the conscious and un-conscious bias in defining these notions, within narrow boundaries. Publicised rhetoric and reality are two different things.
To begin with, we must question the predisposed beliefs to develop a fair perception. For this we would need to understand our own mindset through introspection, meditation, wider information or whatever it takes to broaden our minds and maybe even alter the way we think.
We, the common masses, are contained within the controlled boundaries of what we call society, where our thinking is moulded through the State narrative and formal education.
Accordingly, we are manipulated through disinformation to stagnate mentally and physically by the ruling machinery.
This machinery includes government, corporations, employers, etc. Most of us remain unsuspicious for life, enjoying the ignorance and facilitating manipulation unconsciously.
We can stop being sheep that follow a generic thought-pattern mandated by a third party. Would anyone call the docile behaviour of the obedient sheep non-violently peaceful, or rather a catalyst for aggressiveness?
Hence, there are more dimensions to the concepts of violence and non-violence.

We all know that the theory of love, kindness, peace, etc. have always been favourably popular. Then why is there so much hate and chaos in the world around us?  It’s always challenging to practice what we preach- that’s why; and perhaps also because of the misinformed inaction.
People have a propensity to jump on the band wagon of any popular trend, whether it is fashion or ideology. Most of the time following a trend is less due to real belief in a brand but more out of wish to belong.

So, how could we really make the world a better place?
Assess inherited beliefs and verify the mass produced standards before acceptance.
It helps to understand the formations in which violence and non-violence exist in real life scenarios, before peeling the epithelial of each formation to see what else lies underneath.    
Violence is expressed in both forms, physical and non-physical. However, there is yet another form of violence which is more sinister  – Remote violence.
Remote violence mostly involves a network and pre-meditated planning to destroy someone by assassinating their character, tarnishing reputation, destroying business, disturbing family life either through slander or planted evidence or bodily harm, or combination of all.
Remote violence is also often used as a lethal weapon against a community, nation, or culture. For example, transnational regression by one country on the soil of another country. Like, Sikhs are currently victims of remote violence in Canada, UK, and USA, apart from direct violence within India by the right wing Hindutva agencies. There are many more examples of  remote violence in the socio-political world.

Non-violence too come in physical, non-physical and remote formations.
For example, kindness and love could be physical expressions, goodwill towards others is a mindset, and collective wishes (e.g. world peace) are remote sentiments.

But we also need to test the single dimensional description of the three formations.
I would like to consider how we all are subtly introduced to the bias towards non-violence and against violence, in order to train the mindset to accept without challenge.

Since childhood, we are told many fables showing victory of love over hate, kindness overpowering cruelty, passiveness being heroic and fierceness is villainy. So on and so forth.
But an awakened mind would realise that life is not a parable where every villain is converted in the end to the non-violent restoration of love and peace.
To assess the moral of all these mythical stories against the undenied realities of life, let’s enact a mental role play.
Most of us, if not all, have faced different levels of challenging scenarios in real life. Try to feel like a real victim of brutality and then consider peaceful response with love and kindness towards cruelty. Be honest to yourself in this test and see how you ‘actually’ react in your mind? Even in the best-case scenario where you’re convinced that you have successfully maintained passivity in any such situation, please don’t be disappointed to realise that you’ve actually facilitated violent behaviour through so-called non-violent inertia.

How many of us remember this advice by parents and teachers- ‘ignore the bad behaviour and it will go away’. But does it? Perhaps sometimes, but always? Certainly, not!  
An honest introspection helps mental growth and widens understanding of human behaviour. Cross-check your misunderstandings further against the voice of your sub-conscious.
A few examples of self-questioning might assist. Bear in mind the  limited descriptions of violence and non-violence, as mentioned earlier.
** ‘Is my belief in non-violence absolute?’
If you are capable of anger and judgementalism, then it’s more likely an adapted pretention rather than serious commitment. Not a non-violent disposition.
** ‘How strong is my resilience to violence in reality?’   
Enduring the pain while feeling sorry for yourself, could in fact be a weakness of character. Lack of love for ownself is not a non-violent attitude.
** ‘Am I feeling the fear of or love for the offender?’ 
Acceptance of subjugation and feeling purged to be a victim, could either be symptom of Stockholm Syndrome or simply low self-esteem. Self-denial is not selflessness and self-inflicted pain is a psychological violence against your ownself.  
 ** ‘Am I embracing peace by accepting injustice?’
Bowing to injustice is not being peaceful but is facilitating violence.
** ‘Has my belief stagnated between childhood innocence and adulthood ignorance?’
Fables are not reality, and both violence and non-violence are overlapping factors in life. Choose morally, choose justly.

Everyone’s subconscious speaks differently, so others might have separate questions and responses.
Let’s accept before proceeding further that violence in the form of cruelty for any immoral reason is absolutely negative. Equally, if inaction is due to a character weakness, it encourages violence and as such, becomes part of immorality.
This concept forms the undertone of this article.

One of the names famously and politically associated with non-violence globally is, Gandhi. Remember what I said earlier about propaganda and branded notions?
Hence, I strongly believe that the theory of ‘turning the other cheek’ might just be a cover up for cowardice, and veiled cooperation with the oppressive regime, as history might suggest too.
Gandhi was also a great believer in caste system which is the most humiliating, demeaning and discriminatory system practised for centuries, under which people are branded as ‘untouchables’ and subjected to inhuman acts. Did acceptance of cruelty stop the offenders in this case? Not at all. The caste system still enslaves the ‘Dalits’. This is how remote violence works against non-violent paralysis. 
India became free of colonial control because of the just fight against the autocratic rule, not through the non-violence propaganda, facilitated and encouraged by the fierce regime itself. Let’s leave this here as the topic deserves a dedicated space.

Sikhs are currently fighting in a non-violent struggle to free their homeland, Punjab, through peaceful movement around the world.
But the current non-violent movement of the Sikhs is not a case of ‘turning the other cheek’, instead, it stands testimony to courageous commitment to peaceful agitation. Non-violent resistance is still a fight, and could be mightier than cruel force, if one’s determination is resolute. This fight continues as peaceful as it is since the point of action of last resort has not yet arrived for the formidable patience of the community. I pray to God that the strength of peace shall emerge victorious in this fight against the sadist oppression.
Negativity comes from the motive and circumstances, not from the act itself. It’s imperative to understand that all non-violent tools like love and kindness, have the potential to become weapons in the hands of the oppressor, by being the trigger points to supress the victim further. No one should be allowed to take advantage of our virtues.
What would happen if soldiers who have the responsibility to protect the nation, guard the borders with bouquet of roses?
If this worked, all the so-called democracies in the world would not need weapons nor armies for their protection, and world would be a Utopia.
Similarly, in many cases of domestic violence, the abused party does not retaliate or even report the crime. Peaceful enough? Does this stop the violence? No, but an effort to ‘act’ to stop the next attack would be morally more acceptable.
My own late sister was a victim of direct and remote violence by her husband. She was the most amiable person I’ve ever known, but that didn’t stop the violence, sadly. So, I believe that patience is a virtue, but with a time frame.
^{(Her tragedy deserves a book dedicated to her, and I am also working on it currently)}
Sadism tends to relish submissiveness. Be responsible not to waste invaluable sentiments on perverse ruthlessness.
So, refuse to accept injustice at all costs. Don’t make love and kindness fodder for the beast.
Self -defence, self- preservation and dignity is every man’s and woman’s birth right, and it doesn’t get served on a plate. So, we need to fight righteously for it, through physical or non-physical method, whichever is morally justified in a situation. It’s imperative that the end result must be aimed to restore peace.
Hence, misunderstanding your right to defend for violence is as destructive as mistaking your fears for peace.                     
Peace is not cowardice. Love is not gullibility. Kindness is not naivety. 
Both, violence and non-violence are two forces; and force can be used for just or unjust purposes. The power of non-violence must always be used as the first choice, but with potential to be accelerated to the last resort action. However, in either case moral justification must decide the choice.
Perfection is in continuous effort; so long we work together towards peace through all ‘justified’ means, there is a great hope for the paragon of humanity.