Understanding Non Violence in today’s context

 Mention Non- Violence and you get mixed reactions. There are those who reflect on the legacies of Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr whilst there are those who mistakenly perceive non violence as something fluffy or weak. In the current global narratives, it is attributed to being passive. There needs to be a de-bunking of the concept of non-violence. It is important to start from an understanding of violence.

There needs to be a de-bunking of the concept of non-violence

Violence is a global catastrophe and one of today’s greatest humanitarian challenges. Violence is a health, social, justice, legal, spiritual, economic, cultural, community-development, and human rights problem. People who are vulnerable to certain forms of violence can also fall victim to other forms, and hence be subjected to multiple forms of violence. The narrative of violence is a mechanism of false consciousness that obscures and conceals the real sources of poverty, humiliation and underdevelopment.

Non violence is the counter to this narrative, starting from the inculcation of a set of attitudes, actions, or behaviours intended to persuade the other side to change its opinions, perceptions and actions (Abu-Nimer 2003). It implies an active commitment to social change that would ultimately result in a fair distribution of world resources, a more creative and democratic cooperation between peoples, and a common pursuit of those social, scientific, medical, and political achievements that serve to enhance the human enterprise and prevent warfare” (Smith-Christopher 1998, 10). It implies an awakening of a sense of injustice and moral shame in the supporters of a power structure, showing them that they have more to gain by ending injustice and oppression than by maintaining them. It is about exposing the unjust means of a power structure, the isolation of actions, changing the narrative that can be used for justification. Thus, nonviolence is not passive but requires great strength of character, perseverance and discipline to foster a moral priority encouraging nonviolent resistance and communicating the structural injustices of the day.

Non violence is not passive

Strategic use of non-violence means to resist the power structure though long term social and economic polices. You let the community acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to advance in society and challenge the status quo of the power structure, provoking it in order to expose its unjust means and illegitimacy by seeking to prevent the advancement of the community.

For Ghandi, his concept of non violent resistance meant direct action including boycotts and acts of civil disobedience. His strategic use of non violence resisted the power structure of the day, the British Colonial Power, provoking it to expose the unjust and racist colonial experiment. In exposing this, it allowed the colonized to challenge the power structure and seek independence. There may be those who argue whether this is a good or bad thing and that is another discussion. The legacies of colonialism are still with us today and the journey started by Ghandi in his non violent resistance is as still valid and applicable today as it was 70 odd years ago as we seek to decolonize narratives and attitudes.

The concept of moral priority within Non — Violence is about understanding the righteous cause against injustice that one must challenge the power structures on and be willing to shift or identify a higher priority. No one understood or communicated this hierarchy of moral priorities better than Martin Luther King Jr, who despite losing his supporter base would shift attention from the civil rights movement to economic injustice and the Vietnam war in 1965 because this was the higher priority of the day. Unfortunately this element has been erased from the cultural narrative of his life and legacy.

In his 1963 letter from Birmingham jail in particular, King drew inspiration from the gospel and biblical teachings in order to justify his fight against injustice. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. He mentions just and unjust law and offers insight into how not only the church, but other faith leaders and communities should act in the face of injustice. In King’s words, it was about being a thermostat that transforms the morals of society and in this sense he invoked a moral shame at the Vietnam war and the economic injustice associated with it.

In today’s pandemic landscape amidst growing economic disparities and social injustices, nationalistic calls that isolate minorities and where anti racism sentiments are high, what could a non violent resistance look like and why is it important?

First and foremost, the widening gap between people increasing marginalization and vulnerability can not be left to the devices of the economy and the path of corporate profits. The chasm between the rich and the poor, those in power and those who don’t have has to be addressed. We have to address the abuse and exploitation of the vulnerable. This requires a long term resistance to the status quo of the power structures.

This starts with recalibrating our moral compass based on some ethical principles such as compassion (the ability to treat someone as you wish to be treated); stewardship (that we have a spiritual responsibility to take care of all those around us, human and non human, as borrowers of the earth from our grand children); mercy; egalitarian justice that is put into action; and honesty. These have to be the starting point for a non violent rebuilding of our post pandemic societies which has to be more animated by the love of the neighbour; egalitarian justice; an economic system based on cooperation instead of dog-eat-dog competition; political and social responsibility for the needy instead of selfishness; economic relations structured to value people over profits; and a politics that serves instead of abuses the people.

we need to recalibrate our moral compass

This is the starting point for commemorating October 2nd, the International Day of Non-Violence, coinciding with the commemoration of the birthday of Mahatma Ghandi.

Where do we stand during times of challenge and controversy?

How do we rise above the narrow confines of our individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity?

Interesting references:

Abu-Nimer, M Nonviolence and PeaceBuilding in Islamic Theory and Practice, Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida (2003).

Smith-Christopher, D.I. Subverting Hatred: The Challenge of Nonviolence in Religious Traditions. Cambridge, MA: The Boston Research Center for the 21st Century (1998: 10).

King, M L (1963), Letter from a Birmingham Jail, https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/letter-birmingham-jail

Ghandi, M K, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), https://www.amazon.com/Non-Violent-Resistance-Satyagraha-M-Gandhi/dp/0486416062

This originally appeared on Medium

How Do We Understand Non-Violence?

October 2 has been designated as the International Day of Non-Violence to coincide with the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi.

Non-violence is often misinterpreted as something passive, but it is a set of attitudes, actions or behaviors intended to persuade the other side to change its opinions, perceptions and actions. The narrative of violence is often seen as a mechanism of false consciousness that obscures and conceals the real sources of poverty, humiliation and underdevelopment. 

In this sense, non-violence is not passive but requires great strength of character, perseverance and discipline. It is a means of awakening a sense of injustice and moral shame in the supporters of a power structure, showing them that they have more to gain by ending injustice and oppression than by maintaining them. Non-violence is also about exposing the unjust means of a power structure and changing the narrative that can be used for justification.

For Gandhi, non-violent resistance meant direct action, including boycotts and acts of civil disobedience. His strategic use of non-violence resisted the power structure of the day, provoking it in order to expose its unjust means and illegitimacy. This is ultimately the long-term focus to let the community acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to advance in society and challenge the status quo of the power structure.

No one communicated this moral priority apart from Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Despite losing his supporter base, King would shift attention in 1965 from the civil rights movement to economic injustice and the Vietnam War, which have unfortunately been erased from the cultural narrative of his life and legacy.

In his 1963 letter from a Birmingham jail, King drew inspiration from the gospel and biblical teachings in order to justify his fight against injustice. For King, injustice anywhere was a threat to justice everywhere. He mentioned just and unjust law and offers insight into how not only the church but other faith leaders and communities should act in the face of injustice. In King’s words, it is about being a thermostat that transforms the morals of society.

King wrote: “If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning. This is the challenge that King sets for us — people of faith and no faith — to see where we stand during times of challenge and controversy, rising above the narrow confines of our individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.

There is much being talked about a culture of peace and non-violence, but with very little being done to understand what that means. Such a culture to be promoted is about providing an enabling environment for dialogue and discussion to find solutions to problems and tensions through a process where everyone is valued and able to participate. Such a culture promotes the respect of human beings, their wellbeing and dignity, and it honors diversity, inclusiveness, mutual understanding and dialogue. It creates an environment where people can live in safety, make a decent living and fully participate in society. It motivates members of a community to take responsibility and care for each other, confront crises with innovative solutions and to be resilient to bounce back from calamity.

Such conversations need deeper reflections and understandings, and this is what needs to be put into action.

This orginally appeared on Fair Observer

Bringing about Change

The election of Barack Obama in November 2008, brought an air of optimism that ‘change’ was possible in any situation.  There were many in Sri Lanka who also wrote with optimism of the possibility like in the US for someone from a minority to be elected president of Sri Lanka.  Many cynics will counter argue that perhaps Sri Lanka has a long way to go before that happens.  Of course incidents in Sri Lanka over the last couple of weeks such as the assassination of the editor of a Sunday news paper and the attack on a private tv station amidst signs that the Sri Lankan army is winning the war against the LTTE are indicators of the challenges that perhaps face the country in moving forward beyond the conflict. 

However one thing that struck me whilst watching as I am sure everyone did, the inauguration of Barack Obama was how much he talked about everyone needing to play a part in forging change. 

The key is to start with ourselves as Mahatma Ghandi once said that ‘if you wish to see change in the world, you should be that change’.  This is none more apparent than here in Sri Lanka.  We can argue till the cows come home about political and military solutions and the failures of our leaders and there have been failures from all sides in this conflict; Failure to ensure the safety of civilians; failure to tolerate dissent; and failure to enjoy media freedom. The tragedy though is that we are as guilty as those we complain about.  I have been struck by how much we ourselves have to be self critical when I read some of the comments in response to my blog.   Whilst the comments have complained about the bigotry and intolerance of others, the comments and view points themselves betray their writers’ own intolerance and bigotry.  This is indeed the sad fact of the conflict in Sri Lanka.  And so there is no hope of moving forward if we cannot even remove the mistrust, intolerance and hatred. 

We have to have the intellectual empathy to acknowledge that everyone has justified grievances.  The Tamils (as do the other minorities) has justified grievances against the State to their treatment.  This of course does not justify armed struggle or the slaughter of civilians or for that matter the acts of ethnic cleansing against the Muslims in the northern province in 1990.  The State has the right to ensure that everyone within its shores are looked after justly and equitably and that civilians are not harmed in any way.  Because let us face it those who are fighting and those who are backing the fighting are not necessarily those who are suffering from the results of the war.  It is the civilians who are the biggest losers. 

Moving beyond the conflict will have to require everyone to play a part.  The most important legacy that we can leave our children’s children is a country that is united in its diversity.  However this is no easy task.  I recently was in the company of a few young men and women in their mid twenties.  One thing that stuck me was their ability to look beyond the differences that existed between them.  However what also struck me was of their ignorance of what was happening in the country, who the key stakeholders were and what the issues were.  I remember thinking to myself, that if this next generation who are born and bred in Sri Lanka coming not only from Colombo but from other parts of the country are so indifferent and apathetic to the suffering of the people of their country, then there is certainly a lot to be done.  People need to be educated to help them understand the mistakes of the past so that it is not written.  The new Generation will have to understand that you measure someone based on their character, behavior, attitude and moral integrity and not on which community they belong to or how rich they are or what their faith is.

This is the monumental task to be done by all concerned, State and Non State actors, organizations and individuals. At the 2007 Commonwealth People’s Forum in Kampala, civil society leaders called for ‘the creation of an enabling environment to foster: unity in diversity, where there would be respectful and meaningful dialogue and collaboration between people with different identities and values; and practical grassroots action and community linking partnerships to build peace, prosperity and well-being for all Commonwealth Citizens’.  It is with this vigour that people will have to work to create that environment.

Whilst Barack Obama’s election brought optimism for change, the War on Gaza at the beginning of the year has shown us how great a challenge lies ahead in order to move away from political violence flavoured by faith (culture and identity) where the world is seen through a singular lens of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘us’ vs. ‘them’.  The inability for the world to respond shows the weakness that still exists.  However the key thing is not to lose hope.  This is the key message for Sri Lanka as well.  It is for everyone to be loud so that we can shout against injustice no matter where it is committed and who commits it.  For as Martin Luther King said, ‘the tragedy of  the situation is not that the bad people are loud but that the good people are very quiet.’

.

After 60 years, moving forward??

This has probably been the longest (in terms of length) blog I have written.  I had originally sat down in the last week of January/first week of February to write this blog reflecting the  symbolic period surrounding Sri Lanka as well as the region.  The end of January witnessed the 60^th anniversary of the death of Ghandi and the beginning of February saw the 60^th anniversary of the Independence of Sri Lanka.   Maybe it was me, but I seemed to sense some sort of hope and anticipation in the air.  In India, the second freedom struggle to end poverty and the caste system had just been launched at the appropriately named Ghandigaram (The University founded on Ghandi’s teachings).  In Sri Lanka, much of the media carried in various forms, articles on Ghandi and what he said and did.  It did not take much to see the inferences that were being made.  Perhaps after 60 years of independence and 20 years of ethnic strife, there was an expectation that people in Sri Lanka would perhaps move towards this change as it seemed to be happening across the waters.

As the 4^th of February rolled about, the official government celebrations took centre stage under a shadow of the threat of suicide bombs.  Most people escaped to the beaches down south taking advantage of the long weekend.  ‘Independence? From what?’ remarked some of my friends when I asked them what they were planning to do for that day.  My next remark to them on ‘how independence meant freedom from the yoke of colonialism and the working towards a new Sri Lankan identity whose people would wear with pride free from oppression and injustice, and how there was still a way to go for Sri Lanka to truly achieve this despite setting it in motion 60 years back’, received even more cynical remarks.  ‘You are just some romantic idealist Amjad! That’s the job of the government! Never going to happen!’

And so it was, 4^th of February rolled around and people got ready for the actual defining big event, Valentine’s Day.  As the 14^th of February grew ever closer, shops started stocking the cards and heart shaped chocolate boxes; radio and TV stations started advertising special ‘Valentines Night’ and hotels started to promote their special offers.  The shocker was a five star hotel which was promoting a special valentines night offer all inclusive for couples that would cost $2000.  If this was not shocking, then what was even more disturbing was that there were people who had actually bought the package.

And so for me, some expectation for possible change at the beginning of February suddenly fizzled to disillusion.  How could people spend that much on a silly concept night when people are suffering from 24% inflation?  How could people be so insensitive to the sufferings of people in the north and east?   Of course I knew that this was the work of  the ‘Colombo Crowd’, that rare species of established and nouveau rich, that roam around Colombo in their Perspex carriages and live in ivory towers, completely oblivious to reality (a species found in many other developing countries).  Yet I told myself, I could not comprehend that even these people would be able to be so indifferent, insensitive and oblivious to their neighbours’ plights

The sad reality is that it is this apathy displayed at the most basic and inhuman manner by the ‘Colombo crowd’, that is symptomatic of a bigger disease in Sri Lanka.  The lack of giving a damn that means that Sri Lanka can never really progress from the abyss it found itself 60 years ago.  My disillusionment has been reinforced by the fact that when you ask most people in Sri Lanka, what they are proud about.  Their response is normally blank or they say, ‘I was born Sri Lankan, so I have nothing to be proud of, I just accept it’.

With this type of attitude how can the country move forward?  I reflect on my experiences when I first came back to Sri Lanka. Coming back to ‘discover’ Sri Lanka was always going to be a challenge.  ‘So Amjad, you are an engineer from Imperial?’ had been the common question followed by the next question that i know comes into their mind: ‘So what the hell are you doing back here in Sri Lanka?’  Sometimes the question goes even further ‘What is an educated person like you doing working for an INGO?  Are you on some personal crusade for redemption?’

These have been the common questions that have been posed to me.  The main quandary for them is that they cannot really understand why i would seemingly ‘sacrifice’ my life in the UK to come back to Sri Lanka.  When people are desperately trying to leave the country or to send their children abroad it is strange that someone should be making a strategic choice to come back.

Therein is the crux of the issue.  In recent years the brain drain has been evident and intense.  Whilst one can make a case for people leaving the country to seek better fortunes elsewhere, it is also true that now more than ever Sri Lanka needs its people to remain behind. ‘Why?’ is the question someone would ask.    As a development / humanitarian worker, we are engaged in trying to influence a change.  A change in people’s lives, an improvement in their economic status; a change in the attitude to allow respect and acceptance. For me with Sri Lankan roots, it is even more personal.  It is about showing that bringing peace and development to Sri Lanka is the duty of its children regardless of caste, creed and religion. How can we do this when the rest of the people are apathetic?  

One of the greatest spiritual teachings is that ‘change can happen when people set themselves up to be part of that change’ and Ghandi elaborated this so well when he said ‘If you wish to see change, then be that change’.  If people are not interested in this change so why should we be so bothered?