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

MLK: Do We Still Dare to Dream?

As we once again remember Martin Luther King (MLK), we pause and reflect on what he would make of a world that appears to be retreating back to the isolationism and racism that was common in the time he lived. Cut short in his prime, King’s legacy must be discussed with “what if” scenarios. This is especially in light of his famous “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC.

King’s speech is recognized as one of the greatest of perhaps the last two centuries. It is a credit to the oratory charisma of the man that whilst this was not the speech that was originally prepared, it would turn out to be the one that sent him into the annals of history.

Yet the tragedy of the speech is that decades later, it is still relevant for a world that MLK did not live to see. Whether or not the US has lived up to the dream of Dr. King or if we have learned from history is up for debate. Apart from a few sound bites, do we actually remember what Dr. King’s dream was? In particular, what significance do those of us non-Americans attribute to the speech especially in the current day and age? What would King say if he was alive today and saw the numerous injustices taking place around the world? As a man of faith, how would he hold accountable those people of faith in what they are or are not doing?

Injustice and Nonviolence

My reflection is that the significance of his speech is in remembering the actions of the man who stood against injustice — even though this eventually cost him popularity and perhaps condemned him to the obscurity he didn’t deserve — be it the Vietnam War or even the Poor People’s Campaign. King’s speech is a prophetic manifesto against injustice that calls out for a spiritual response through nonviolence. I have been thinking about this concept recently in light of what is happening worldwide as we see the globalization of fragility.  

I agree to receive emails and other content from Fair Observer. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information.

King’s speech has to be heard, read and understood in light of nonviolence beyond the idealistic notion that we have of the Gandhian act of an old man resisting violence. Rather, we should look at the words of Dr. King as an act of moral resistance that brings to the forefront the fight against poverty, humiliation and underdevelopment.

Successful nonviolent efforts require great strength of character, perseverance and discipline. Nonviolence 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 the status quo.

Ultimately, nonviolence is about communicating a moral priority. No one communicated this more than King who, despite losing his supporter base, would shift attention from the civil rights movement to economic injustice and the Vietnam War in 1965, which have been erased from the cultural narrative of his life and legacy.

Where We Stand

MLK used this as an invocation of moral shame that would damage or diminish American injustice. In his 1963 letter from a Birmingham jail, he drew inspiration from the gospel and biblical teachings in order to justify his fight against injustice.

As he wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” MLK mentioned just and unjust law and offered insight into how not only the church but also other faith leaders and communities should act in the face of injustice. For King, they had to be a “thermostat” that transformed the mores of society. In his own words: “If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning.”

This is the challenge that MLK sets for us today — people of faith and no faith — to see where we stand during challenging times. Will we rise above the narrow confines of our individualistic concerns to the broader issues facing all of humanity? This is why the dream is still alive and needs to be kept alive to ensure that Martin Luther King’s vision is not confined to the annals of a whitewashed history.

this originally appeared on Fair Observer

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