Civilization, non-violence and maoism

Gandhi famously said that ends never justify the means. In the current standoff between the government and Maoists, the maxim applies to both parties. The government may have wronged, but the brutal killing of security personnel and villagers is hardly justifiable. The tribals and Maoists may be creating trouble but the excesses of security forces is equally unpardonable. But when both parties err, the solution is never simple. It requires grace and courage to admit errors, swallow egos and plot a way forward - traits that remain a rarity in the human race. The easier option is to justify and rationalize the action, which only makes it easier to commit a greater error, causing the entire situation to spiral into a full-fledged war, where everything is fair, or so the stupid saying goes.

Despite Gandhi's well-documented success of using reason and dialogue, rather than violence, to prove a point, the approach is incredibly inefficient. It took some 25 years for the British to finally relent, and the decision was no doubt influenced more by their losses in WWII than by their prickly conscience. And not every non-violent protest will gain the momentum of Gandhi's movement. There are so many variables, and in Gandhi's case, they miraculously fell in place to elevate him to a Mahatma so that even the British held him in respect. But despite so many conflicts post-independence, why has no one risen to such prominence as the Mahatma? Is there a dearth of Gandhians in the country? I doubt. It is more that the "timing" and "placement" of these non-violent protests were not as perfect as the Mahatma's. To be clear, I am for non-violent protests. I'd any day prefer that Pak militants swim across the Arabian Sea and organize a satyagraha at the Gateway rather than open indiscriminate fire. And air travel will be vastly comfortable and security checks much less interfering if the Al Qaeda simply chose to protest outside buildings than blow them up.

If civilization is an onion, then non-violence is the outermost layer that has evolved after eons of human life and strife, which also makes it the easiest one to shred because underneath it is a more primal and dominant layer of survival instinct and self-preservation, which is usually subdued, but can get invoked in a jiffy. Shootings in college campuses and churches, driving a plane into the IRS building over a tax dispute, shouting contests and physical abuses on local trains or roads are the handiwork of this instinct. One can debate to no end whether the situation warranted such a primal response, but, unfortunately, life is a matter of perspective and there are no absolutes, whatsoever: The umpire at the bowler's end sees three stumps at the batting crease but the square leg umpire sees only one.

The emperor and Birbal were talking a walk in the palace garden, when Akbar notices a monkey pampering its offspring in the pond. The emperor comments that a mother's love for its child is pure and selfless. Birbal disagrees and when asked to prove, requests the water level in the pond be increased. At first, the mother protects the child from drowning, but when the water rises above its own head, the monkey abandons the offspring and runs for safety. Civilization is our offspring and we will guard it closely until our own existence is at risk, and then, all bets are off. Gandhi also said that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. But isn't that a better option if non-violence will end up making you the only blind guy walking around?