Introduction
In the rise and fall of nations, peace and violence have played an integral role. Any change, be it at the personal level or a group or national level has always associated itself mostly with social turbulence. However, social change as has been demonstrated so vividly by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is possible through a principled stand and rigorous adherence to the precepts of non violence. Gandhi relied on the age old concept of Ahimsa or non-violence to push through one of the most remarkable movements in the history of mankind which lead to the Independence of India from the British yolk. This essay aims to bring out the relevance of the concept of non-violence in bringing about social change.
History
The inequities of British rule and their harsh treatment and exploitation of the Indian masses had brought the Indian subcontinent to a boil. Gandhi realized the danger of popular resentment erupting into violence and decided on a course of action as only a few great men can do, to try a philosophy, a concept which till now had only been written in ancient Hindu textbooks. He embarked on a policy of Non-cooperation through non-violence as a means to unify the country and make the British realize that time had come to give India its freedom. In Gandhi’s words “Violence may for a moment avail to secure a certain measure of success but it could not in the long run achieve any appreciable result.” By setting in front of the people of India a personal example and qualities of leadership which prevented the masses from taking to arms, Gandhi achieved significant social and political goals.
The British, faced with non-cooperative but non-violent crowds had to change their tack. Thus by not offering resistance, Gandhi effectively ‘shaped’ the British behavior and future response to the demands for Independence. As the movement became stronger and the obvious benefits more evident to the people of India, it gained popularity thus Gandhi through non-violence ‘managed’ social perceptions. In terms of international relations, both shaping and managing the socio-political environment was made possible by adhering to the precepts of non-violence which ultimately led to the achievement of the social and political goals.
In the modern context, the author’s country of origin, Lebanon offers a striking example of contrast of how violence can lead to greater violence and destruction while adherence to non violence can bring in relative peace. Lebanon as is known has been a conflict zone for differing ideologies, competing players of international geopolitics and internecine socio-religious problems between the various sections of the population. Southern Lebanon, where the author originally resided had been turned into a battlefield by the Hezbollah in its unending struggle against Israel resulting in untold destruction of South Lebanon. Syria which had always played power politics in Lebanon continued its support of the Hezbollah and its own agenda against the Israelis with Lebanon being its playground. However, the people of Lebanon realized the futility of violence and opted for non-violence through democratic elections. Diamond in the reputed ‘Foreign Affairs’ magazine has stated “In 2005, democratic forces in Lebanon rose up to peacefully drive out the Syrians troops” (36). These democratic outcomes lead to a period of relative peace and social cohesion in Lebanon. Thus the precepts of Gandhi of achieving social change through non-violence have relevance and applicability in the modern world and could be used as a driver for effecting such change.
Works Cited
Diamond, Larry. “The Democratic Rollback”. 2008. Foreign Affairs. Vol 87 No.2. New York. Page 36.
Gandhi, MK. “Freedom’s Battle”. 1922. Project Gutenberg Website. A Narcissus Publications Imprint, Skopje. 2008. Web.