Monday, August 28, 2006

As far as I understand, modern democracy has no place for violent means. This is the fundamental mistake of terrorists and vigilantes who resort to barbaric acts reaching back through time into the dark ages when loot and plunder were a part of political mechanisms. The sole reason so much progress has been made in the last couple of centuries is because war and violence have been ostracized and brute strength is not a valid means of persuasion anymore.

Gandhian non-violence is not artificial: it is in our first nature. For most of us, it is something we knew before we knew how to swing fists at other people. It is what we did when our parents acted contrary to our wishes. Non-cooperation was the first tool of rebellion we fashioned -- and perhaps most importantly -- against higher powers and figures of greater authority.


The Shrew said...

Isn't anger,violence,agressiveness,retaliation, just as natural and sometimes more effective?

Rebellion towards parents as our first response is more due to fear and respect.

You are talking about modern democracy-

Brute force may not always work in such a system.

However,what we face today is far from local,

How relevant are democratic values globally?

caren said...

If brute force isnt the order of the day how do you explain the US antics in iraq and afghanistan..We still are a long way from the utopia you described