It cannot be said with certainty whether the idea to put the other cheek up after receiving a slap on one is still celebrated or not. However, it can be safely assumed that if there were a choice between returning the slap to the perpetrator and giving him another chance to repeat the attack, few would choose the latter.
Arguably, it was the New Testament that first proposed this idea, which was then followed and propagated to the public at large to varying degrees by leaders around the world. The idea of non-violence has taken many different shapes and forms as it has translated into the real world. It is interesting to investigate how an idea that leaders and thinkers like Gandhi and Tolstoy held so close to their hearts came to be under the purview of strategy.
To many, pacifism is a tool of the weak as it dissociates from the idea of using strength in its conventional form. It is argued; those lacking the traditional means to confront the established authority seek refuge in non-violent methods. Now, to associate pacifism with something as close to war as strategy may seem to be a foolish attempt. Before we go any further, it will be helpful to describe strategy in brief. Historically, strategy has been associated with the art of conducting war in an efficient manner. In the days of the Prussian Empire, military leaders were known as "strategos," and it was from them that the term strategy evolved. In the present sense of the term, strategy has acquired multiple connotations, but they do not interest us here.
In a war, various situations emerge. Here, we attempt to analyse three simple ones. First, when two enemies with comparable capacities meet on the battleground,
It is not always possible to match the firepower of the enemy, and without a decisive edge against the opponent, a head-on battle may not be the best way forward for either party. Even a convincing match in terms of resources available to an army is insufficient to justify an expensive and risky endeavour such as war. If pursued, a battle in these conditions may prove costly to the extent of being completely illogical, if not utterly foolish.
Thus, a full-scale battle can be justified with only one certain outcome, namely, a complete and outright victory, bringing the enemy to its knees. This brings us to the second situation in our analysis. Furthermore, if such a commanding position is achieved, strategy advises, it is only logical to wage war against the enemy or to renegotiate the terms of one's relationship with the adversary to one’s advantage and establish what is known as ‘hegemony’ or permanent dominance.
Thirdly, take into consideration a scenario where the opponent has a decisive edge and the capacity to beat you in all the possible ways. Strategy dictates; it is for a fool to think of retaliation in such hostile circumstances. It is suicidal to decide to face an army in such a case when the military advantage is disproportionately against you. It is the time to cede ground, to negotiate, to evade the enemy, anything but go to war. It is this particular situation that this article intends to underline. Now, beyond accepting its defeat, what will be the most effective action the weaker army can take to further its cause? Non-violence, some would answer.
The non-violent approach is the most logical one when the enemy has a decisive and certain edge. Also, it should be the preferred course of action when the opponent has outnumbered you and when you are evidently 'weak'. The case of Gandhi’s experiment in India against the British demands a brief mention here. Gandhi was convinced that the military advantage was with the British. Any traditional means of confrontation was futile. Military adventurism could achieve one and only one fate. Total and ruthless destruction was evident. Pacifism thus became the weapon of choice for Gandhi and his many followers.
Gandhi used his morality and altruistic lifestyle as political capital to attract the masses against the British. Gandhi’s methods left the British army confused. It would have been very convenient for them to shoot and bleed an ill-trained army. Even easier to handle terrorists who could be labelled anti-socials devoid of any courage to take responsibility for their actions. However, the ways of Gandhi came as a shock, to which the British had no comfortable answer. Gandhi became the underdog with an unprecedented appeal among the Indian masses. The seemingly fragile man, who was once not taken seriously by the British for his non-traditional ways to agitate, emerged as the biggest challenge to the British occupation of the Indian subcontinent.
Gandhi’s experiment in India is arguably the most prominent and famous in the world, but it is not the only one. The struggle of the black population in the USA is yet another example of the strategic use of non-violence. The conditions for blacks in the USA were tragic. Not only were they a minority in US society but also the most deprived. Any violent method would have failed given the unfavourable nature of the situation. Non-violence was the only strategy that could be employed. Much like Gandhi, the protests by blacks in the USA had a spiritual angle to them. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist priest by training and a gifted orator. He spearheaded the civil liberties movement in America.
Non-violence has received genuine criticism. It has been argued that Gandhi survived the army of a democratic Britain, but he would have certainly failed if he were to face an opponent like Hitler. Gandhi spoke of the concept of "a change of heart," which many disagree with. In any case, non-violence cannot be assumed to be a universally applicable strategy, not in the world we live in. Nonetheless, it is without doubt that Gandhi showed the world how to confront an enemy who is markedly superior to you.
Comments