posted March 09, 2008 07:50 AM
by Satish KumarSince 9/11, Politics worldwide has been dominated by fear and insecurity. International terrorism has become the central spectre of our time. But the political leaders are busy devising policies and actions which mainly deal with the symptoms of terrorism, rather than the causes. Attempts to combat and suppress terrorism through military and police powers and other security measures may only give a temporary appearance of victory, and never, a long-term result.
Through history encompassing violence, non-violence and political power, three broad types of leadership have been seen.
Military leaders, conquerors and dictators - have been those who generally believe that power comes from the barrel of a gun. They choose violence as a means to power, a means to maintain power, and in many cases, their demise has also been through violence. [Those who live by the sword, shall perish by the sword]. Great warriors like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Salah Al-din, Richard the Lionheart (the leader of the crusades), Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein belong in this category.
Some of these people claim that they use violence and war to uphold values of ‘Islam,’ ‘Christianity,’ ‘Freedom,’ or ‘Democracy.’ They even attempt to justify the means of violence as being for a ‘good’ end. But they hide their real goals of seeking power and control.
This leadership type find refuge in violence and war, and for them, might is right even if they cover it with grand ideals.
The second type of leader at the other end of the spectrum is those who choose non-violence in the beginning, in the middle and in the end. They are prepared to risk everything in pursuit of the good and welfare of all. Rather than seeking power over others, they seek power within, and they empower everyone they encounter. For them, the only true power is the power of love and non-violence. All other forms of power are illusory and deceptive. The Buddha, Christ, Mahavira, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi belong in this category.
Some of these are truly spiritual leaders who have discovered the spiritual and material balance in life and their long-term influence on many generations has been enduring. They give confidence to everyone from the humblest to the mightiest.
The third category of leader falls in between. Having chosen violence as a way to power, to achieve genuine freedom and justice, they may encounter the destructive and negative consequences of the use of violence, along the way. They may thus realize that violence breeds violence and misery and this revelation can result in their transformation. ‘Killing damages the killer as much as, if not more than, the victim.’ Angulimala, Emperor Ashoka, St Paul on the road to Damascus, the Prophet Mohammed, Nelson Mandela, and possibly Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness fall into this category.
The story of non-violence revolves around the questions: what happens when a man committed to violence is face to face with a man committed to non-violence? Who is the more powerful? Who can influence whom?
Some political leaders say that they won’t talk to men of violence until they have renounced violence and given up their weapons. The Buddha’s point of view was just the opposite. He said that it is easy to engage in dialogue with those who are friendly and those who pose no threat. The real challenge is to talk to those who are violent, those who disagree, those who oppose, and those who intend to harm.
External violence is only a symptom, a manifestation of some deeper cause. Only in dialogue can the perpetrators of violence and the victims of violence discover its root cause, and find ways to heal the discord. We all need to go beyond the obvious and engage with deep questions in order to find true and lasting solutions.
From the Dhamma perspective, all organized violence is ‘wrong,’ whether it is called armed struggle, people’s revolution, terrorism, national defence, holy war, crusade or jihad.
Violence is violence, whatever the rationalisation. All the perpetrators of violence justify their actions in one way or another. Whether violence is legally sanctioned or illegally organized is a matter of temporary validity only. The rebels of one age may become the rulers of the next. Laws change according to time and circumstance. In any case, the powerful make the law and interpret it. But here is a golden rule that does not change at the whim of the powerful of a particular time: ‘do not do unto others what you do not wish others do unto you.’
Ultimately, all parties must engage in negotiations to resolve their disputes and differences and must agree not to use methods of murder, war, torture and humiliation if they wish to live in peace.
Whether violence is committed in the name of democracy or religion it is still violence. History is replete with examples of how in the name of some political ideology, religion and God, massacres and atrocities have been perpetrated. Similarly, millions have been killed and terrible wars waged in the name of democracy or by war leaders who were democratically elected. Hitler came to power through popular vote, but the democratic process did not stop him from waging war and killing Jews in concentration camps. The President of the United States who gave the order to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a democratically elected leader. But that democracy was no shield against the massacre of innocent men, women and children of the 2 Japanese cities. How are such actions on the part of elected leaders justified?
The list of atrocities committed by democratically elected politicians can be endless. Suffice to say that neither God nor democracy are, by themselves, a guarantee of civility, sanity and peace. Neither God nor democracy is a primary source of justice, peace and mutual respect. Religious and democratic institutions have to embrace non-violence as the primary principle. Without non-violence, religion and democracy are empty and meaningless notions. Any effort to impose religious values, or democratic or other political values, or any other values by the means of guns and bombs are the cause of human suffering and ultimately futile.
Whether it is holy war, war for democracy, or terrorism for self-determination, is beside the point. The suffering brought about by acts of violence is no less just because it is done in the name of God or democracy or liberation. Therefore a war against terrorism which uses and justifies violent means is also terrorism by another name. In fact the problem is not terrorism; it is our faith in violence.
The faith in violence is an old story. Sometimes those of different views were called heretics and burnt at the stake. Violence led so-called communists to kill so-called capitalists. Those who were communists but dissented, like Trotsky, Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, were killed or exiled.
Capitalists killed communists in Vietnam, in Chile, in Spain. In the USA, at the time of McCarthy, there was a witch-hunt for communists: prominent writers who criticized the government were labeled ‘un-American.’ So the present-day problem of terrorism is no different than the problem of communism, Nazism, capitalism or any other ‘ism.’
Russian and Chechnians, Indians and Kashmiris, Tamils and Sinhalese, Maoists and the Nepalese Govt, and many warring tribes in Africa are all ‘fighting for causes:’ for the integrity of their country, for sovereignty, for independence, for self-determination, for democracy, for God, for the national interest, for security. But are they achieving anything? Are they getting anywhere?
It is impossible to defeat evil with evil. All nations advocate restraint and negotiations for others, but when it comes to their own policy-making they resort to violence. If they are in power they use / misuse their armed forces. If they are not in power, they use arms and even their bodies as bombs to fight for their cause.
Little do they realize that violence and good causes do not mix; they are like chalk and cheese. If one person uses violence, and another calls it evil and then uses violence to stop the first, the second person also becomes evil because they are using the same means. Whoever gets the upper hand may proclaim victory, but such a victory is not the same as ‘good.’
Those who believe in violence basically choose the path of narrowing the mind, the path of hegemony: one God, one super power, and one political system. This monoculture of the mind leads to the persecution of witches, blacks, gays, lesbians, immigrants, minorities, liberals, feminists, communists, and so forth.
Humanity has not tired of violence yet, or so it seems. Collectively, nations spend over $1,000 billion every year on organizing, training, equipping and practising the methods of violence. This increased military spending has not increased any sense of security in the world. If a small fraction of this money and these resources were spent on promoting non-violence, negotiations and collective problem solving we would see reduced terrorism and increased security.
The country which spends the most on institutions of violence is the USA - the leader of the so-called civilized world, as if the greatest expenditure on armaments was a sign of advanced civilization! But is it civilization? Once Mahatma Gandhi was asked by a European journalist, “Mr Gandhi, what do you think of western civilization?” Gandhi replied, “It would be a good idea!”
Societies which are obsessed with violence, with military superiority, with the amassing of nuclear weapons cannot be called civilized. These societies are happy to arm themselves to the teeth while millions of people around the world go hungry, thirsty, sick and uncared for. And yet, [rich] nations claim to be civilized, guardians of democracy, protectors of freedom and promoters of liberty. Language has truly lost its meaning when democracy means domination, and civilization means the slaughter of the innocent.(ENDS)
The above article is a summary of the Prologue titled ‘Talking to Terrorists’ by Satish Kumar in his book ‘The Buddha and the Terrorist, The Story of Angulimala’ (2005)
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted March 09, 2008 07:44 AM
posted March 09, 2008 02:45 PM
posted March 10, 2008 08:48 AM
posted March 10, 2008 09:20 AM