Gandhiji was opposed to violence in principle. He was uncompromising on the stand that any form of violence -- whether in self defense, or by the State -- is wrong. His recommendation was to courageously accept death while resisting injustice, rather than to respond with violence. The only circumstance where the Mahatma would condone violence is when this is by the weak against the strong, and this too when cowardly submission is the only other choice.

All of us are not Mahatmas. That being so, we are often required to make moral choices that involve some form or other of violence -- even if only reluctantly so. It is in this context that I seek to categorize various forms of violence, so that we may nuance our ethical stand towards each of these.

I was recently asked a question, "Why don't you condemn the violence in Nandigram with the same intensity with which you do this in the case of communal riots such as in Delhi (1984), Mumbai (1993) and Gujarat (2002)?"

The person who questioned me was right. I do not condemn all forms of violence with the same intensity. Let me consider below three categories of violence that we have had occasion to contend with in India, in recent times:-

Cat 1:- Violence as part of ongoing class conflict

This category begins as sporadic and unorganized violence by the dispossessed and the marginalized. This sort of violence is often in protest against getting dispossessed, or against low wages or as a result of unresolved labour disputes. This is the type that we saw recently in Nandigram, Singrur, Orissa, Maharashtra, the Honda factory in Haryana etc. (The non-violent struggle against big dams led by Medha Patkar in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra too is part of this same class conflict)

If the government mishandles this type of resistance to economic oppression, this is likely to "graduate" to more formally organized armed insurgency or into full fledged guerrilla warfare. The erstwhile Maoist army in Nepal, the Naxalites (or the Maoists)  in central India etc. are examples of this.

Governments follow a twin approach to deal with this type of violence -- firstly by taking measures to ameliorate poverty, and secondly, by deploying the security forces to maintain law and order.

Cat 2:- Violence as part of ongoing separatist insurgency

This is what is happening in Kashmir and the North East. And earlier on in Punjab. (Other countries such as Great Britain, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Iraq, erstwhile Soviet Union etc. too have had to deal with this category of separatist violence). Almost always, separatist sentiments arise as a consequence of economic or cultural neglect of a region.

Again, Governments follow a twin approach to deal with this type of violence -- firstly by taking measures to tackle the cultural alienation and economic neglect, and secondly, by deploying security forces to deal with violence.

In case of categories 1 & 2, there is violence by both sides. Some people support violence by one side, but not by the other. Others (such as human rights activists) oppose and condemn mindless violence, whether this is by the insurgents or counter-violence by the security forces. No one, I am sure, would support and justify violence by BOTH the sides.

Cat 3:- Violence against a community that is in numeric minority, and not in a position to retaliate effectively with counter-violence.

This category of violence emanates out of right wing ideologies that feed on xenophobia, feelings of cultural superiority, fears such as of the "other" becoming a numeric majority in the future, feelings of revenge for centuries old historical wrongs by members of the minority community, allegations of "appeasement" of the minority by mainstream political parties etc.

The Nazis of Germany (against Jews), the Ku Klux Klan in the US (against African Americans), the BNP in the UK (against non-White immigrants), the RSS in India (against Muslims & Christians) actively justify and encourage this category of violence -- allegedly in "defense" of the majority culture.

Most liberal minded human beings find this last category of violence (against communities that are numerically in a minority) particularly despicable, and worthy of greater condemnation, than in the case of competitive violence (and counter-violence) by the disaffected insurgents and by the States fighting them.

To summarize, most liberal minded people (and human rights activists) do condemn the mindless violence in Nandigram -- whether by the CPM activists, by the Trinamul Congress activists, Maoist elements, or indeed by the State police.

All over India, there are people protesting against setting up the SEZ. It seems that these people are adversely affected by this model of development. In case of Nandigram, this problem certainly needs to be addressed by the West Bengal government. The fact that violence has not subsided DESPITE the government assurance that the plans for the proposed SEZ (a chemical hub) at Nandigram has been dropped, perhaps suggests that interested parties are fishing in troubled waters. Buddhadev better put his house in order -- or else, the situation will worsen. The gainers, in case of government failure, are likely to be the Maoists...

Most of us do condemn the use of violence by those who oppose economic liberalization as in Nandigram,  Orissa and elsewhere; some of us also condemn the counter-violence by the State against these  protesters. But the condemnation of both these types of violence is definitely of a DIFFERENT order and intensity -- compared to the  condemnation of communal violence against a beleaguered minority -- whether in Germany, UK, US, Delhi 1984, Mumbai 1993 or Gujarat 2002.

Anand

PS.

What about terrorist violence? Of course all of us condemn this. But we need to leave it to the State to tackle this -- both through counter-terror operations, as also by identifying and addressing the root causes. It is most despicable when terrorism is co-opted as yet another false argument to defend xenophobia and category 3 of violence as above...