By A. Maria Arul Raja,
1.0 Violence Imposed on Dalits
The Dalits are on the receiving end of the
direct, structural, or symbolic violence imposed upon them by socio-cultural
structures and armed forces with or without the approval of the ruling elite
and state apparatus. And obviously in the contemporary Indian scenario,
discourses on violence and non-violence are quite rampant in all the walks of
life both in public realm and private realm. They are articulated by the
perpetrators, pro-violence groups, victims, anti-violence groups, or altruistic
observers. By and large, in theoretical texts or theological literature
claiming to speak for and on behalf of the subalterns, we come across
articulation of non-subaltern subjects who may not share the subaltern
socio-cultural location. If so they rather use them as a vehicle for their own
ends.?
Mere ethnographic explanations or political
interpretations, or moralistic exhortations do not lead us to a comprehensive
understanding of the impact of violence upon the Dalits. By and large,
discourses on non-violence articulated in the name of constructing peace,
overtly or covertly support the continuous perpetuation of the hegemony of the
dominant and betray the hopes of the Dalits. Subaltern engagement with their
life struggles can never be adequately served by soulless legal documents. In
fact, they seem to transform "a matrix of real historical
experiences" into "a matrix of abstract legality," thereby
"detaching an experience from its living context”.3 The same thing could
be said of exegetical or theological documents.
Gramscio recognized that 'subalternity' refers
to the situation in which one 'powerless' class becomes subjected to the
decisions of the 'powerful another. The term connotes the "non hegemonic
groups or classes”.5 And hence 'subalternity' cannot be explained from the
location of hegemonic powers but from the dusty soil of being silenced and
subordinated. If the discussions on violence or non-violence are divested of
the down-to-earth subaltern experience, the subaltern person/ group is reduced
to be an object (objects) of high handed humanism of those upholding non
violence or the armed hegemonizers advocating violence. In both of these
hegemonic orientations, the subaltern subjectivity is repressed. Their inner
voice is muffled and their outer voice is silenced. And hence, the positive
documents on subaltern insurgency are neither available nor accessible to the
public. The only sources of information are texts or commentaries on subaltern
counterinsurgency produced by elite documentation.
Quite often a-historical and trans-situational
explanations portraying the trajectories of violence will not be adequate for
protecting the victims from the grip of violence. Rather historical and micro
level explanations from the ground reality of the perspectives of the most
affected people in the situations of conflicts and violence could help us to
grapple with violence along with the subalterns groups of people. And if
discourses on violence in the context of the life struggles of the subalterns
have to be adequately comprehensive, they have to grapple with the following
three components:
• existing asymmetry of power relations between
conflicting groups
• relational anthropology actually lived out or
envisaged
• critical appraisal of concrete historical
situation..
The following snap-shot portrays how each of the
micro-level situations of violence has to be interpreted with critical
historical discernment undertaken from the point of view of those people
defeated by the denial of power and of space to be treated as co-humans in any
society.
When violence is imposed from 'powerful' above
with successful advancement, the resistance from 'powerless' below, in all
likelihood might be gradually or suddenly getting demoralized. In atrocities,
the ebullient killers feed off the hopeless passivity of those who are being
massacred and the depressed victims are caught in helpless shock by the
emotional dominance of the dominant. There might be a contagion of emotion not
only among the persons on the same side of the conflict, but also between the
two antagonistic sides.
Violence Imposed from Above Resistance from
Below against Violence
• For upholding politico-cultural • For survival
with minimum order space
• For disciplining resisters with For regaining
the lost space deterrence
• For pre-empting the assertive For
consolidating at least the gain of space by resisters existing space
• Feeling ebullient and charged up • Feeling
helpless and suffocated
• Stepped up by contemptuous Discouraged by
stunned striking and cruel jokes | passivity and resigning despair
With this awareness we shall now move on to
briefly dwell on violence undergone by the Dalits in the contemporary Indian
scenario. 2.0 Subtle Forms of Casteist Violence
Indian soil has its own specific configuration
of structural violence supported by both caste and class systems. The vast
majority of the population is still reeling under the grind of the most
backward feudal system. It is under the grip of a high poverty index, a
relatively high rate of illiteracy, land ownership including absentee land
ownership, suicides of farmers, serfs, child labor, harsh forms of patriarchy,
crude and dark forms of religiosity, and the like. These manifestations of the
feudal system are maintained in mutuality with the caste system, which is a
typically Indian form of feudalism. The functioning of caste system changed its
modality in urban areas. But in the rural agrarian environment they continue to
show their raw brutality.
All in all, Indian sensitization has accepted
the hierarchical and unequal structure of society as a natural way of life. It
is legitimized by religious myths and ethical traditions claimed to be of
divine origin. Whenever we examine the random brutality and organized violence
unleashed against Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims or Christians, we identify the
roots leading to the deeply held belief that the superior man has the BIRTH
RIGHT to dehumanize the inferior man.
Endless violence is perpetrated in the form of
atrocities on the lower classes of people in post-independent India. “The
radicalization of the group that calls itself Dalits since the 1970s is another
important source of these struggles... Thus, the radical 'Dalit' group was
stigmatized in two ways at the same time. They have been vilified as 'Naxalite'
insurgents inciting sedition and crime, as well as enemies of the caste order
(Dharma) against whom the righteous 'caste Hindu' has to fight with community
weapons and moral mandate." Here we find a simultaneous process of subaltern
activism and a counter-strategy of hegemonic forces to demonize them as
politically violent and culturally abominable. This is a typical strategy still
played by the dominant forces in India's hierarchical society. The strategies
for open communal clashes appear to be to maintain society's "will to
hegemonize" and maintain its power over society.
A code of honor is an ideology of stratification
that originates from and leads to certain kinds of social structures. It is a
moralistic legitimization of stratification. In fact, "communities with a
culture of respect are renowned for their level of violence and also for their
safety against threats and insecurity." In the caste culture of South
Asia, this stratification is built on the understanding of abusers. and
therefore powerful over those who are supposedly non-violent and therefore
powerless. In other words, toughness or roughness is created as an organizing
principle of stratification. And here, any fierce or mild aggression launched to
combat the "disgrace" allegedly caused by the lower classes is
justified in order to establish and maintain the traditional social hierarchy.
And even any mild statement against such aggression is considered "grossly
violent". In the context of caste conflicts, we could identify some
features of violence triggered by perceived violations of the code of honor as
below:
Violence related to perceived violations of the
code of honor in caste conflicts
Initiated by Dominant
Reacted by groups
Child groups
• Aggressively proactive • Assertively reactive
• Motivated by seeking elite status Motivated by
fear and scarcity safety Inegalitarian move to increase egalitarian self-help
safety of self over others enforcement Overall interference Overall avoidance
process.
Despite India's self-proclaimed secular and
democratic state, SC/STs suffer from institutional hatred. Dalits have
internationalized that casteism is worse than racism. There is a culture of
hatred that manifests itself in violent behavior against Dalits as inherently
and irretrievably inferior. And not only through hate speech but also hateful
behavior expressed by violent actions and deeds directed against the community
and backward classes with the intention of asserting their imaginary natural inferiority
or superiority or supremacy of other groups, we seek to maintain casteism.
By associating achievement, status and merit
with caste, SC/STs are forced to internalize inferiority. Perpetuation of
social stereotypes of inferiority leads to feelings of self-loathing,
humiliation and isolation and affects success. It is unfortunate that we still
use terms like "untouchable, impure, polluted, low and backward
castes". This style of looking at the majority of the population (SCs, STs
and OBCs constitute more than 80 percent of the population) can make them
underperform and cause them problems in the workplace. Silent prejudice,
unspoken hatred that manifests itself in acts of violence, and unheard threats
challenge their very being 10 We cannot work towards a secular state with
stereotypes of this kind on sections of the population representing communities
or sections of communities. Communalists desire to divide communities according
to myths and stereotypes. They are against the development of the subaltern and
the marginalized.
2.0 Perspectives on enforced violence: Slow but
persistent violence
Violence has its structural consequences in
every society. It could be understood as a system of domination maintained by
violence that deliberately causes the inevitable deprivation of basic human
needs through the unequal distribution of resources. Embedded in social
structures, this subtle and invisible form of violence appears undeniably
normal and natural. Finally, it is promoted as a moral and divine order. It is
never visibly recorded as direct violence causing skull fractures or bloodshed.
But with institutional support, it continues to systematically produce the
untold suffering and slow death of Sal through the denial of opportunities for
health, sanitation, home, food, water and franchise.12
“The term violence is used to refer to people
who are exposed to violence (and violence) because of extreme poverty... The
World Health Organization (1995) estimates that 20% of the world's population
lives in extreme poverty. Authors writing about this population, especially
ethnographers, use the phrase 'violence of everyday life' to refer to the
violence that such structural deprivation inflicts on people".13 As such,
subjective violence is experienced against a background of non-violent ground
zero. It is perceived as a disruption of the 'normal', peaceful state of
affairs. However, objective violence is precisely the violence inherent in this
"normal" state of affairs. Objective violence is invisible since it
sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something like
subjectively violent. What we are talking about here is violence in
organizations: not only direct physical violence, but also many subtle mistakes
that control relations of domination and exploitation, including the threat of
violence. Casteism, untouchability, patriarchy, racism, discrimination based on
birth or merit are some of the structural forms of violence in everyday life.
These repressive systems are maintained through the means and mechanisms of
violence. Ultimately, they lead to deep-seated conflicts based on power
relations, resource-sharing dynamics, identity negotiations, and so on.
Cultural
constructs of violence
Bourdieu attempts to do this through
anthropological and sociological tools to understand the mechanisms of
reproduction of social hierarchies.15 In opposition to classical Marxist
analysis, he criticizes the primacy attributed to economic factors and
emphasizes that the ability of social actors to actively promote and involve
their cultural productions and symbolic systems plays a fundamental role. role
in the reproduction of social structures of domination. The concept of symbolic
violence plays a fundamental role here. what is it? The subtle process of
socialization of the less powerful, causing them to ignore an unjust and
arbitrary social structure in order to justify it as a natural and moral order,
is symbolic violence. Accordingly, when a Dalit boy marries a caste girl, he may
face social boycott with disapproving gestures up to honor killings. These
subtle forms of coercion are meant to reinforce the symbolic power and systems
of meaning that maintain the caste system as absolute and non-negotiable. Here,
no account will be taken of the achieved merits or the personal choices of the
spouses. What matters here is the unconditional submission and submission of
critical consciousness to the perpetuation of the discriminatory caste
hierarchy. When one obeys, he is hailed as an honorable example; if he
disobeys, he is cast out as a shameful deviant. All of these are done quietly
and subtly without any dramatic violence.
Bourdieu sees symbolic capital (e.g. prestige,
honor, attention, merit, privilege) as an essential source of power. Symbolic
capital is any kind of capital that is perceived through socially instilled
classification schemes. A person with the capital letter symbol uses symbolic
violence when he uses the power provided by the capital letter symbol to change
his behavior towards a weak factor. It is basically the decision of the mindset
and understanding of the main social context in which culture is seen to be
appreciated and considered. It is a combination of unconscious patterns that
tend to model a plumber's job. Dominants then take their position as
"correct". Symbolic violence is in some senses much more powerful
than physical violence in that it is embedded in the very modes of action and
knowledge structures of individuals and imposes a sense of legitimacy on the
social order.
Bourdieu draws attention to the violence of the
rulers against those below in terms of religious and cultural symbols and
considers the entire membership area "bad action", invisible form of
violence that is never recognized as such, and is not so much subjected as
chosen, violence of credit, of trust, of obligation, of personal loyalty, of
hospitality, of gifts, of gratitude, of piety.... [S]ymbolic violence is the
subtle, hidden form that violence takes when violence is overt.
impossible".
Behind
the facade of "codes of honor" hide entrenched traditions from a
conservative point of view or romantic nostalgia for a glorious past. They are
believed to impose "codes of dishonesty" on those they believe to be
lesser humans. If anyone from the Dalits or the elite party tries to challenge
them, they are thrown into the shameful realm of social prejudice and
disadvantage. It is not merely a matter of tradition but of cultural ideology
that is verbalized in favor of the particular social conditions that prevail.
A Dalit
Survey of Violence
In a particular situation, the elite perspective
and the subaltern perspective will usually be conflicting in nature. The elite
standing on the pedestals of their power tend to look down on the powerless to
be mercilessly exploited for their comfort and convenience and to be treated as
useless objects. If the powerless begin to muster the strength to assert their
responsibilities as human persons, then the power-drunk elite look upon them antagonistically
to be trampled down by force. In this context, we look to Ambedkar for
inspiration on how to understand and confront violence against Dalits.
3.0 Nuances of Conflicts Leading to Violence
Dalits need to develop sharp tools to understand
both the spoken and the unspoken agenda of the powerless. This process could
distinguish both fixed structures legitimizing power centers and intermittent
energies reinforcing vulnerable function in opposite directions. They could be
displayed like this:
Orientation
Orientation of structures of power centers of
vulnerable energies
I. Levels of Ideological Education (Brahmana)
Social Honor/ Leadership Based on Social Honor/ Leadership Based on Origin or
Birth intensity of care culture/sharing Legitimization to preserve the
prioritization of the life struggles of the domination of the powerful by the
disempowered Respect for traditions, documents Discourses of dreams and past
years Utopias based on the present of struggles Enforcing an ideology
projecting an ideology of inclusion exclusion for a variety of reasons with all
efforts Masking existing or creating.
Revealing existing and creating new conflicts in
favor of conflicts new to the process democratization of the ruling elite.
Everything (body, life, nature or god) is good enough to be enjoyed as a
commodity. The effort not to harm justice or justify injustice interpreted as
the purity of God Law for people Intuitive realization of truth based on the
sense of treating others as common people Urgency to seek justice here and now
on the historical plane.
Other worldly philosophical or theological
discourses postponing solutions to contemporary problems Spirituality avoiding
existing conflicts Normative ethics based on some package of traditions. A
spiritual exploration of existing conflicts. Exploratory ethics seeking new
directions in accordance with the needs of adequate response to existing
conflicts Openly questioning the ready-made teachings of nonviolence and daring
to explore new possibilities.
Teaching non-violence in public and hiding the
truth under some logic
II. Authoritative Rule/Weapon Levels (Kshatriya)
Accumulation of Power Weapons are in the hands
of those authorized by the ruling elite
The intervention of the rulers is always right,
and the intervention of the ruled is tantamount to treason
Democratization of power and collective
responsibility In the face of violence, they need not hesitate to advocate for
the democratization of weapons Intervention from within and without is called
for to uphold the legitimate rights and human dignity of victims Citizens are
able to make decisions as their duty Consensus has evolved from the general
public in the process | weighing the pros and cons of any decision.
Citizens must always be treated with vigilance
and control Covert imposition of decisions from higher levels of the ruling
structure.
Stirring up emotions that lead to conflicts that
are not adversarial to bloodshed (SC + + BX)
Contradictory conflicts will be gradually
identified and exposed (Economic Globalization + + Landless Labourers)
Opportunities are distributed to all according to needs and efficiency both on
a collective and individual level.
Active hierarchy through undercurrents of
monarchical/feudalistic practices even in the name of democracy Public
exhortation of the need for law and order with veiled threats and statistics
Emergency regulations/crisis management with the
armed forces Custodial Deaths/Encounter Deaths.
Discourses on basic needs such as drinking
water, rise in the price of rice, unemployment, the need for basic educational
and health facilities Dialogic style of gradually developing working
relationship even in the face of conflicts Creating disorder when possible /
ostensibly peaceful with repression but without compromise with state terrorism
Delayed and difficult decision-making process due to multi-polar dialogic
approach Restless and impatient until justice is served.
Easy and quick decision making process due to
unilateral approach Conveniently justice will be delayed / denied.
III. Levels of Economic-Political Networks
(Vaishyaj Higher Status → Higher Privileges of Rewards and Punishments →
Reduced Sanctions According to Performance regardless of one's status Favoring
the powerful with favoring the disadvantaged in privileges in the name of
equality, the name of discriminatory i.e. meritocracy defying justice i.e.
reservation for reservation policy SC/ ST/ BC/ MBC Ability to create false
Consistent interpretations of historical data for the convenience of historical
data in favor of gaining more benefits disempowered people Others = robbers,
criminals, others = fellow humans destined for deviants and competitors mutual
sharing.
The welfare of the nation is | Prosperity of a
nation measured by welfare measured by accessibility, business facilities/basic
needs, health care, stock exchanges educational facilities and job opportunity
for all Alliance of local and Alliance of local and international investors in
the international class of people the name of globalization of capital as
globalization of solidarity and market Economy prospering based on economy with
preference of stock exchange, e-commerce, availability of portable water,
foreign exchange, mega food, guarantee for development projects employment and
the personal safety of each of them the last and the least Profit as the only
criterion of Human Solidarity as a Court | development staff for progress
Insensitivity to one's own Sensitivity to one's neighbor- "Am I the
faceless corpse of my brother on guard?"
In the midst of these conflicts between a
minority of the ruling elite seeking to accumulate power for themselves and the
majority of the common people seeking alternative ways of democratizing power,
Dalits are to be accompanied by all people of goodwill. This accompaniment
could become effective as we continue to learn from the struggles of Ambedkar
and Jesus while encountering violence in their times.
4.0 Ambedkar's Exploration
Ambedkar accepted that both Buddha and Marx
agreed to eliminate suffering by eliminating private property and creating
common property. But there was a world of difference in the means each of them
adopted to achieve the end. "It is true that Buddha's tool was to change
the way people voluntarily take by changing their morals. The tools of the
Communist Party are just as concise and swift. They are (1) violence and (2)
the dictatorship of the proletariat.” In his speech in Kathmandu, he elaborated
on the same theme:
The Buddha's means of persuading people to
accept principles are persuasion, moral teaching, and love. He wants to subdue
the adversary by instilling in him the doctrine that love and not power can
conquer anything......Buddha would not allow violence and communists would. No
doubt the communists get quick results because if you adopt the means to
exterminate people they will not stand against you.
Although he rejected violence as a method of
establishing communism, he did not make ahimsa a fetish. He believed that the
Buddha's ahimsa was not as absolute as that of Mahavira, the founder of
Jainism. Ambedkar is convinced of the following:
Buddha was against violence. But he was also for
justice and allowed the use of force where justice required it. In a conversation
with Sinha Senapathi, the Buddha said, “The offender must be punished and the
innocent person must be freed. It is not the fault of the municipality if it
punishes the offender. The cause of the punishment is the guilt of the
offender. A person who fights for justice and security cannot be accused of
(violating) ahimsa....He must never surrender to evil forces.
Along the way he believed in ahimsa. Tukaram
defined it as “(1) love and kindness to all creatures and (2) the destruction
of all evils... The destruction of all evils is the main element in the
doctrine of ahimsa. Without it, ahimsa is an empty shell, only bliss. It ceases
to be a positive duty...Shakti controlled by Sheel is our ideal.” “I myself
believe in ahimsa. But I make a refinement between ahimsa and mildness.
Gentleness is weakness, and weakness that one voluntarily imposes on oneself is
not a virtue." He understood the Buddha's teaching on violence as follows:
Buddha nowhere gave any definition of
ahimsa.....Buddha had no objection to eating meat if it was offered to him as
part of his alms......He was only against killing animals in Yajna
(sacrifice)......He said : "Love all so as not to kill anyone". This
is a positive way of expressing the principle of Ahimsa. From this it appears
that the doctrine of ahimsa does not say, “Thou shalt not kill.” It says, “Love
all.” It is quite clear that the Buddha wanted to distinguish between the will
to kill and the need to kill. He did not forbid killing where there was killing
to be done. What he prohibited was killing where there was nothing but the will
to kill.......Brahminism has within it the will to kill. Jainism has within it
the will to never kill. The Buddha's ahimsa is completely consistent with his
middle path.
His view of it was as variable as that of the
Buddha. He rejected an ideology that explained the use of violence as a
necessary methodology to overthrow the ruling class in order to establish the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Furthermore, the way communist regimes constantly
kept the masses under the tyranny of force to make them subservient to
communism was quite repugnant to his democratic sensibilities. He believed that
such force and violence were self-destructive and self-defeating. He believed
with the Buddha that the world could not be reformed except by reforming the
mind of man and the mind of the world. If the mind accepts the communist system
and loyally loves and implements it, it is a permanent thing; it does not
require a soldier or a constable to keep men in order.” He found that the
communist framework was based on drive.
What would happen if tomorrow the dictatorship
in Russia failed and we saw signs of its failure? The way I see it, there would
be a bloody war between the Russian people to appropriate the property of the
state...........Why? Because they did not accept the communist system
voluntarily. They listen to it because they are afraid of being hanged. Such a
system cannot take root.
Ambedkar found Marxism and Communism
unacceptable mainly because of the glorification of the dictatorship of the
proletariat with an uncertain and destructive basis and an uncertain future.
Instead of a government by force, he wanted a government of a moral nature;
instead of a government by law, he wanted a government by justice; in short,
his ideal was a social democracy modeled after the original Buddhist Sangha:
"The Buddha established communism, as far as the sangha was concerned,
without dictatorship. It may have been communism on a very small scale, but it
was communism without dictatorship, a miracle which Lenin could not accomplish.
However, Ambedkar admits that while the Russian dictatorial model may be useful
for economically underdeveloped countries, it is not a permanent deal because
he believed that the development of moral values was more important than
economic values.
Humanity does not only wish for economic values,
but also for spiritual values to be preserved. A permanent dictatorship has
no regard for spiritual values, nor does it seem to intend to...it seems to
exist. Men must grow materially and spiritually.
"Man" is the key and decisive reality
for Ambedkar's vision. In other words, to violate man at any point is to
violate the Divine and commit blasphemy, atheism, or idolatry. To believe,
then, is firstly to resist man's violation and destroy all structures and
forces of death and dehumanization, and secondly to rebuild and nurture man. To
pray is to commit oneself to one's defense and support and to explore one's
depths. The profound reality is God. Only when we act can God act and exist in
history. Acting for justice, freedom and dignity and true love makes God
possible. Contrary actions destroy God in the human world.
Although Ambedkar's rationalism and scientific
temperament were the result of his Western education, he did not fall within
the framework of the Enlightenment, which advocated the autonomy of the human
mind over religious control. The Enlightenment was largely a bourgeois project
to establish the supremacy of reason over religion.
But Ambedkar's ideology had a subaltern
perspective. He used his rationalism to create a counterculture to the dominant
Indian culture, which he saw as tradition-bound and overwhelmingly
superstitious, serving only the interests of the powerful. Not accepting
anything merely on the authority of persons, traditions or scriptures, he
tested religious systems and social networks on the criterion how they served the
interest of the poor. He perceived the conflictual nature of the society with
the ruling class with its power interests and the servile class with its own
survival interests. He identified the ruling class interests were to do with
safeguarding and promoting their power, position and privilege. Materially they
could show an upwards mobility, but spiritually their movement is downward. But
the interests of the poor are so much to do with their life, the basic needs of
their survival and their dignity and honour as human persons. These concerns
have a great humanizing potential, opening a new possibility for humankind for
an upward spiritual mobility.
Ambedkar's main concern was to empower the
powerless class to be fully human. He characterized the charity/relief approach
as a capricious project of killing with kindness, maintaining male slaves,
dominant dependent relationships. In order to enable his people to become
subjects of their own destiny, he realized the importance of organizing them
into a political force. Only then could they reach the decision-making bodies
and implementation structures by their own efforts. By becoming partners in
governance, they can influence policies and plans in their favor. He was
convinced that only when the good of the last and least is guaranteed, the good
of all will be realized. So he wanted the necessary measures to put the poor on
their feet to be constitutionally approved and legally protected.
Another important aspect of Ambedkar's
spirituality is non-violence. He believed in the power of reason to persuade
and persuade people to resolve conflicts. His main political approach was
consensus achieved through a democratic process. Therefore, he was not in favor
of silencing the opposition through the use of force or cruel elimination. The
easy resort to violence was one of the main reasons for his rejection of
Marxism. He believed that while fascism's brute force and dictatorial methods
could get quick results, they could not humanize the world. Even Gandhi's
method of non-violence through satyagraha was for Ambedkar a method of
spiritual violence and a grammar of social anarchy. At the same time, he
rejected the extreme insistence on non-violence as in Jainism. He chose the
middle path with the Buddha. His saying was "Non-violence wherever
possible; violence whenever necessary." He was not against the use of
force to defend victims of repressive violence. He did not want his people to
become weak and powerless in the name of non-violence. According to him, gentleness
is not a weakness, but born of inner strength. He wanted his people to have
power, shakti. But he insisted that this shakti should be tempered on a tin
plate.
5.0
Jesus' investigation
When encountering the life problems (ochlos) of
the victims of violence in his time, it was possible to identify Jesus'
practice of affirming his life from the traditions of faith as manifested in
the Gospels. These could be briefly summarized as the following sensitivity
trends with opposing orientations:
An apparently nonviolent orientation Forgiving
others seven times seventy (Matthew 18:21-22)
Obviously violent intervention All sins will be
forgiven, but not those against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:28-30) Woe to you
Pharisees and scribes (Mt 23:1-36)
Forgive us our trespasses, as we also forgive
those who trespass against us (Mt 5:12) Forgive them, Lord, for they know not
what they do (Lk 23:34) Show your left face so that you may be slapped (Mt 5,
39) Keeping silent during Pilate's questioning (Jn 19:9) The kingdom of heaven
is like a mustard seed and leaven (Mt 13:31-33) I give you my peace (Jn 14:27)
The law must be fulfilled to the last hair (Mt 5: 17-20)
Expulsion of merchants and money changers from the
temple premises (Jn 2,13-16) Why did you strike me? (Jn 18:23) Retaliation
during Pilate's questioning (Jn 18:36-37; 19:11) The kingdom of heaven suffers
violence (Mt 11:12)
Perspectives on enforced violence
I came with a sword (Luke 12:49-53) I transgress
the Law - it is said in the Law, but now I tell you (Matthew 5:21-43)
Law to sustain life (Mk 2:23-28; 3:1-6) Barren
barren tree/temple to be cursed (Mk 11:12
The supremacy of the law (Mt 22:34-40) The
irreparable search for the lost (Lk 15:1-32) 26)
Blessed are the poor (Lk 6:20-23) The time has
not yet come (Jn 2:4)
Cursed are the rich (Luke 6:24-26)
The time has come (John 4:21)
Get! Satan behind me
| I will not leave you as orphans (Jn 14:18)
Sheath your sword (Jn 18:11) Do not abuse others
as fools and fools (5:22-24)
Buy a sword (Lk 36-38)
once serves God and mammon (Luke 16:13
Intense prayers day and night (Mk 1:35; 6:46;
14:32-38)
Don't tell anyone (Mk 3:12) Reconcile on the way
(Mt 5:25-26) | Pray behind closed doors (Mt 6:6)
Woe to you Pharisees, gather friends even with
unjust wealth (Lk 16:9) Those who cry 'Lord! Mr!' cannot enter the kingdom of
heaven (Mt 7:21) Go and announce it to the priests (Mk 1:14) Shake off the dust
from your feet when you are rejected (Lk 10:11) Go and proclaim the kingdom of
God (Mk 1: 38-39; Mt 28: 19)
Surrounded by crowds (Mark 1:45; 3:10; 6:54-56)
Flee from the crowds (John 6:15)
People do not live by bread alone (Lk 4:4) God
is good to the just and the unjust (Lk 6:36)
Being perceived as a glutton and a drunkard (Lk
7:34) Anti-poor people are condemned to eternal hell (Mt 25:41)
In the above conflicting orientations, Jesus
cannot be eternally fixated on either sector of the above, as shown above, while
encountering violence. He could easily be in both sectors. But what mattered to
him was the uncompromising criterion of supporting and protecting life when it
is threatened. He apparently did not have time to carefully develop discourses
about the virtues of nonviolence or the vices of violence as a starting point
for engaging in life's struggles. In the face of destruction and death, his
life-sustaining agenda allowed him to listen to the tenors of critical
historicity echoing from the inner turmoil of a wounded people, usually
defeated by a self-aware elite. And apparently Jesus constantly vibrates with
life-supporting struggles of excluded people and not life-denying expressions
violently advocating non-violence towards others. 5.4 Encountering everyday
violence
Undoubtedly, violence begets violence. But why
are people drawn to violence in the form of "fair fights" such as
sporting events or matches, deceptive tricks such as gang or mafia attacks, or
protracted cycles of revenge? These events perhaps serve as an excuse to use
violence as a form of dramatic entertainment and to confer status on those who
carry it. Spreading panic on people and attacking the weak seems to create
excitement in the minds of the perpetrators of violence.
One realizes that societies practicing vendetta
are at the upper end of the known scale of violent death.28 Soldiers who have
been trained to kill others pay the price subjectively in combat stress and
breakdown.29 Forward panic is an abuse of brute force far beyond what is needed
to achieve victory in a given conflict situation. There will be an explosive
surge of violent action that will be aggressively repeated. It is unfairly too
strong against the weak and too armed against the unarmed or disarmed. This is
when subordinates under a dominant commander go berserk killing animals or
maiming people along with arson, looting and gang rape with a self-proclaimed
"moral holiday" to do anything under the sun. The disfigurement of
the face with multiple stab wounds after gang-rapes, or the dismemberment of a
male organ after killing by a person who places it in the mouth of the slain,
can be cited as examples of panic horror. In reality, it is a carnival of
orgies of outright destruction that is ultimately institutionalized or, in very
rare cases, punished after the event. The rhetorical ferocity is quite telling
in the context of the attackers' familiarity with the victims. In the context
of remote attacks, such as a missile attack, the victims are often
depersonalized. Gangs of subaltern ethnic groups choose names like "Kings,
Pharaohs, Viceroys, or Lords," which are wildly self-aggrandizing.30 They
behave as "defiant individualists" with self-centered attitudes who
try to impose on others as much as they can get away with. with that. Perhaps
they think that impatience about personal honor and honor-bound revenge on the
part of their group is supposed to bring security. Such are the complexities of
every violent act on the part of the power elite and resistance on the part of
subordinates.
In the light of our thinking from above, without
getting into the ruts of vehemence, let us suggest here some ways in which
subjects might encounter situations of violence. One must be painfully aware
that it is easier said than done in acute moments of real threat to one's life
and dignity.
In the face of insults directed against Dalits
by forces such as the police, the military or organized goondaism, the onus
falls on them (subalterns) to reduce confrontational tensions. A realistic
assessment of the potential for panic imparted by attackers must somehow be
made by those who are attacked. Refraining from immediate retaliation for
violent attacks by perpetrators of violence may be seen as a loss of Dalit
dignity at a given moment. But the priority at this crucial moment is to take
control of the situation by emotionally calming subordinates. Dalits need to be
well equipped to deal effectively with the incitement tactics, threatening
slurs, bullying or loud rhetoric unleashed in abundance by both attackers and
the attacked.
Despite the small nature of numbers,
personalities, or armaments, subjects need not think of themselves as victims.
What is important for healthy assertiveness against violent aggressors
(rapists, bullies, torturers, or attackers) is the energy that comes from an
emotional balance and style of interaction. This could be applied both at the
level of (domestic or custodial) domestic violence and outside (street or
urban) violence. Emotions such as fear and anger can emerge amid conflicting
versions caused by rumors on their wings in moments of violence. They could be
dangerous, leading to a higher heart rate. Such moments need to be addressed
with deliberate breathing exercises for composing oneself and groups of
victims. Faced with a possible fall from a won battle situation, the victors of
the moment might intensify their offense to consolidate their position of power
and to find amusement in the pain of the vanquished. In these moments, people,
whether underlings or attackers, must decide to prioritize keeping the violence
under control over the escalating thrill of overwhelming the enemy.
When Dalits encounter violence, they need not be
forever fixated on the leisure of carefully developing discourses on the
virtues of nonviolence or the vices of violence as a starting point for
engaging in life's struggles. Ultimately, protecting and sustaining life from
the onslaught of the culture of death caused by caste hegemony is the mission
and birthright of every human person and not just Dalits.
0 Comments