" 84CD6F076EBF75325F380D8209373AE1 PERSPECTIVES ON IMPOSED VIOLENCE: DALIT LEARNING FROM AMBEDKAR AND JESUS

Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

PERSPECTIVES ON IMPOSED VIOLENCE: DALIT LEARNING FROM AMBEDKAR AND JESUS

   


                                                  

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.

Post a Comment

0 Comments