Dear Pervaiz Sahib

While my other learned friends are offering their views on violence from philosophical, and religious [help me Lord] perspective, I maintain that violence is in-born, natural character, but peace is not. 

As usual, I go back to the street and observe. No scientific, no mathematical, no statistical, no biological rationale here. Conclusions only from observations, and analysis. 

Back in the old days, there was a “pind” [still is] in Punjab. Pind name Kirtau, not far from mine. One day there was thrill, scare, horror, tragedy. The news came that there was a murder in Kirtau. Murder in those extremely peaceful days used to be the most horrible unheard of occurrence. The elders would get together and discuss things as if this violence took place in our own yards. Analysis would show that there was no big deal, no big reason for this crime. Only petty ego problems, or some sort of jealousy. 

Observe the word thrill. Yes, at times violence is for no reason than thrill. This needless natural in-born violence, thrill is the reason, when we step on a helpless insect, or shoot a bird.  

As many months went by, another news came from Kirtau. Same scare, same horror, same tragedy. Now the victim’s party murdered one of the aggressor’s party. Again the elders held a session, analyzed the situation, and came to conclusion, but this time a factor was added, “revenge”. 

Over a period of two or three years, there were several needless murders in Kirtau, until the local elders intervened, and brought the two parties together, and they all agreed to call it truce, peace. YES, THIS PEACE WAS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE ON-GOING VIOLENCE.  Moral Imperative indeed. 

Consider another similar scenario, may be a fiction, but so close to reality. Movie GODFATHER. The Godfather HAD to call for peace, which was also a necessary consequence for an on-going violence. Godfather and the other clan were killing too many people of each other. But this time peace was more necessary because Godfather’s own son was killed by the other party. In this example we can more clearly understand why peace is a necessary consequence of violence, moral imperative. Reasons for violence are lots less important in this example than the reason for peace. 

All over the world there exist such tragic human stories.  

Above are the examples, in my opinion, of human being’s natural, in-born tendencies for violence, and peace on “micro” level. Is the next example the same thing on “macro” level? Please express opinion. 

Isn’t business competition a sort of violence? I think it is economic violence. Violence being the force to harass, intimidate, scare, eliminate or kill the other person’s livelihood. Economic competitions and wars may be somewhat different situations, but still peace is desired, even by winning parties. 

Surrender of Germany, Surrender of Japan, happened only because of at least one party’s inability to fight back, and the other party’s might and greed; both parties wanting peace badly, though. Remember the celebration [shown in a documentary] by the “boys” on an American navy ship when Harry Truman, after dropping atomic bombs in Japan, announced, “Boys, we are gong home”? 

In this forum it has been mentioned so often that one major cause of violence is religion. I think truth could not be farther. Actions in the name of religion, which abuse religion could not be endorsed by any religion. When people of certain faith commit a crime, it does not mean that faith approves of it. There has never been a religious war. It does not make sense. Criminals fighting in the name of religion are just that. Enemies of human, enemies of faith. 

Please forgive me if I repeated my view point.  

JC

December 01, 2005