For non-violence to work, the opponent must have Conscience

Those who condemn violence would have condemned Bhagat Singh too. Like Gandhi. He didn’t approve of the revolutionaries.

Without violence, French Revolution wouldn’t have been possible. That same Revolution gave Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

Napoleon too. But that’s deviation from the topic.

Maximilien Robespierre – known as the incorruptible – was known for his violence. Without his violence, French common people couldn’t have survived.

Che Guevara. Too cool. All his life was based on violent struggle. Apart from his motorcycle diaries.

And the list can go on and on.

Today, people condemn capital punishment. Even for mass murderers and rapists. I don’t. I’m too pro for capital punishment for murderers and rapists. The world is already overpopulated. Let’s get rid of the scums. At least.

A deviation. Again. No apologies.

But such are the scenarios that are too complicated to have an absolute answer. Because there is never an absolute answer.

Today, with social media stuff, and fragile activists with egos and their faces to be known as recipes for clickbait, and podcasts, and noise, and references to the outdated ideas as if they were the holy scriptures… too much…

Much ado about nothing. But their faces and feces that they spit from their mouths. For fame, name and the game.

These ones would have condemned Bhagat Singh, Che Guevara, and others. And we would have been deprived of the beautiful history of struggle of mankind that we have. At least something to cherish in the books. And nostalgia. For the places where we haven’t lived.

So, I can’t condemn. Can’t condemn everything. Because sometimes, when fires are flamed and bullets are fired, in the right direction, with the right aim, I love that. And that’s absolute.

Author: SakiNama

His Highness

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *