|
1/3/2024 THE PROTESTS OF VIOLENCE:NAVIGATING MORALITY IN ACTIVISM AND REVOLUTIONS By: Marnina(Avirup)Read Now "Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.... I prefer to use arms in defense of honor rather than remain the vile witness of dishonor" This is a quote by perhaps the most popular, if not rigid, advocate of non-violence and pacifism. It might make some uncomfortable while others might derive validation from it and that somehow reflects the debate surrounding violence, or particularly Political Violence. The debate is definitely not new; rather it is perhaps one of the oldest debates of political philosophy, dating back to Ancient Greece. The events that occurred on and since October 7th have shaken the whole world as we witnessed the heights of Palestinian resilience and Israeli brutality. As Operation Al Aqsa Flood began, Liberals and Pacifists around the world were suddenly reminded of the ills of violence or the involvement of violence in politics. Palestinians were being lectured about their methods of resistance, of course none of these champions of non-violence had considered the conditions in which Palestinians lived and resisted(they have been dishonest about it, like most Zionists). A lot is being said and a lot is to be said about the genocide being committed by Israel but I would rather focus on a more general question that has taken precedence in various circles after the events of Al-Aqsa Flood. The Israeli atrocities have made some "firm Pacifists'' question the utility of non-violence as a political tool, while many still remain steadfast in their positions. Thus, through this article, I'd like to investigate the moral and ideological virtues of Political Violence, its relationship with protests or movements, how successful it can be as a tool of resistance and how Pacifists could engage with Political Violence without letting go of their pacifist values. To draw a concrete analysis I would also look at particular movements such as the French and American Revolutions to understand their relationship with political violence and the results it bore. CAKE, TEA AND REVOLUTIONS: Two of the most popular and influential political movements of the 19th Century have to be the French and American Revolutions. In pre-revolutionary France, an Absolute Monarchy prevailed, with the King, Nobility, and Clergy controlling the state. Economic crises fueled political instability, leading to the French Revolution. Unfair taxation, burdening peasants and favoring the elite, also sparked discontent. Attempts at reform within the Estates General failed due to its biased representation and mechanisms. The masses originally tried to reform society through peaceful means of resistance but it proved to be futile. Hence, exhausted by the futility of peaceful means the masses resorted to violence, beheading King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette. This symbolized the culmination of societal grievances and the transformation of “revolutionary potential” into revolutionary action. But this revolution(the head-chopping was a French idea)was greatly inspired by a previous, similar revolution— The American Revolution. The discovery of the Americas triggered a colonization race among European powers, leading to English, French, and Spanish dominance in North America. The aftermath of the Seven Years' War left England in debt, prompting heavy taxation laws in the American colonies, sparking protests. Despite repealing most taxes, tensions persisted. England's increased control, military presence, and direct rule over Boston intensified colonial resistance. Colonies sought autonomy, not outright revolution(yet). The British Monarchy still refused to negotiate, escalating the conflict. In 1776, Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" catalyzed the shift towards total independence. Until then, most colonies aimed for a return to the original status, denied by Britain. The American War of Independence began as a struggle for autonomy and tax reduction, evolving into a demand for complete independence as revolutionary ideas gained momentum. A detailed and contextual reading of the French and American revolutions will bring light to a pattern— both these movements were sparked by a very particular problem but later evolved into a revolt against oppressive social relations. These movements also did not begin as a radical armed rebellion or revolution. Instead these movements did not take up the character of an armed rebellion until all avenues of peaceful change or non-violent resistance proved to be futile. Neither the French nor the Americans chose violent and radical resistance as their ideal methods. Violent methods were imposed on them by rulers who were unwilling to reform society or let go of power. This is a hypothesis that I would investigate further through some more examples. THE JUSTICE OF DACOITS AND DECOLONISATION: “Revolutionaries didn't choose armed struggle as the best path, it's the path the oppressors imposed on the people. And so the people only have two choices: to suffer, or to fight." – Fidel Castro, 1967 This Castro quote is perhaps the best summation of the aforementioned proposition on the use of violence by resistance movements. But this idea could be further solidified by looking into the life of India's most famous dacoit— Phoolan Devi. Phoolan Devi was born in 1963 into a poor, lower-caste family in rural India, she faced discrimination and abuse from an early age. At age 12 she was married off to a 38 year old man and consequently sexually abused by him (a practice still very common in India). Phoolan, resilient as always, tried to approach the local police station but instead she was brutally assaulted by the police too. After this incident Phoolan Devi joined a gang of dacoits and with the help of that gang she nearly killed her ex-husband and threatened to kill any man who married a child. Later when she was assaulted by some Upper Caste men of her gang, she formed her own faction to kill them and villagers who had aided her abusers. She embarked on a spree of violent retribution and in one such incident she killed 20 men who were aiding her assaulters. Phoolan Devi’s actions were not just fueled by personal vendettas, but also represented a broader context of violent rebellion against Brahmanism [Note 1: Brahmanism is defined as the socio-economic and ideological structure that maintains the Caste system] and Patriarchy. This helps us engage with the concept of violence on a deeper level because in this case not only is Phoolan Devi denied justice by the State apparatus, which forced her to take up arms, but it will also help us engage with the definition of violence in a more concrete manner which would not have possible with the examples of some social movement. Phoolan Devi resisted Brahmanism and Patriarchy through violence when she was denied justice by the State; her actions are no doubt violent, if not bloodthirsty. But the actions that led her to this murderous path, the trauma she faced because of her caste and gender identity were also bloodthirsty, violent and disturbingly heinous. Similarly, while the French and American Revolutions were violent, the British colonial rule and the French monarchy too were quite violent; rather in the case of Phoolan Devi or any marginalised group for that matter, from African-Americans to Palestinians, from Queer people around the world to Dalits and Adivasis in India, one could argue that every day of their life they face immeasurable amounts of violence. Frantz Fanon makes a similar argument when he states “Colonialism is not a thinking machine, nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence.” —Frantz Fanon, Wretched Of The Earth Fanon’s argument might be targeted towards Colonialism only, but we can agree that it can very easily be extended to Caste, Racism, Patriarchy, etc. The exploitation of land, resources and labour and the physical and ideological state apparatus used to maintain the system of colonialism are not very dissimilar to the relationship of exploitation and coercion used to maintain systems of Brahmanical Patriarchy. As one would have guessed that these relationships and the complimentary apparatuses are themselves violent by nature. By only calling the resistance movements violent and condemning them for their violence whenever they make any advances, one erases the violence that is legitimised by the ruling class’s hegemony and sanctioned by the State. Whenever talking about the violence of resistance, we must bear in mind that we live in an extremely violent society which unleashes violence on marginalised group on a daily basis; violence that is not just physical but also “racial and cultural” to quote Fanon again. Fanon has explored the psychological impact of violence on its victims too. He proposes that colonisation doesn't just physically and economically assault colonised societies but also unleashes a cultural and ideological attack that morphs the psychological make-up of said societies. This is done by imposing a Colonial Hegemony over the culture of colonised societies; historically this has been done by altering the system of education, exercising control over new mediums of communication and media, legislation, etc.[Note 2: It should be pointed out that while these policies were only intended to further imperialist interests, in some cases they had a progressive effect too (mostly by accident). Eg: the education and recruitment policies of the British, did help marginalised castes gain some mobility. But the same Britishers did practically nothing to stop practices like untouchability or the Devdasi system. No special protections were provided for peasants (majority of whom belonged to marginalised castes) who suffered under the British Zamindari/Landlord system or who died from starvation caused by the artificial famines which were a direct result of British agricultural practices. Thus it is safe to say that these rare and occasional reforms were either mere accidents or just a byproduct of British interests. Nonetheless, these reforms should be mentioned to counter notions, propounded by certain Post-Colonial theorists, that the Pre-Colonial systems and values were somehow inherently better and should be praised uncritically; the British policies were certainly brutal and racist but that does not excuse the brutality of the Mediaeval Indians systems.] Similarly one could draw a parallel between the cultural hegemony of colonial powers and the Brahmanical hegemony over Indian culture; the former was used to mold culture, and by extension the psychological makeup, of the colonised society to suit the interests of the colonisers whereas the latter was used for similar purposes, except that it benefitted the Upper Castes by making the marginalised castes believe that they were inferior. The Savarna[Note 3: Savarna is a term used to collectively refer to the communities that belong to any one of the four varnas, ie, Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra] hegemony over education and religion was the greatest tool in this case which not only provided religious-ideological justification to the subjugation of the marginalised castes but also made them believe in their so-called inferiority. Fanon argues that the oppressed must also wage an intense struggle against Colonial culture and ideology; a cultural and ideological struggle which must also be violent to some extent, ie, (i) the violent rejection of the culture imposed by the oppressors and adoption of an alternative culture which does not psychologically subjugate the oppressed. Eg: Dr. B.R.Ambedkar’s rejection of Hinduism and conversion to Buddhism. [Note 4: Such ideological or cultural struggle can only have a long-lasting impact if they are accompanied with strong material resistance movements and changes in the social relationships. This is why, while Dr. Ambedkar's conversion holds huge significance in history, conversion to Buddhism has not really been an effective strategy to combat Caste.] (ii) Violence itself could have a huge cultural impact on the oppressed groups. Eg: the victory of the Japanese against Russians in 1910 inspired radical anti-colonial movements around the world. But that still leaves one last question, does the violence of the oppressor justify the violence of the oppressed? Do the atrocities that Phoolan Devi faced justify her retaliation? That brings me to the next section of this article. SASUKE, MANDELA AND CONTEXT: “If anyone who criticises my way of life were to come forward, I'd turn and kill every single one of their loved ones so that they too could grasp what it is like to experience this hatred of mine.” —Sasuke, Naruto Although Sasuke[Note 5: Sasuke is a character from the popular anime series Naruto] is not a philosopher of any kind (even though the idea of a Jacobin ninja is quite enticing), this statement provides us some ground to begin engaging with the question of whether a violent action justifies a violent response, particularly because Sasuke doesn't even try to justify the response through a preceding action; he contextualises it. Sasuke lost all his loved ones and went out to seek revenge, when confronted about his methods, he does not try to justify his actions, almost in a sort of intellectual maneuver he defies the premise of the argument; he instead tries to wants them to judge him after having felt his pain or being in his shoes. Nelson Mandela makes a similar point when he says-- "Choose peace rather than confrontation... Except in cases where we cannot get, where we cannot proceed, or we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence.” —Nelson Mandela in Gaza(1999) Here Mandela does not justify violence of the oppressed on a moral basis by focusing solely on the context of violence nor does he condemn violence by focusing on the action and erasing the context. Zizek has defined violence as “the relationship between an action and the context in which it takes place”; since violence, as a quality, cannot exist on its own. It must be ascribed to some action and that action will always require observers to consider the context of said actions; the action and the context are two dialectical halves of violence in which the context is the primary aspect since it is the context or preceding action(colonial, racist or caste violence) that leads to the formation of this relationship and dictates its terms. [Note 6: This dialectical relationship is a reflection of the social dialectical relationship where the oppressor or ruling class is the primary aspect of society]. And that leads me to the final part, a personal address to pacifists. A LETTER TO PACIFISTS: Since October 7th many pacifists from India and beyond, have either joined the global movement against Zionism and sincerely contributed to the movement or are extremely disgusted by the Zionist state but are also hesitant about supporting the methods of Palestinian resistance. While pacifism is certainly not a practical strategy of resistance, this 5000 year old debate is not getting settled anytime soon and it is more important, now more than ever, to aid the Palestinian resistance than to spend our energies on this debate. Hence in this I will try to provide a sort of middle-ground for pacifists. As we've seen, it is the oppressor who dictates the terms of violence and oppression in our society whereas the oppressed mostly respond to it; unless the resistance of the oppressed is strong enough to defy the diktat of the oppressor and set its own rules. It is obvious that revolutionary resistance groups such as PFLP and other groups born of the struggle like Hamas are working towards that goal but Pacifists can also play a progressive role(at least more progressive than being silent bystanders or both sideists) by creating pressure on their own governments to stop supporting Israel. You can boycott corporations that fund Israel, hold protests in public places and threaten elected representatives or governments(with votes) to stop funding or buying weapons from Israel until Palestine gets an equal position on the negotiation table. History has shown that resistance or oppressed groups will opt for peaceful options if possible(particularly because these groups bear the brunt of the violence). Hence the immediate first step towards establishing peace in the region is to get Palestine an avenue of fair negotiations(emphasis on the term ‘fair’) to put forth their demands, to create a situation where non-violent methods can actually work or succeed, to create an environment where non-violent Palestinian protests won't be gunned down[Note 7: The Great March of Return]. This will negate the need for violence by the resistance groups; hence allowing pacifists to not be silent bystanders of genocide while also holding on to their pacifist principles. AuthorMarnina(Avirup) is a Marxist-Leninist writer from West Bengal, India. They write on both international and Indian issues(or their corelation). Most of their work is on Political Theory, Comparative Politics, Political History and Philosophy from a Marxist-Leninist perspective Archives January 2024
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
December 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed