Domino Effect- Violence begets violence?

How does a brawl start? One person harms the other, there is a lash out from the recipient and the crowd around takes sides and joins in. Its a fight, in simple words. What for? For dominance, for proving the other wrong or in simpler terms, how dare he? The pattern is observed in larger cases than brawls- The World Wars, the constant undercurrent of war in some nations such as Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Derivation- there is someone who starts it and then all hell breaks loose. So, does Violence, of any form-verbal or physical, cause a domino effect? Is it always a trigger than an eliminator as sometimes measured to be? The voice of agreement is loud and clear. As T. B. Macaulay said, The essence of war is Violence. Bloodshed and loss of life, property and nature is a norm. Be it a racist comment or an intrusion of borders, a single act against another person, community or nation is answered back in deeds and kind- some of which, like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombings leave an indelible mark on the pages of our history. The Readers Digest Universal Dictionary defines Violence as physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing. The retaliation to it is idealised to be a non-violent protest by the father of our nation called Satyagraha. When he advised his followers that, When someone slaps you on one side of your face, offer him the other side, was he teaching the men to curb their instinctual urge to react with violence when facing a dangerous situation? Was this why, the fictional character of Munnabhai, a result of the creative minds in our film industry, in dilemma, when he followed Gandhijis advise and yet received two slaps? If the threat is imminently violent, a concurrent violent response may be necessary. However, acting pre-emptively with violence is rarely necessary. Then our first response to a dangerous situation should either be fight or flight. Flight is usually when the to-be victim convinces the attacker of the futility of violence and a possible, even more dangerous reaction in near future. Survival is the greatest instinct of all life, hence, violence is avoided when the flight response is engaged. Consider the Cold War philosophy of MAD i.e. Mutual Assured Destruction. It worked on the basis of fear of complete annihilation of land and people of the victim nation, which forced the two opponents to maintain peace. So another important reason why violence only begets more violence is the fear it can cause. Domestic violence is one of the few forms which can actually make the victim mute to any cry of outrage or protest against the perpetrator. The reason varies from shame to fear of further violence. Not talking about violence indicates a problem in our society, talking about violence enables people to help those who have been affected by violence. The ghanti bajao or Ring the bell initiative encouraged the people outside the closed doors to knock or simply ring the bell of a house where the sound of violence is heard. The perpetrators are usually themselves victims of violence, early in their lives. They are sometimes in a state of depression, which leads to hatred fpor the world as the world did nothing to help them. In a sense, this turns people into cynics or nihilists who either physically or verbally abuse others as they believe others should suffer as much as them. A variation is where abused people actually begin to enjoy giving pain to others. One realises that it is a vicious cycle. If Ram slaps Arjun, Arjun might not hit him back but go home and beat his wife who might in turn teach her child that God doesnt exist because he wouldnt have

led that happen to her. And the childs belief in social systems is shaken while its foundation is being laid. Its a particular case, yes, but it is an example of how a seemingly small act of violence perpetrates in various spheres of the society. This has been observed by many- religious leaders, students of psychology, political leaders. The New Testament has a similar statement in Matthew 26:52, NIV: Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. US black civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. said, Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hence the thought as such isnt something new. Then why does it seem the preferred way? It is because in the short term, violence can seem as a viable solution to a problem, even an attractive one. It is attractive because somehow, we continue with the myth that killing people creates some kind of finality, some kind of closure. Thus the most certain way to stop a violent action is to meet it with greater violence. And the dominos start falling...