ENGAGING VIOLENCE

There is not one but two recognized ways of

looking at violence …

We are in the midst of violence, and it is increasing. We

need desperately to make sense of this violence. In order
to do so we must first make sense of the way we think about
violence. This is because unknown to ourselves the way we
think about violence may in fact be a contributory factor
towards it.

Everything in Sri Lanka is connected. It is more so because

we are an island. The actual parties to the violence are
connected by a web of human relationships to all other
human beings who live and work here. This connection is not
a mere matter of imagination but a reality that must be
felt deep within us.

It seems to me that there are two views on violence – one

dualistic and one holistic.

According to the dualistic view we have ideas of good and

bad; right and wrong. We understand the world by dividing
it. This is in fact a childish mode of processing
information. Normally when a child grows up he or she
learns to appreciate the shades of grey; the sophisticated
idea that people and events are neither wholly good nor
wholly bad but a mixture of both.

The ‘shades of grey’ approach comes under a lot of pressure

when it comes to moral issues, like abortion, violent
crime, violence against women, child abuse and terrorism.

What we do in such cases is to revert back to the childish

mode in order to make sense of what we really cannot
understand.

In this way the only explanation that can be given by

dualist thinkers for violence is that it is ‘bad’ or
‘wrong.’
In short we judge what we cannot understand. From this
view, peace and violence are opposites. One assumes the
absence of the other. There is a sharp line between them
and they cannot coexist.

According to the holistic view of violence the world is

seen, not in compartments of good and bad but as a whole.
This whole includes the past and the context. Relationships
are appreciated so that actions are viewed and understood
in context.

From this perspective an action is not maximized or blown

up due to its ‘sensational’ nature. We know that when this
happens the context gets minimized.

According to this view violence is looked at non-

judgmentally; as an objective fact. It is a message of
nature, and like all messages of nature it is based on a
set of causes.

From this perspective violence is neither good nor bad but

an objective fact based on objective causes. Likewise peace
too would be an objective fact based on objective causes.

Moreover peace and violence are not opposed to each other.

They are partners that give way to the other in the same
way that day gives way to night, sun gives way to the moon,
land gives way to the sea and vice versa. There is no sharp
line, for example, dividing the day from night. What we
need to understand is that there is a flow, a universal
scheme of things that we cannot turn back. When the
conditions are ripe, when the time is right, things happen
naturally. Our ability to change things therefore requires
us to know where things are right now and which way they
are heading. It is by understanding these two things that
we can learn to gradually undermine the negatives and
enhance the positives.

We can love the day and hate the night. This is our
personal preference. It does not change the fact that there
are reasons underlying both. If we don’t really see or
understand these reasons it is our problem; not that
something is inherently wrong with the night.

If we are in the middle of the sea there is no point in

asserting that we should be on land. We need to acknowledge
that we are at sea as an objective fact. Secondly we must
work out the distance to land and the conditions that would
enable us to travel that distance.

The man who takes a dualistic view by dividing that which

is whole does violence to himself in thought. This same
violence can be translated to words and then deeds and
ultimately become habit that forms, or let us say deforms
character.

The connection between violence in thought, word and deed

is significant. By uttering careless words another equally
careless man may be provoked to violence. In this case
there would be a causal nexus between both acts. It is
sheer speculation to wonder which act of violence deserves
more censure.

This short composition does not seek to censure any one. It

merely seeks to point out that there are two views on
violence; and that we need to work out which view is being
articulated by the speaker.

It may also be noted that the holistic view does not really
challenge the dualistic view or deny the obvious reality
that many people cling hard to it. It simply takes a higher
or broader view – and most importantly does not prevent its
holder from sympathizing (though not agreeing) with the
dualistic view.

Moving away from violence requires us to

move away from monologues …

Violence is the product of a fragmented and alienated

society which shares a dualistic state of mind. Divisions
are real. Even though these are constructed barriers fear
and mistrust ensure they remain to block a genuine dialogue
– the pre – condition for breaking the vicious cycle of
holistic violence i.e. violence in thought, word and deed.

Words are the vehicles of thought and we need to use

language skillfully to move away from this culture of
violence.

Violent language is an indispensable part of any culture of

violence. This is much broader than language which is
obviously violent in a physical sense. It encompasses the
full range of dualistic thought and expression of human
beings. Let us go to the beginnings of human communication
to understand this.

Most of our communication lessons are learnt as infants in

our interactions with our immediate caregivers. These
lessons are carried over to adulthood. Where there is
connection and empathy in these communications needs are
understood and met and we become happy, balanced and secure
people. If not, we become unhappy, imbalanced and insecure.
The key proposition here is that human suffering is the
result of flawed communication where monologues replace
dialogue. In extreme cases this leads to physical violence
and a continuing series of negative consequences.

What is interesting to note is that violence is not only

caused by monologues between the relevant parties. It also
leads to further monologues. There is a lot of talking done
by all sides, but they have different objectives, different
jargon and essentially different languages. So we end up
with an orchestra gone crazy; all the players are playing
to their own tunes and there is no conductor to harmonize
and balance the music.

Some of the clearest examples of insensitivity and

dualistic speech emanate from the religious sphere. In
times of violence we look to the religions for guidance.
Instead of help what we normally get is egoistic, self
affirming and self serving jargon which assumes that only
‘my religion’ has the answers and ‘only the founder of my
religion has got it right.’ This kind of speech, apart from
failing to address the real issues at hand also alienate
the listeners and eventually make them anti-religion A or
B. The baby is thrown out with the bath water and whatever
good can be obtained from religious teachings are also shut
out in this sea of monologues.

The same goes for politicians, lawyers and human rights

advocates. They all come out with their own professional
jargon. No one really steps out to engage with the reality
of violence – as a human being. Mahatma Gandhi once said:

There are so many religions as there are individuals …

Let me explain what I mean by religion. It is not the Hindu religion …

but the religion that transcends Hinduism, which changes one’s very
nature, which binds one indissolubly to the truth within and which ever
purifies.

We have traded our humanity for a professional identity and

then got trapped in it. Within an institutional structure
which has separated and compartmentalized issues as
political, economic, social, legal, religious,
psychological and the latest category thrown in – human
rights, our roles are confined to what we are
professionally competent to speak on and do. Venturing out
to engage with the reality is unorthodox, subjective and
‘unprofessional’.

This is the very structure which has bred and nurtured

violence; and we look to it to provide solutions! This is
our tragedy. Breaking out involves re-defining and re-
interpreting personal, professional and institutional
roles. Politicians must become humanists and leaders,
professionals must engage with society and human rights
advocates must also work on the side of human relationships.

The present monologues, apart from dealing with issues at a

biased political and conceptualized level seek to cover up
this subjective and self-serving act under the guise of
objectivity.

An assessment of the objective evidence and an objective

conclusion is not the end of the matter. This is what
criminal courts do. Let us stop pretending to be judges and
Gods. There is something more that we need in any
assessment of the causes of societal violence. This is a
deeper level of subjectivity at a personal and collective
level. We need to search our own souls first.

Violence ultimately originates in the self. If we shut out

the knowledge that comes from deep personal experience in a
quest for ‘scientific evidence that can be objectively
verified’ our understanding will be impersonal and
impoverished by a lack of personal insight. We need a
balance between personal and impersonal view points –
between spiritual and scientific approaches to form a truly
holistic conception of the causes of violence.

This is what Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have done

in other countries. However they cannot succeed where a
whole blanket of deception has been thrown over our public
and private lives.
We Sri Lankans have been deceiving ourselves for a long
time and we have never really shown any capacity for
humility and honesty. Given this national weakness and
moral failure we must be ready to face more and more
violence till that day dawns when we fall on this earth and
seek forgiveness for our collective sins.

We are all guilty of violence. Even if we have not

descended to the physical level we have, as ignorant human
beings committed violence at the level of thought and
words. In a little island like ours these three levels of
violence – spiritual, verbal and physical are inextricably
inter-linked. Let us now share the blame, as men and women
of nobility and courage. And let us share the
responsibility for ending violence together.

***********