Spirit of Islam, May 2013

This being so, there is only one option for us, and that is what we call nonviolence. Non-violence is not just passivity. Non-violence, in actual fact, is a well-considered policy, enabling man to live in peace, even in a violent situation. Indeed, its practice is synonymous with peaceful behaviour. Generally, non-violence is seen as an absence of war. That is, eschewing the way of violent encounter in favour of a peaceful approach. But, this is a very limited definition of non-violence. For, the attitude of non-violence relates to man’s entire life, beginning from the moment he steps into this world. The non-violent way is valid in all ambits, right from hearth and home to the sphere of international affairs. I am a non-violent person by birth. That is why, for me, non-violence is not just an ideology. It is rather a matter of personal experience. Throughout my entire life, consciously or unconsciously, I have been leading a life of non-violence. I still remember the time when I was about 10-years-old and living in a village in Uttar Pradesh, India. I was standing outside my house, when a village boy passed by. He abused me, but I was neither angry nor did I feel any desire to seek revenge. I just went inside my house. This attitude continued in my later life. For instance, communal riots were set off in India after 1947. The newspapers were full with the news of confrontation and bloody clashes. Everyone reacted negatively. People wanted to take revenge. But, I did not react negatively to this volatile situation. The simple solution I offered to this problem was for Muslims to opt for the way of avoidance in accordance with the teachings of their own religion. This would put an end to the communal riots. It was to opt for the way of non-violence in social matters. Similarly, when in 2003 tension built up between the American President, George Bush and the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussain, and it was feared that America was going to destroy Iraq by bombarding it, I offered the solution that Saddam Hussain, who had taken control of Iraq by a military coup, had better quit his presidential post and then America would have no reason to wage a war against his country. This meant opting for the way of non-violence in an international crisis. Likewise, during the mandate of the Pakistani President, Zia ul-Haq, when freedom movements were launched with great fervour in Kashmir and Punjab, I wrote an article, published in The Hindustan Times in 1990, entitled, “Acceptance of Reality”.