It is not possible for a modern State
based on force nonviolently to resist forces of disorder, whether
external or internal. A man cannot serve God and Mammon, nor be
'temperate and furious' at the same time. It is claimed that a State
can be based on nonviolence, i.e., it can offer nonviolent resistance
against a world combination based on armed force. Such a State was
Ashoka's. The example can be repeated. But the case does not become
weak even if it be shown that Ashoka's State was not based on
nonviolence. It has to be examined on its merits.....
There can be no nonviolence offered by
the militarily strong. Thus, Russia in order to express nonviolence has
to discard all her power of doing violence. What is true is that if
those, who were at one time strong in armed might, change their mind,
they will be better able to demonstrate their nonviolence to the world
and, therefore, also to their opponents.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment