Daily Times

Forty years later, tragically, the statement is still true. The U.S. war on Iraq in 2002 caused over 1 million more deathsin Iraq than the casualties of the preceding decade. All this was done by the American leaders for the specific purpose of controlling the largest supply of oil in the world.

What of the violence that is not organized by the state? What about domestic abuse? What about armed robbery? Surely the state is not to blame for those?

Actually, states have long been endorsers and promoters of violence against women. Ancient Roman law held women and children to be a man’s property, holding the power of life and death over their heads. In the Middle Ages, men were encouraged to beat their wives to control them.It wasn’t until 1911 that most U.S. states outlawed wife beating. Thus, the state for several thousand years, has officially sanctioned, condoned and endorsed domestic violence.

But can we truly condemn all violence? What about the basic right of self-defense?

It was the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky who for the first time raised the question: “Is the violence of the slave the same as the violence of the slave-master?”:The ruling class would have us believe that the violence of the state through police, or the militaryis “heroic,” but that the violence of the poor or the oppressed is “terrorism.” Malcolm X( American Muslim minister and human activist ) eloquently challenged this hypocrisy. “If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong everywhere in the world.” In 1917, the workers of Russia would never have been able to take power if Russian soldiers had not refused their orders to repress that revolution. The soldiers, in fact, joined the revolution.Actually, the First World War ended because of the revolutionary wave that swept Europe–soldiers from all sides who were sick of war rose up against their real enemies at home.Fifty years later, the disintegration of the American armed forces during the Vietnam War also showed the same trend.

Admittedly, in most, circumstances it is evident that violence is unjust; but, some cases appear more debatable when we deeply try to analyze the question: can violence ever be justified?

The most plausible justification of violence is when it is perpetrated in self-defense.An equally violent response may be justified. It must not exceed that which seems a fair payoff.The same principle applies in the relationships between States. A State should not respond more violently than the violence it faces, as has been done by America whenever it found a pretext to retaliate.

Violence, as an act to causing physical harm to another person has often been categorized as being an uncivilizedand unjustified act. But as we progress into the 21st century, the line of when the use of violence can ever be “right” or justified is getting increasingly blurred.

Pacifists such as Einstein and Russell could agree that the First World War was wrong, while admitting that the Second World War could be justified because it defeated Nazism in Europe. The pacifists on the other hand condemn large scale slaughter of men, the introduction of nuclear weapons and the partition of Europe as grave consequences of the WW2

However, the use of violence to stop violence is debatable. Some people feel that such thinking boils down to “an eye for an eye” mentality, while others see it as a necessary evil. In my opinion, these situations are morally complex, and can be considered grey areas, there is no right or wrong where these situations are concerned.

Tolstoy thinks that all modern states have been formed under extreme violence, while according to Noam Chomsy violence is legitimized by its efficacy at lessening a greater evil.

Violence is an unfortunate byproduct of human existence. Those who oppose it ( pacifists and non-violent protesters ) are ridiculed and belittled, which is their fate. There is only one situation in which violence is justifiable: when one is defending his or her own life and when one is sure that in the absence of effective retaliation he or she would be surely eliminated. Otherwise, intended harm towards others is immoral and inexcusable. Pakistan’ own criminal law exonerates a person who kills an offender when his own life is severely endangered.

Bertrand Russell, despite being regarded as a pacifist was not an innocent sage like Dalai Lama ashe justified (1) wars of colonization, (2) wars of principle, (3) wars of self-defense, and (4) wars of prestige. He had a consequentialist attitude towards war i.e. he regarded the consequences of one’s conduct as the ultimate basis of any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that act. In contrast with Tolstoy or G. M. Trevelyan, he does not consider actions to be inherently right or wrong. Pacifism is a commitment to nonviolence andattempt to cultivate pacific virtues such as tolerance, patience, mercy, forgiveness, and love.

Peace can also result from submission to power; and Rousseau maligned this sort of peace by calling it the “peace of Ulysses and his comrades, imprisoned in the cave of the Cyclops and waiting their turn to be devoured”

The idea of justice is at the heart of the just war tradition, which claims that we are entitled to fight back against injustice. Thus peace of the Cyclops’ cave is not peace but a state of war.

The utilitarian approach justifies killing in war if it promotes long term happiness. Some authors like Steven Pinker and Goldstein suggest that the use of judicious military power during the last several decades has produced good results. Others believe that the cost of war are rarely, if ever, worthwhile.It is always an intriguing question whether a war would produce more harm than good.Thus pacifists such as Einstein and Russell could agree that the First World War was wrong, while admitting that the Second World War could be justified because it defeated Nazism in Europe. The pacifists on the other hand condemn large scale slaughter of men, the introduction of nuclear weapons and the partition of Europe as grave consequences of the WW2.

To sum up, there are not one, but multiple angles to see if violence in any particular situation is wholly or partly justified or unjustified.

The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence