Tweet
It is absolutely important to understand the philosophy, context and strategy of non-violence as a political weapon. For one, the PHILOSOPHY of non-violence does not recommend sitting inactively as a lame duck but involves a proactive and aggressive (not in the physical but political sense) political process and movement. Instances: Gandhi's strategies of civil disobedience, marches, political boycotts; and learning from him: the strategies adopted by NAACP and other black movements in the USA in later half of 20th century against segregation (Washington March, Selma, bus rides etc); and Mandela's strategies against apartheid regime in South Africa. As a political technique, non-violence certainly does not have room for political leaders and parties that claim to believe in and have adopted non-violence as political creed but allow themselves to be coopted by state - particularly where the state is directly or indirectly involved in the violence. As explained, it involves active political strategies. In addition, the target of non-violence has to be very clear in the minds of leadership and conveyed to the followers with the same clarity - this target has to be violence that is by nature political to which non-violence is a response. Certainly, non-violence cannot be adopted as a strategy against all types of violence: for, we cannot suggest to a lamb within the clutches of a loin to respond non-violently. We have to encourage the lamb to offer resistance however weak and fruitless it may be. CONTEXT: the context of non-violence is the state, where as an institution having monopoly over coercive power it is in full control of order and does not allow others except itself to be the source of aggression. Except using force against the political movements, the state's control implies otherwise ensuring peace and security. However, in our context, where a suicide bomber can ram his truckload of explosives on the jirgas and political gatherings, you lose context necessary for the viability of non-violence as a political strategy.
Judging by this standard, I believe the current political strategies pursued by the ethno-national leadership do not fall into the category of non-violence philosophy. There is neither a popular mobilization, nor marches against the source of violence. There is no clarity in minds of the political leadership about the target of the so-called non-violent movement (there is rather an absolute confusion amongst the masses). The leadership has been successfully coopted by the state (although as second class partners). Unfortunately, Bacha Khan's philosophy of non-violence has become just a political slogan without any content or meaning in terms of failing to provide a blueprint for political strategies in present context. The proactive part of the nonviolent movement is completely lost on the leadership. They are contended to make references to what their dead leadership did half a century ago. Otherwise, their current political strategies have turned the philosophy of non-violence into a lame duck strategy, sitting inactively and waiting to be struck again, and again, and again, and then crying and shedding crocodile tears from the comforts of their bedrooms!"
Muhammad Zubari
Judging by this standard, I believe the current political strategies pursued by the ethno-national leadership do not fall into the category of non-violence philosophy. There is neither a popular mobilization, nor marches against the source of violence. There is no clarity in minds of the political leadership about the target of the so-called non-violent movement (there is rather an absolute confusion amongst the masses). The leadership has been successfully coopted by the state (although as second class partners). Unfortunately, Bacha Khan's philosophy of non-violence has become just a political slogan without any content or meaning in terms of failing to provide a blueprint for political strategies in present context. The proactive part of the nonviolent movement is completely lost on the leadership. They are contended to make references to what their dead leadership did half a century ago. Otherwise, their current political strategies have turned the philosophy of non-violence into a lame duck strategy, sitting inactively and waiting to be struck again, and again, and again, and then crying and shedding crocodile tears from the comforts of their bedrooms!"
Muhammad Zubari