The Hard Path

A few weeks ago, while watching the news, I caught myself thinking: Some situations can only be resolved through force. It was a reaction born out of frustration. When people refuse to listen, when injustice continues despite repeated efforts, or when someone deliberately harms others, responding with compassion can feel unreasonable.

It made me stop and ask: Is force truly the only answer in these moments, or have we reached a point where it’s simply easier to use force than to do the hard work of understanding?

Recently, I have been exploring the philosophy of Ahimsa. I found two definitions of it on the internet. Let’s explore them in detail.

More than not hurting someone

The simplest definition of Ahimsa is non-violence: do not hurt anyone, do not encourage others to do so, and do not celebrate when someone else is harmed.

This understanding goes much deeper than physical violence. It includes the mental and emotional harm we cause others through our words, behaviour, and intentions. Aggressive language or tone while explaining or negotiating is also considered a form of violence. 

Ahimsa asks us to extend compassion to everyone. Of course, compassion does not mean that we have to accept everything someone does. We can disagree with a person, hold them accountable, and resist their actions while still recognizing their humanity. Understanding why someone behaves badly does not make their behaviour acceptable.

This is an important distinction. Ahimsa is not about becoming passive or allowing others to take advantage of us. It is about trying not to let our anger or dislike turn into a desire to cause suffering.

There is a practical difficulty with this definition. Sometimes non-violence does not seem justified, or it may not even be an option. What if someone is actively harming another person and refuses to stop? Should we continue trying to persuade them while allowing the harm to continue?

These are difficult questions, and they explain why some people discard the idea of non-violence as impractical. If following a principle means allowing greater harm to happen, is it still the right principle to follow?

Minimizing violence

The second definition I came across is minimizing violence. According to this interpretation, violence is not entirely prohibited, but it should be the last resort. Before using it, we should try other methods, commonly described through the principles of Saam, Daam, Bhed, and Danda. These involve persuasion, negotiation or inducements, strategic efforts to change the other person's position, and finally, coercion or force.

I can see the merit in this definition. There are situations where immediate intervention is necessary to protect someone. Simply refusing to use force does not automatically make a situation better and may even cause greater harm.

My concern with this second definition is slightly different. It is not just about whether violence is ever justified, but about how quickly we decide that it is necessary. The problem is that people may rush through the other methods, dismiss them too quickly, or never make a genuine effort to use them in the first place.

For example, I might try to persuade someone once. If they disagree, I might conclude that persuasion does not work. I might enter a negotiation without genuinely considering their concerns. I might interpret their refusal to accept my position as proof that they are unreasonable.

Eventually, I may tell myself that I tried everything and that violence is now necessary. But did I really try everything? Or did I simply run out of patience?

The first three approaches require considerable skill, patience, and self-control. They require us to listen, understand the other person's position, and sometimes reconsider our own. If violence is already an option in my mind, I may have very little motivation to put in that effort.

This is why I worry that a principle intended to make violence the last resort can, in practice, become a justification for reaching it too quickly.

Does It Really Work?

One of the strongest arguments in favour of violence is its effectiveness. It can sometimes achieve results much faster than persuasion or negotiation. If someone has more power, they may be able to force another person to comply rather than spend time trying to convince them.

But are we looking at effectiveness too narrowly?

When someone is forced to comply, the immediate conflict may end. But the reasons behind the conflict may remain. The same problem may return in a different form. There is a difference between stopping someone from doing something and helping them understand why they should not do it. The first may be achieved through force. The second requires something more.

Violence rarely exists in isolation. It can escalate from both directions. Imagine that one person harms another. The injured person retaliates, believing that the response is justified. The first person now feels attacked and retaliates again. Both sides begin to see themselves as victims and the other as the aggressor.

This creates a cycle in which every new act of violence becomes a reason for the next one. Even if one side eventually wins, the resentment may not disappear.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." (Attributed to Gandhi)

There is no limit to how much power one side can accumulate over time. A stronger person, group, or nation may be able to overpower another. But does that mean the conflict has truly ended? Or does it simply mean that one side no longer has the ability to resist?

A society can appear peaceful because people trust one another and have found ways to live together. It can also appear peaceful because people are afraid to speak or act against those in power. These are very different kinds of peace. We should be careful not to confuse the absence of visible conflict with the presence of genuine peace.

What Should We Choose?

Non-violence is not a guarantee of success. Some people will refuse to listen, some conflicts will remain unresolved, and some situations will demand immediate action to protect others. It would be unreasonable to pretend that patience and compassion can solve every problem.

But the value of Ahimsa is not that it guarantees the best outcome in every situation. Perhaps its value lies in the kind of effort it asks us to make before we decide that harming someone is necessary.

It asks us to begin by understanding rather than attacking. It asks us to take peaceful alternatives seriously instead of treating them as formalities. It reminds us that setting boundaries and resisting injustice do not necessarily require hatred. And if force becomes necessary to prevent serious harm, it asks us to limit that force rather than use the situation as an opportunity for revenge or humiliation.

Most importantly, it asks us to remember that the person standing against us is still a human being. Their actions may need to be stopped, but their suffering should not become irrelevant to us.

My Favorite Quote

"I'm only brave when I have to be. Being brave doesn't mean you go looking for trouble." – Mufasa, The Lion King (1994)