On Nonviolence

In discussing nonviolence they equated the ability to submit with the power to overcome.  They seemed to assume the timidity of the weak was the conviction of the righteous.  For nonviolence to succeed, it has to derive from belief actualized in willingness to suffer, should suffering follow from making known or acting upon what is believed.

Nonviolence is not weakness, but a type of strength.  It is conviction rather than timidity, and the cowardly haven't a right to claim it as their own.  It uses no force in the sense of violence or retaliation, applying instead a moral pressure that forces aggressors to acknowledge the inadequacy they mask with their own actions.  The degree and extent of violence does not make a position correct.  In like manner, the violence to which one is subjected does not make someone wrong, nor does it generate the need to respond in kind.

It is not suffering for the sake of pain.  That would be masochism and a failure to appreciate one's own dignity.  It is instead suffering in the name of a cause, value or belief which, while it makes the pain no less painful, renders it futile as a weapon against the truth of the belief.

To respond nonviolently is more difficult.  It does not always make the hurt less painful and there is no assurance that the aggressor will, even if he becomes aware of its futility, put aside his violence.  It is not an approach one chooses only because no weapon was available.  The conviction precedes the application.  It is for the peaceful person the only available option.  It is the belief and dedication that prevents the hurt from becoming degradation, and which transforms it into victory.