Escaping

Non-violence means so many different things for different people depending particularly on their religious convictions and attitudes in life. Odey (2005) believes that:

33 for some people, “nonviolence is a dream which is at best too idealistic and impractical and at worst deceitful, enslaving and suicidal. It expects a person to love his real enemy and to pray for those who persecute him. It expects a person to avoid harm even in the midst of extreme violence. It promises what it cannot deliver and in the process perpetuates the suffering and often the death of the oppressed by a systematic suppression of their power of resistance (p.216).

According to Gandhi (1954), another group of people see “non-violence as the sentimental expression of the weak that would, under normal circumstances, resort to violence if they had the strength to do so in order to demand for their right. But since they do not have that strength, they hide their weakness in non-violent moral passion” (p.115).

Notwithstanding all the above idea of people on Non-violence, Gregg (2004), assertsthat:

non-violence is the best method that could be used for the resolution of social conflicts. He neither sees it as cowardly nor as the only means available to the weak because they have no alternative. He admires nonviolence and those who advocate and practice it. However, his problem is that there are cases and circumstances under which it simply does not and cannot work. In such cases and circumstances, he will that it may not only be wise to use violence but morally imperative to do so (p.242).

Betrand (1968) viewed that “nonviolence is a form of protest which its success or failure depends on the goodness or otherwise of those against whom it is used. He contended that nonviolence certainly has an important sphere” (p.192).

34 Louis (1954) conceded conditional success to nonviolence. He contended that “there were three factors which made the nonviolence struggle led by Gandhi in South Africa a Success’’ (p.49). The first of these factors was ;

Gandhi himself who neither cared for sensual pleasures, for comfort, for praise nor for promotion. His indefatigable determination to do what he believed to be right made him a dangerous and an uncomfortable person to deal with, because his body which could always be conquered gave his enemies little purchase over his soul’’

(p.49).

The second factor was “the heroism of the Indian men and women who stuck to his nonviolent action in South Africa” (p.49).“ The third factor concluded Fischer, was the president under whom Gandhi led the struggle, was not a dictator”(p.49).

To Williams (1986):

non-violence acts as a sort of moral “JiuJitsu” on the opponent, contending that when one person attacks another with physical violence, and the victim hits back, the violent response of the victim will give the attacker a certain reassurance, moral support and a stimulus to go ahead. However, when the victim refuses to respond with counter violence, but at stake, the attacker’s first reaction might be that the victim is afraid of him. However, the victims readiness to endure his attack without showing sign of fear and hatred will soon put him in an awkward position, and this is called non-violence (p.44).

Odey (2005) asserts that:

35 the concept of non-violence he viewed that it is a Japanese art of self-defense from which Judo was developed. In physical “JitJitsu” he who is able to maintain equanimity and equilibrium in a duel will gain the upper handover his opponent because he will be in a better position to destroy the physical balance of the opponent.

Reducing to its essentials, therefore, non-violence is to make the opponent lose his moral balance (p.96).

Gandhi (1963) concluded that:

non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind, rooted in the basic principle of Hindu, Islam and Christianity. In the physical non-killing, non-assaulting and non-oppression of others with physical, militant actions; hatred, is all wrong at any time. Non-violence involves one giving up his physical life in the face of violence rather than bow to evil or commit violence on others in order to fulfill selfish desire (p.77).

Hornby (2005) says “Non-violence is the policy of using peaceful method, not force, to bring about political or social change” (p.944).

According to Sharp (1973):

non-violence resistances are designed to avoid this trap by absolutely refusing to be drawn into a violent confrontation. It requires tremendous courage, self-control, as well as a willingness to endure pain and sometimes even death. It is the strategy for countering the power of violent force with the power of the integrative system (p.64).

Ignatius (2001), in his own idea, says that:

36 non-violence is a miniature chronicle of this rather mysterious man who sacrificed everything, endured every trial and braved every obstacle in order to teach the world that the doctrine of tit for tat is a doctrines of dark despair; that a battle which needs destructive weapons to win cannot appeal to the heart of men and that any venture which cannot win the heart of men carries the seed of its own destruction (p.130).

To sharp (1973):

Non-violence action is a genomic term covering dozens of specific methods of protest, non-cooperation and intervention, in all of which the actionists conduct the conflict by doing or refusing to do certain things without using physical violence. As a technique, therefore, non-violence is not passive; it is inaction. It is action that is non-violence (p.64).

Worhrle (1993) views that:

Non-violence is a means of breaking the cycle of violence; it is moral of social change which is neither passive nor violent; it requires human commitment and not military might and it seeks to change but not to completely destroy relationships.

Employing nonviolence entails breaking from our traditional patterns of resolving conflicts: patterns which distribute power to the strongest and the most violent (p.209).

King (1967) agreed withWorhrle’s view when he states that non-violence is the persistent and determined application of peaceable power to offenses against the community (p.184).

37 Although an alternative is needed that embodied the idea of it being more than the absence of violence, the term nonviolence has a rich tradition, is widely used and, at present, remains the best alternative. For some writers and activists like Cumming (1985) “the hyphenated nonviolence emphasizes the absence of violence” (p.9), whereas nonviolence, without the hyphen refers to according to Mark (2002) “the broader philosophy of social change and human relationship” (p.12). This thesis follows this convention by using non-violence for the former broader meaning but non-non-violence when discussing social change and human relationship using quotes from other sources which retain the hyphen. Applying these concepts to the beliefs and practice of non-violence in Nigeria makes an appreciable view of the concept of non-violence.