If you said that you were a man of peace, and didn’t have any violent tendencies at all, I’ll doubt both your core and authenticity. I will be forced to judge. Sure, you can speak eloquently and show impeccable manners, and flaunt a highbrow sense of elitist humor. You can disdain anarchy, political upheavals, and bloody revolutions; or murder and torture, but you know your pretensions, my friend. A man of high moral values indeed! A joke! Either naïvety masks your rage, or you sublimate, or you’re an absolute hypocrite. Examine yourself, and you’ll know where you lie. I listen to old men prattle about ‘double standards’, and scumbags, without any lucidity of who they are. It’s either that, or they’re wife beaters feigning ‘class’. The anger isn’t always active though; it’s often passive. It’s bottled up, and hence the rant about how some people are degenerates or drug addicts without a cause. Or it’s racist hate that the man secretly keeps, while he preaches to the choir. Or it’s so hidden, that the man comes across as the ideal ‘gentleman’, obedient to his wife’s demands, while he secretly loathes her, and that’s a disgusting cycle, hard to break from. It’s better to have an overtly debauched vulgarity, than an overtly passive one. Now, I’m not endorsing crime, but I’m saying that an angry man who knows his situation can change, while one who keeps it inside and denies it will never possess the necessary insight that’s the first step to rehabilitation. So, sublimate, write fictional violent pieces, but just don’t act it out. It’s not worth it. But does violence solve anything? In extreme cases, it does. How else to put down a dictatorial, authoritarian, totalitarian regime except through a violent revolution? Peace doesn’t always work, and even peaceful protests (which are only a collective form of passive aggression) unnerve the ruling party, because they sense the masses gathering, and think, “What’s to prevent them from arms and war next?” You don’t have to agree with this. And yes, I believe in just war. If your country is unnecessarily invaded for no fault of its own, then it’s the duty of the ruling party to defend it at all costs. I also believe in another kind of just war, which helps emancipate a completely subdued people under the rule of a lunatic who thinks he’s God. But this needs a subtle approach. Drone strikes, or innocent people butchered only defeats the cause itself. Finally, we come to self-defense. Yes in cases where a life or a life of a loved one is threatened, I believe you should defend yourself or them. But I definitely don’t believe in teachers carrying guns, or preachers with weapons.

© Nitin Lalit Murali (2018)

Protected by Copyscape


  1. I grew up with violent “church people”. I’m a survivor of a PSA. I was held hostage during a gang shoot out. But it was my husband (inmate#######) who jumped in front of me and pushed me behind him, thus unconsciously willing to take a bullet for me, when we witnessed a cop shooting a homeless man who happened to have had a gun in his belt loop for protection. I don’t like guns. I don’t violence. But I do agree peace does not always work. Good thoughts!

  2. Ms Jones, a most innovative teacher, decided to have a theme day with her class. On Tuesday, boys and girls, we shall have a theme day. Come dressed as a cowboy or a cowgirl. When they arrived dressed up, she shot the entire class in self defence…

    1. Haha. I feel like making a little trite, stereotypical racist joke here, but hell, I’ll go with it. Is Mrs Jones a woman of Red Indian ancestry? On a serious note, what you said conveys a point. If you’re going to give teachers guns, then what’s saying that they won’t misuse them? There are tons of teachers rotting in jail, because of having relationships (forced or not) with their students. And this is just elevating it. Gun control is a good solution though, but it won’t stop violence, but it’ll at least stop a spree killing lunatic. You can fight off a psycho with a machete, but an idiot with a gun holds too much power.

  3. ” I’m saying that an angry man who knows his situation can change, while one who keeps it inside and denies it will never possess the necessary insight that’s the first step to rehabilitation.”
    Very very true. I see clarity here.

    Violence, like you put, cannot be deemed to be never justified. The violence of a dictator definitely differs from the violence of the people trying to put an end to his rule.

    Like you said, violence in self defence, again, is justified. But not always though, in my opinion. Agreed that it’s sometimes the only choice. One thing is for sure, that violence, at any level leads to destruction almost always. You can weigh it only on a scale of how the after effects are, if they by any chance solve the purpose and at what costs they do so.

    1. Yeah true that last paragraph makes a lot of sense. Violence on any level can destroy or hell, will destroy. Even verbal violence does. Yeah and no violence is justified but we sadly live in a messed up world filled with violent lunatics. I’m thinking of getting a few Buddhist philosophy books and following the way of Zen! But I’m not too sure about it taking away my frustration or irritation, or anger.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s