You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Is there any term like "Righteous Violence"in English?

    The forum footer of one of our members shows this word"Righteous Violence". I am very much intrigued with this word. I heard about "Violence" but not "Righteous Violence". The dictionary gives the meaning of "Violence" but not the "Righteous Violence". I feel there is no such term in English. These days many new terms are making their way into the dictionaries depending upon the coining of new terms and frequent usage by the people. Violence is something to be shunned. If there is a violent act against a person or group of persons, they may defend themselves with as much violence but it cannot be termed as violence. It is nothing but defense against violence. I want the members to clarify if there is any such term or not? If there is one under what circumstances it can be used?
  • #647428
    English is a very active language. Every year, it is accepting more and more words and phrases in its kitty. Even if the phrase (righteous violence) is not included so far, it will be added in near or distant future. The author should not worry about it. Let the linguists debate and decide its inclusion.

    The author is requested to consider to improve his own Forum-footer: "Be Good and Do Good". As a human being, he (actually, all of us) must strive to be better and do better.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #647433
    According to the own admission of Mr.Partha, "Righteous Violence" is not there in English dictionaries. When non-violence is the greatest dharma, there should not be any mention of violence. There is nothing like good or bad violence. I personally feel it is a wrong usage and not likely to be accepted by linguists.
    The forum footer of mine implies the same as what is mentioned. It does not contain any violence. " Be Good and Do Good " is what Swamy Sivananda Saraswati of Rishikesh preached and practiced. Any human being should be good and do good for the people. Violence should not enter the mind.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #647435
    "Even if the phrase (righteous violence) is not included so far,..." This means possibility, not admission.
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #647441
    Righteous Violence is an act of violence which is justified.

    If I turn violent to protect someone against some atrocity, that is still violence but can be justified. However, if I am the one who is inflicting that atrocity (for sheer pleasure), that violence cannot be termed as just. Violence is not always physical, even a bad word or thought is considered violence.

    Every act can be termed as good or bad depending upon the intention. And when there is no intention (whatsoever), it is called pure act; neither good nor bad.

    "If you want to make real progress, you must give up all ideas of personal attainment".

  • #647462
    Is this your assumption or have you seen it being used in any context? I personally have never come across such a use and did not find in dictionary also.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #647472
    Chapter 2, Verse 33, Bhagwat Geeta -

    If, however, you refuse to fight this righteous war (dharmyam sangramam), abandoning your social duty and reputation, you will certainly incur sin.

    "If you want to make real progress, you must give up all ideas of personal attainment".

  • #647474
    I raised a thread on this issue long back. The complete shloka is: "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma; Dharma himsa tathaiva cha". The thread generated fierce debate and was sent to ''Pending" sub-section.
    The shloka can be translated as: "Non-violence is the greatest Dharma; So too is all righteous violence."
    There is another translation. This is: "Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma."

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #647477
    Any one can create a new word in English and in fact many dictionaries want people to coin out new words so that it can be included in the future editions. Coming to the Righteous violence, it is nothing but reserving rights on violence and by saying so the person is likely defend those strikes which are legitimate and fight for those rights which are not agreed by the current society citing past reasons. Righteous violence are asserted by those groups who work like para law forces , ie means they work under the purview of law and yet not inside the law. Some organisations assert their rights on human security.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #647480
    Mr. Mohan: The word ''righteous'' is in the dictionary. Violence is also another well-known word. The author of this thread doesn't want to use these two words together.

    This is a perfect example of misinterpretation of our great 'Dharma' and nothing else. Violence can definitely be righteous. And time has come to choose the path of righteous violence.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #647506
    Both the words used are in the dictionary only. Words are not new. The author is having doubt whether there will be any violence which is dharma. For this, the examples were given and the famous Hindu religion book Bhagavatgita is also referred. I am of the opinion that violence will also be a right way of achieving certain things which are as per Dharma. When Hiranyakasapa the father of Prahalada is going beyond control the God appeared and killed him and seen that the Dharma is protected. So the violence for doing good is also the greatest Dharma. This is taught by Lord Krishna to Arjuna. That is the reason why Lord encouraged the war which resulted in so many killings.
    always confident

  • #647516
    1. What was referred to in Bhagavadgita was about war but not violence.
    2. This is the URL of the thread where righteous violence was discussed. That thread was locked.
    3. The second line of the sloka was not there in Mahabharata. It was a lie to say that such a line exists in the sloka. By going through the above thread, one can understand where to search and find the right answer.
    4. "When we visit an old heritage monument, we may think that aesthetically, it may be better to have some further improvement. But we should not attempt any such improvement on it, as the heritage has to be protected. In the same manner, if the original Mahabharat did not contain the second stanza, it is not correct to invent it or add it at this stage. Anybody can have their own interpretations; that is a different matter. But the Mula i.e. the original has to be preserved in its original form for posterity." This statement is from the internet only.
    5. Twisting or altering the original scripts is condemnable. It amounts to misrepresentation of what was there in our old scriptures.
    6. Sri Changanti. Koteswara Rao is a well-known person for his discourses in Telugu on various topics including Maha Bharatam. He is a well-known person to the Telugu people all over the world. Previously when discussing the thread raised by Mr. Partha, I had contacted a person who is associated with Sri. Chaganti and clarified my doubt. He also said that there was no such second line in the sloka.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #647560
    My opinion about a war is that it is also a sort of violence only. War will make people kill others. Killing is nothing but violence. Anyhow the way Lord killed Hirnyakasipa is also a violence for the protection of people who are obeying the dharma. Violence for the protection of Dharma will also be considered as non-violence only. We dig the earth and we abuse land in many ways for cultivation. But they can't be considered as violence as we are doing that with a view of providing food to the mankind. This is not my original thought. They are mentioned in Mahabharath.
    When you are going on a road if somebody is trying to abuse another person you will go for helping the innocent. In that process, some violence may take place. That can also be considered as non-violence only. There is a book called Devi Bhagavatam. In that, these facts were mentioned. I am trying to get some references from the books. If I get I will mention them in my next response.

    always confident

  • #647588
    There is a difference between war and violence. War, assuming it to be an armed conflict, is between countries or large groups within the country. War is no doubt a violent one. In violence, it may be between two or more persons or group of persons. War may be a sort of violence but violence is not always war.
    Now the discussion is about 'righteous violence'. When violence in any form is bad, there cannot be righteous violence. Protection of a person or group of persons cannot be called as violence. It is an act of protection only but not an action intended to purposefully cause injury.
    The term or phrase 'righteous violence' is an excuse to defend the violent acts committed in the name of upholding justice or dharma. No religion preaches violence.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #647596
    I go with Partha. Righteous violence has its own sense and meaning. I think war is a violence against each other . Why Krishna asked the Pandavas to go for war and fight to get their kingdom. They were right to get their own land grabbed by their cousins. I think that war of violence to fight and kill is justified as righteous violence.

    @ This was said by other members too, and I support it.

    No life without Sun

  • #647601
    My question was answered in the first response of Mr.Partha. "Even if the phrase (righteous violence) is not included so far, it will be added in near or distant future. ". This itself shows that such a phrase does not exist as of now. It is a personal choice if people want to indulge in violence and justify it in the name of dharma or justice.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #647604
    I do not think the words or phrase 'Righteous violence' will be added to dictionary in any manner, neither with righteous nor with violence. It is a phrase formed by us. For e.g 'Good Boy'. Will you find this words in our dictionary? Partha started off this meaningful word/ phrase Righteous violence, and it will be used in our communication forever.
    No life without Sun

  • #647607
    This is a discussion which will take us nowhere. We have already deviated much from the topic. I wish to stop here as we have discussed the phrase 'righteous violence' from our own perspectives.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #647609
    For starters, a language can have coined words. Partha has a freedom to coin his own terms and as long as they follow basic English grammatical structure those terms are right.
    Why can't "righteous violence" be a thing?
    Robin hood stole and distributed among masses. Righteous violence can be termed as coercion necessary. Peace doesn't work all the time. To fight for a right cause and to hurt someone for a greater good is well justified in all religions and cultures.
    Righteous violence can be a thing.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #647610
    I agree with Aditya. For saving 100 people if we kill one person also it is non-violence only. Sometimes keeping silent may not solve the purpose. We have to make sound and we may have to shout. The violence for a good cause is also a non-violence only. The phrase created by Partha may be a new one and nowhere you may find it. But the meaning it conveys is acceptable and time and again it is proved that violence is required some time to protect truth and innocence.
    This is what I understood from reading and hearing various books and voices on this issue. Different people will have different opinions. I think I will not go for further discussion on this matter.

    always confident

  • #647618
    Mr. Aditya: The phrase was not coined by Mr. Partha. It was already coined by some other people which Mr.Partha is using as his forum footer. I am concerned about the pairing of these two words" Righteous" and "Violence". In one of the slokas from Mahabharatam, this righteous violence was added which was not there in the original sloka and is being popularised to serve the purpose some groups.
    You have given the example of Robinhood. Now if someone just like in the Robinhood style wants to loot the rich by using violent means and distribute it to others, will it be acceptable in the society? Will it be accepted by the Law?
    If a group of people considers another group as opposed to their ideology and as an obstacle to them, can they attack them with an intention to injure them by using violence, can the society accept it as justified violence? Are there no norms in the civilized society? Attacking is violence but not defending. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is gaining popularity and acceptance. Who will suffer? The younger generations will be the worst sufferers of this type of thinking. Thinking differently is good but it should be in conformity with the norms of the society.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #647625
    You asked if society would accept this? Yes. Society comprises of normal people like you and me waiting for a miracle to change their desperation. Will law accept this though? No. Law is concerned with maintaining a certain code and any blemish in that code is quickly removed. A righteous violence is bad too if its done with no restraint. Example Parashuram.
    He killed nearly every kshatriya on the planet to avenge his father. He overdid it. His "righteous violence" is no where justified.
    Instead he should have sated with defeating Kaarthaveeryarjuna alone with whom he had a bad blood. When someone commits violence for a righteous cause he gets applauded by people. This can motivate that person to go on a rampage.
    Righteous violence is only justified as long as you are fighting with restraint for a cause.
    Now violence could be a little slap on face or downright genocide. It is not that difficult for a sentient human to decide among the above two.
    Righteous violence is violence too and we must be ready to bear consequence .

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #647627
    Who will judge which is justified violence or not? Is it the person or persons perpetrating the act of violence or the law of the land? If a person or group of persons indulge in violence as per their own judgment, which may be right or wrong, what will be the law and order condition in such a society?
    Society sets certain norms for the acceptable behavior of the people so that everyone can live in peace and harmony. Desperation can never be an excuse for violence. It leads to more desperation and unrest. We are witnessing a number of protests turning violent and condemning them. The cause may be justified but not the violence which is affecting many other innocent people not connected with the cause. Can there be restraint once violence erupts? Once started it will continue until it is stopped by force by which time all the damage will be caused.
    Violence cannot solve the problems as we see in the case of many armed groups operating in the world. They cause misery.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #647646
    You see, all our actions always start with an intention, there cannot be any action without an intention. And that intention affects the end result. Therefore, our intentions decides right & wrong.

    Violence or War is always an outcome of the conflict; and conflict is always of the mind. Mind with some intention (good or bad) starts this mess. If you are being violent, on which side you are will decide whether the violence is righteous or not.

    "If you want to make real progress, you must give up all ideas of personal attainment".

  • #647703
    Here is some food for thought –

    Should not the 'bhakt(s)' of 'righteous violence' accept episodes of righteous violence practised against them? Someone who knows what righteous violence is and vehemently defends it should not be questioning ISC when threads are deleted or when minus points are given for objectionable and inflammatory statements.

    Just my view!

    "A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak." -Michael Garrett Marino

  • #647706
    I don't think Righteous Violence is applicable to this virtual world. Violence is a physical attack and damage to life and property, not to wisdom and knowledge.
    No life without Sun

  • Sign In to post your comments