Are Peace and Non-Violence Outdated Concepts?

Peace and Non-violence can never be outdated concepts. In the past, Mahatama Gandhi ended the rule of Britishers over India by strictly non-violent means. And even in the current scenario, recently, Anna Hazare had set such a great example in front of the world by fighting the corruption disease in a non-violent and peaceful way, in which he succeeded. Hence, no doubt Peace and non-violence are Result-oriented tools. A Simple Boycott to a guilty person or organization can make him/it feel its guilt, there would be a change in its soul, which any war can never bring.

Although in some situations, we can raise our hands along with our voice. But that should be in a self-defence. There is a clean difference between Self-Defence and Violence. People must understand that if someone is trying to hit us with anything, we can reply him on the spot by giving him the taste of his own medicine, but the first hand must not be raised by us. Our Constitution also states that we can be violent in case of a self-defence action, it is in our human rights.

For me, Peace and non-violence are all about Respecting everyone use of peaceful means to bring changes.

Peace and non-violence will never be an outdated concept. They are important for the survival of mankind on earth.

We can take the example of Anna Hazare who took a strong stand for Lokpal bill through peace and non-violence.

The youth today knows his/her limits and they know that how to fight for their rights provided no one gets hurt. We know that there is much more than religion, we know that less we interfere in others life, more will be the peace in the society.

There is nothing in this world which can't be settled through talks. Doklam issue is the best example, where our PM settled the issue through talks to maintain peace and harmony between the countries.

I feel that Non-Violence and peace can never be outdated and as we all know that smile can win over swords. Being violent, might be we can win but we never get inner satisfaction.

What is must?

Well I think when it comes to your home your personal matters your state. Things can be sought out by peace and non violence. Corruption is that which we have created our ministers have created and it can be dealt by peace and non violence. But I must state everything can't be achieve by alone peace and nonviolence. There are things situations where we have to fight where we have to be violent and it is not at all wrong if we are fighting for something good. If these terrorist are attacking us we must attack them too, here peace and violence fails.

If the other community or country is violent then we have to be violent. Even if you are talking about our country past that because of "only" Gandhi ji and his non violence and peace activities we got independence. I am sorry whosoever stated this was not exactly correct. Our revolutionaries who shed their blood for us for our country not Gandhi ji. They were the people who never died but sacrificed their life for us. They were the real heroes behind our independence. At the end I must contribute that peace and non violence can't work everywhere we have to be violent for the violent terms.

We belong to a country whose history reverberates peace and non violence in its freedom fight movement. Well, it is to be admitted that the path to this liberation was not enveloped with peace alone. We had had sacrifice of many Martyrs whose names may not be carved in Golden letters. We always tend to follow the path of non violence to achieve our needs and demands. But most of the time it becomes non pragmatic. A peaceful demonstration hardly meets the target.

If we consider the case of our own country, we have had a lot of pressures and threats in our border in-spite of the peaceful alliance we keep with our neighbors. But nothing tend to change this trend. Our soldiers continue to become Martyrs.

I would say that the act violence should not trigger from our side, but when the situation demands us, we have no plans to retreat.

Peace and nonviolence can never be outdated. By nonviolence situations only exacerbate. While people are disturbed and resort to violence they don't understand the harm they are causing to others. But after momentary anxiety people repent about what they have done. Peace talks are a way better solution to come to an agreement. Through peace and negotiation, people get to know each other's faults and good. But at times harsh steps needed to bring to books the perpetrators. Like terrorists. They can't be defeated by peace talk cause they don't understand the meaning of it. There needed strong military actions. But when and wherever peaceful talking can resolve a situation people must follow the path of it. Thank you.

Peace and non-violence are never the outdated systems. Peace is all about our religion. KARUNA is the base of DHARMA said by Lord Krishna in Gita. Non-violence cannot get success.

These are movements which conducted by gurjar, jat etc another caste never get success because their movements were placed in the nonviolence. They fired everywhere & public suffered by their nonviolence.

So I think nonviolence cannot be a solution of any kind of situations.

The youth of India come forward &move according to our religion that teaches us a lesson of KARUNA.

Our country got independence by the outfit of nonviolence & peace.

Great say by someone:nonviolence doesn't mean our weakness its show our power.

Hello guys.

Today the real meaning of peace is not really understood properly. When you ask what peace means to a school-going guy like me, he would say "when there are no wars". An office-going man would say "when there is violence". But what do "peace" and "non-violence" really mean? There is no real 'definition' for these words, just like there isn't for a pen or a country. But it really 'means' a lot.

I understand 'peace' as when everyone is cool from the mind, can think clearly and understand and respect others. So basically, peace doesn't just mean "when there are no wars" or "when there is violence". Then what is non-violence?

Violence is generally accepted as when there is unrest or disturbance, which leads to directly and (mostly) physically harming someone or some people. So non-violence is when a disturbance rises, you handle it 'peacefully' and not 'violently'.

Coming to the main question : are these terms outdated? The obvious answer is NO, they aren't. These thing apply to humanity as a whole and are definitely very, very important and ever-essential for our very survival. If there is violence, all life is bound to disappear. More importantly, there have to be 'feelings' and 'sympathy for others'.

So, these aren't just words that have become history like/and Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They continue to be here forever and are ever-modern. How is one even supposed to exist without these?

Well, I feel that nonviolence and peace are not outdated concepts. There are people who believe in peace and non-violence. They remain quiet for all the violence occurring on them but I think you should get into you violence when it is required.

You should be violent where you need to be. All the time violence doesn't work instead it leads to more worse situation. You can avoid such situation via peace to limit and if the person in front crosses the limit of your patience, I think getting violent is not a problem.

Many of us, think that we need to have a Gandhian attitude to develop India.

Right?

Just think once more. Will this really be helpful? It's very difficult for us today to adopt this attitude when we always need fast results.

I ain't saying that we should go for violence but we just need to put our argument in a really really strong manner.

As you all know about the things happening in India. Also, you know our drawbacks. Just the thing we need to so is to keep our voice low and arguments high.

It doesn't mean violence or any waiting activity (non-violence).