Is retaliation the right policy!

Non-violence is a myth in the sense that there is no absolute non-violence. At some point of time it become futile, and self-defeating, to exercise non-violence. Had West not retaliated, Hitler would have swamped the world and kept if for decades. Had Pandavas not retaliated, the world would have been a different place altogether, and in a negative way.

At the same time, Non-violence is a reality in the sense that the world can't exist without some kind of non-violence. People must be given adequate opportunity to feel ashamed of their conduct and reciprocate. Abolition of death penalty in some countries is also a non violent way of ensuring that even the most despicable of criminals get reformed in due course of time.

So it become extremely difficult to take a call when to be non-violent, and when to be violent (in self-defense). But one thing is clear, violence can not be condoned for anything but self-defense and self-respect and one has to be absolutely sure about the rightful conduct.

An year ago, there was a movie Lage Raho Munnabhai (a blockbuster) on how to practice Mahatama Gandhi's principles, where a goon, trying to save an old people's house, is slapped on the right cheek by the guard of a real estate shark. He does not give it back because ''Gandhiji had said that if someone slaps you on one cheek, show him the other cheek.''

But when he is slapped on the other cheek, the goon (played by Sanjay Dutt) gives it back in his own grand way. He retaliated because ''Gandhiji had not said what to do when someone slaps on the other cheek too!''

So there can't be any absolute non-violence. However, it should be abandoned only under extreme circumstances.