The above, particularly when intoned in this new, historical light, sounds like a marvelously nonviolent way to stand up for oneself while still making a point. Of course, when one is talking about a woman who is constantly being beaten by her boyfriend or husband, or if instead of a slap on the face we are talking about being shot with a gun, sliced with a machete, or having cluster bombs dropped on your village, this sort of act would no longer be prudent. Prescribing nonviolence for every situation has been likened to prescribing an aspirin for everything from headaches to a ruptured spleen. While I certainly do not propose that violence per se is the answer to all conflict, I submit that dogmatic pacifism, the call for nonviolence no matter what the circumstances, can be equally problematic.

Mohandas K. Gandhi first brought widespread attention to the concept of ahimsa, the Sanskrit term for nonviolence (literally "not harming") which is at the root of the Dharmic belief systems (i.e. Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism), to the West. Gandhi is most famous for his fasting in protest and leading nonviolent resistance movements such as the Salt Satyagraha during the Indian Independence Movement. While Gandhi is credited for leading India to independence from Great Britain with his rigid ahimsa, in reality the social and political situation in India was far more complex. There were millions of players from dozens of different nations who played significant roles in the Indian Independence Movement, including those involved in armed guerilla movements. Gandhi believed that if Indians withstood the blows inflicted upon them by British authorities and stood their ground without striking back, the suffering of the nonviolent Indians would provoke the compassion of the British, who would then, presumably, see the error of their ways. This view presupposes that the oppressor may be open to a change of mind or heart, which is not always the case. Less widely publicized are Gandhi's beliefs that armed resistance was wrong even when one's country was being invaded, and that the victims of the Holocaust should have committed mass suicide in order to keep the Nazi soldiers from committing the sin of murdering them.

It is worth noting that Gandhi, while raised a Hindu, was greatly influenced in his youth in Gujarat by neighbors who practiced the Jain religion. Jainism is arguably where the Dharmic principle of ahimsa finds its ultimate manifestation. Jains are so committed to ahimsa that not only are all Jains vegetarian or vegan but many wear masks over their noses and mouths to avoid breathing in and killing insects. The most ascetic of Jains see suffering at the hands of the violent a demonstration of spiritual merit and a means of self-purification (starving oneself to death is also a socially acceptable form of suicide among Jains), and will endeavor not only to avoid sthula himsa or destruction of "higher" beings -- those with two or more senses -- but also suksma himsa which is harming of suksma jiva or "subtle life forms." Attempts to avoid the latter would mean among other things avoidance of eating root vegetables because their harvest might disturb suksma jiva in the soil (interestingly this notion predates the discovery of microorganisms by Western science). If you've seen the commercial where a monk frets when he learns that his Kleenex tissue kills 99% of germs, you have somewhat of an idea of Jain views of ahimsa. Virodhi himsa, which is best defined as injury committed in self-defense (so long as one makes sure to cause the least possible injury necessary under the circumstances) is permitted though discouraged for the laity, and absolutely forbidden to monks. This will likely seem fanatical to many readers, but most Jains acknowledge that even their so-called "extreme" ahimsa is not perfect; e.g., they still consume vegetables and seeds, which is technically still taking a life. One consumes and kills millions of microorganisms (or suksma jiva if you prefer) just by drinking a glass of water or taking a breath of air. It is impossible to live, at least for very long, without taking the life of something.

Absolute perfect ahimsa is not only impractical, but impossible. Even the most ardent environmentalists acknowledge that one cannot have an ecological footprint of zero unless one ceases to exist -- not simply dies, but ceases to be. Thus it should be established that we are never going to be perfectly nonviolent. This of course does not justify violence in all forms under all circumstances. The question then becomes: where exactly do we draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable?

Maybe it would help to take a step back and look at the etymology of the word violent. The definition I get from my dictionary is "using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." It is further worth noting, though, that the word itself comes from the same root word as violate, which can mean (1) to break or fail to comply with (e.g. a rule or formal agreement) (2) fail to respect (e.g. someone's peace, privacy, or rights). (3) treat with irreverence or disrespect. (4) rape or sexually assault.

This, to me, brings up some questions: