Truth Vs Non Violence

When it comes arguments, a lot of times a battle can be won at the cost of war.

When one argues with another person, the only reason it is being called argument and not monologue is because the other person is talking. Because the other person has interest.

Sometimes arguments can be "won" at the cost of people. At the cost of other person losing interest. At those times it is important for us to ask ourselves if it is worth it.

We argue with a person to mutually educate ourselves. There is not much education in losing people. People worth losing are never worth arguing with, and vice versa.

When Gandhi spoke about truth and non violence as two virtues, he was hinting to us that sometimes truth, or perception of it, leads to "violence". When we are right, our approach towards others is "violent". Gandhi believed that "violence" should not be narrowly defined as physical act of violence, but should also include our mental process, our approach towards others and so on.

With that refined definition of violence it is easy to see how truth can sometimes lead to violence, and on the other hand trying to avoid violence, trying to be too polite too much, leads us away from truth.

Life is a quest to walk the thin line between truth and non violence. We are too quick to "lose" people, and resort to show of strength to "prove" our ideas, or lose ideas to "keep" people. Only when we can walk the thin line, that we can create a world that Gandhi envisioned.