The Limits of Pacifism

By: Bikal Dhungel

Non-violence is a powerful weapon. It knelled down an empire where the sun never set. However, where is the limit of non-violence ? Where is the limit of pacifism ? Had the British continually opened fire on the non-violent protesters in India, would they continue to believe in Gandhi ? How long would Nelson Mandela accept the massacre of his people from violent armed forces ?


Unfortunately, our history is mixed. Non-violence in the case of South Africa, India and the Civil Rights movement in America under Martin Luther King Junior had success but on the other hand, not confronting the oppressors violently with weapon has caused millions of lives. The Rwandan Genocide, when the Hutu Militants massacred a million people of Tutsi ethnic group within three months, the world looked away. They refused to take action. The international community could send the army to Rwanda to stop the Hutus from killing. Even the United Nations pulled out from Rwanda. Later, the US president Bill Clinton apologized publicly for not sending the US Army to Rwanda. He could have saved one million people. Similarly, the question goes further, shall we tolerate terrorist groups and tackle them non-violently ? Would non-violence works against Al Quida or Taliban or Boko Haram or any other extremist groups ?

Recently, radical Islamists called ISIS calling for an Islamic State forced more than 200,000 Kurds to flee northern Iraq and killed more than 1000 people as of 10^th August. The international community is tired of sending troops abroad which is connected with huge costs and causality but feel their responsibility to act. This is why countries like France and UK decided to send weapons for the kurdish forces to fight back the islamists. Most pacifist Germany also decided to take part in the operation. Not doing anything against the radicals would result in massive loss of human lives and infra-structures. So, being attached on pacifism is not always a right thing to do. Saving human lives in any cost should be the priority. If weapons can be used to save lives, we should do it.



Imagine what would have happened if the NATO had not bombed Kosovo, imagine what would Hitler do if the allied forces had not reacted in time. So, if weapons could be used to kill people, it can also be used to save people and install peace. We should only make sure that weapons do not end at wrong hands but in general , sticking to Pacifism can be dangerous in some situation and we should know the limits of this.