Is there any politics at all in violence?

 

Source: Google Images

It is said that violence is inextricably linked with Bengal politics. That is not entirely correct. It should be noted that violence is deeply involved in the political history of the world. Now ‘Politics in Violence’ or ‘Violence in Politics’ - which context would be correct as part of the interpretation of the widely used phrase ‘political violence’, that is to be judged. Pitirim Sorokin, a sociologist, concluded from a survey of European political history that an average of four years of peace is followed by one year full of violence. Lenin said about the last century that the period was about war and revolution. That is, if you peek into the heart of naming, which can be called the era of violence. And this is where the course of violence turns in two directions - one, state-established violence and two, mass violence. On the one hand, the state supports violence against foreign countries, on the other hand, it also causes violence against the people of the country. In the case of foreign countries, the state speaks of protection of borders or sovereignty, while in the case of homeland, the state claims that it is taking recourse to the law to maintain peace and order in the country. While that is reasonable to suppress terrorism, this becomes a serious irrationality in the case of protest movement or suppression of dissent. Similarly, there are two forms of mass violence. On the one hand it is the vengeance of the masses against the masses, and on the other hand it is the expression of the masses' resentment against the state. The first of these four divisions is called war, the second is state terrorism, the third is crime and the fourth is movement. Gandhiji was not uncontroversial about war, yet he was against it on a personal level, he wrote, 

“I know that war is wrong, is an unmitigated evil. I know too that it has got to go”.

 On state terrorism, he wrote, 

“The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence…The fear is always there that the State may use too much violence against those who differ from it”. 

And his clear view of crime is that, 

“Crime is a disease like any other malady and is a product of the prevalent social system”.

 Needless to say, his position on the movement is that he is on the path of truth and non-violence.

There is politics in every aspect of life. If we linked it to violence, then everything from marital strife to civil war has to be blamed on politics. So it is important to think a little deeper. In fact, there is an implicit word hidden between politics and violence, which is called power. It is normal to have plurality in the society. And it is not uncommon for powerful groups in the majority to seek to maintain power through social and political control. But if this one-sided system continues for a long time, other sections of the society become victims of frustration and separatism. At the same time it starts becoming politically conscious. Then the fire of violence began. C wright Mills' statement in this context is, 

“All politics is struggle for power; the ultimate kind of power is violence.” 

There are two forms of what Max Weber calls “legitimate violence” - one is already mentioned as state terrorism, and the other is the state's flexible approach to crime. Of all the controversies going on at this moment in West Bengal, the second one is the most important. But at the end of all the debates, it must be remembered that the reflection of violence is in fact a violence, there is no argument for or against politics. And at the end all violence eventually destroys human lives and property. That is probably why Gandhiji mentioned trusteeship. Although its practical application points to a society almost devoid of six evil instincts of life which is virtually impossible. So the ‘soulless’ state has to show a mindset of instinctless here. Ideology should be a rival to ideology. People should not become supporters of violence against ideology. The border line is here that education and taste have created between man and beast - not to be forgotten.