Non-violence vs. Violence, what is right?

Non-violence vs. violence, is a very important as well as old issue, and my opinion I have jotted down in many places.
I dislike both state and activist, violence. You cant include one in your equation and exclude the other. And I think it is a hypocrisy to accept one and not the other. They are mirror image of each other.

I am thus against death sentence.

Late Nabakrusna Choudhury and Malati Choudhury, were life long Gandhian and fully aware of both sides of the debate. They always told that this is a political problem and not a law and order problem. However when you don't handle it politically it goes out of hand because most people don't have the luxury of debating it, in an intellectual and indifferent manner, and the state has the responsibility here of defining the parameters and boundaries. Activist violence (or Naxalite violence for that matter,) is based on objective situation. For example two days back there was a news item - I wish I had saved the link - from Maharashtra. The PMs had recently gone there and declared a package to avert suicide of farmers. There was a stipulation in there to pay out Rs. 5000 per farmer- as emergency relief. The babus however are demanding a bribe of Rs. 2000 up front for disbursement of this money. Now the question is who will punish them? No doubt Chandra Babu Naidu did bite the dust for similar situation in AP - but were the bureaucrats responsible for 5000 suicides in AP penalised in any way? Now what would you do, if you were the kid of one, who has thus committed suicide? And you have seen this wrong policy being perpetrated year, after year, after year? Some one pays with his life and some one else enjoys. Political violence is a risky game. Stakes are very high and thus only highly committed and convinced people can take that path. It is not for the faint hearted, for sure. There is no assured light at the end of the tunnel. NO GADDI or Governorship, is assured either.

One of my pet theory is that Gandhi's greatest contribution is the tactical lowering of the height of the hurdle. By bringing in nonviolence he expanded participation in freedom movement many fold and thus made India ungovernable for the British.
In business terms, by his tactics Gandhi made the return on on British colonial investment negative and thus they got out.

That is why I admire Gandhi: http://mathtalentsearch.blogspot.com/2006/05/relevance-of-gandhi.html

That is why I crave for the expansion of the civil society, and I was one of the most disappointed persons when AP Govt broke off with the AP Naxalites at the behest of their Police / bureaucracy.
I remember even such eminent socialists, and later environmentalist like Late Banka Behari Das, stating that being a minister he can't go against interest of the Govt. (though it conflicts with the interest of the people ).

This is such an important issue that we have to think out of the Box.

The colonial mind set is still prevalent in India, largely. Why else can't they get rid of the oppressive laws in Manipur etc and make it linger indefinitely? How can a Govt. provide it's Military with a legal cover to rape it's own citizen, and get away with impunity? Do you think we have a right to judge those people, who under those circumstances take law in to their own hands, and become violent, after 50 long years? I think the situation is better and but not much better / different in Malkangiri or Chitrokonda( or greater KBK area). Tell me why else such a movement survived for 40 years? Lot of leadership / activist were killed or jailed and many have left the field just because they have become old. Yes, those who were 25 year old have become 65 years - if they survived the OMP action all these years. The intensity has only increased & not decreased, and so have their numbers and area of influence. It has not reduced over all these years. Ministers are even afraid of going to districts for flag hoisting. Does not it tell you something, about the of objective conditions?

Because of her celebrity status Ms. Arundhuti Roy is bringing the information and issues to the fore. But why should we grudge it? We have not banned Cine stars from participating in Election rallies. Actually couple of them are MPs, one couple continue as such even after filing false affidavit with the election commission about their marital status.

Let me tell you one fact to bring to you the dimensions of frustration of many interested in improvement of secondary education. For each 1 million tonne steel plant GOO gives a subsidy per year of 1500 crores only on iron Ore, a resource lost for ever. Yet 40 thousand school teacher posts are vacant today which will cost 200 / 250 crores/year which will make states' foundation of secondary education strong. Of course teaches have to teach but how can you ask them to if they are not there?
And you have heard already about the scandal about old colleges like Bikram Deb College Jeypore having only one Math professors for years. And the status of 3 old Universities of the state 50+-10 years old.

Again it seems I am digressing far but how can you make people non-violent without making them aware of the issues of the debate and hence part of a civil society? How can you ignore their minimum demands and then expect them to remain docile? I put you the same questions I wrote in my appeal to PM, for an IIT in Orissa (actually I like him very much for his honesty and simplicity of living). How do you encourage non-violent behavior by ignoring such protests - and I think that it what Ms. Roy is arguing per my understanding of the interview.

The enemy no longer is recognizable by the color of their skin, which in Gandhi's time was the case.