Confusing the readers
Came across the following piece in a column entitled "The Ahimsa Way" by one Ms. Usha Jesudasan in The Hindu today (November 16, 2008):
Had it been in an obscure publication, one would have chosen to ignore the same. However, when it comes in The Hindu, it calls for a prompt response:
As the author herself rightly claims, there is no single definition of "Simple Living" that is universally accepted. Even if such a definition were to exist, one doesn't comprehend how "wanting more" by someone else's definition can be a form of violence.
Dear Ms. Usha, please, for heaven's sake, don't invent new definitions of violence. We have enough of violence as it is. Once we start expanding the gamut of what is considered violent behaviour, you'll find more and more people becoming immune to the same, and, as a corollary, become more willing to indulge in violent behaviour.
If, for instance, one's value system includes murder and arson as violent behaviour, a certain percentage of people will be willing to indulge in violent behaviour.
However, if we extend our attention to, for instance, mosquitoes, and claim that killing mosquitoes is also a form of violence, you'll find a much higher percentage of people ready to be violent. This will potentially lead to a dangerous situation because while people will be more reluctant to move from "non-violent" to "violent" behaviour, they are likely to be more willing to move from one level of violent behaviour to the next higher plane of violence.
Surely, this cannot be the purpose of anyone espousing the cause of Ahimsa.
Regards,
N
