________________
Violence in the context....
139
everyone's primary duty to protect the chastity of the ladies and to protect one's own self. It is also a duty to defend one-self at the time of enemy's invasion and defence of the sovereignty and to defend country's borders. Therefore, this violence of violence as opposition cannot be totally abolished. When violence is attempted for self-defence, it is desirable to behave taking care not to allow sin, hatred and revenge in the mind. When violence is to be taken in hand, have to kill or either to die or to kill, then the main work might be to protect or as part of moral duty, at that it becomes difficult to regard it undesirable or avoid it. The only condition is that, this duty must be on religious path and moral.
The best illustrations of this kind of violence are best in men Sri Ramachandra who did not transgress certain limits, in freedom. When it is impossible to oppose injustice, it becomes inevitable to take the help of violence in opposition. In ordinary routine life it is believed to be necessary to offer resistence to injustice. Should not an individual who does not oppose injustice be stamped as an indirect supporter of injustice ? It was only to resist injustice that Gandhiji proclaimed the struggle for freedom. In the modern age, Mahatma Gandhiji made the country independent by means of non-violent 'Satyagrah’, by agitation. Such a non-violence is not a business of cowards. It is nothing but a hypocricy to hide one's weakness by holding Ahimsa as a shield under the cover of an ideal “Non-violence is the greatest Duty.” Such an artificial face of Ahimsa weakens the people.
When we reflect upon the actors' of historical warsituations, we find that the feelings and mental agonies of great souls like Satee Sitajee, Vibhishan, Udhisthir, Arjuna, Bhishma, Dronacharya, Vidurjee, Bimbisaar or Bhagwan Mahavir’s time's Shrenik, Chedā Rājā, Chetak Rājā, Rājā Udayan, Ashok the