operation. Now in order to cure this suffering man as well as to protect others from Case of surgical operation catching this infection, a surgeon may have to remove the infected part. This cutting of the body by a knife also cannot be looked upon either as violence or non-violence.
Situation No. 3. Suppose an aggressive nation invades a weaker nation for selfish purposes, and another nation, inspired solely by the noble desire of saving the weak nation, resists Case of aggressive nation this aggressive invasion by armed force. Fighting in defence of the weak nation cannot be looked upon as either violence or non-violence, but can be called non-violent violence.
Situation No. 4. Suppose a mad dog has run amuck and is likely to bite the school-children, and the teachers Case of mad dog in the school destroy the mad dog in order to protect the children. This destruction of the mad dog does imply violence, but there is no hatred in it.
Situation No. 5. Suppose a physically strong man is insulted and Case of non-violence of the strongspat upon by an arrogant man who is nevertheless weak, and suppose that the strong man who has the power to crush the arrogant man not only desists from hurting the arrogant man, but calmly explains to him the gospel of love. This action implies non-violence, but it is the non-violence of the strong.
The Need for delicate considerations first three situations mentioned above clearly bring out that the question whether a situation implies violence or non-violence cannot be decided except by entering into many subtle and
delicate considerations: (1) regarding the diverse details of the situation, and (2) regarding the motive which prompts action. The last two situations show that even where violence or non-violence are implied, certain other factors give meaning beyond the ordinary sense attached to these words “violence” and “non-violence.”
A detailed analysis of situation No. 1 shows that though it involves the use of force without prior consent of the victim, the motive was to save the drowning man. Comments on case of drowning man The application of force without the consent of the man on whom it is used, may be termed a case of violence. But the force is used for the good of the drowning man and not with any desire to inflict injury or harm on him, and in that sense it may be said that it is not a case of violence. In these special senses the situation can be said to involve violence and non-violence respectively, but in the ordinary sense of the words it cannot be looked upon as a case of either violence or non-violence.
Situation No. 2 is slightly different. Here also there is application of force (even to cutting of the body), which is for the good of the patient. But in most cases the patient gives his prior consent Comments on case of surgical operation to the operation. Further, the operation is intended not only to protect the patient himself from the further ravages of the disease, but is also intended to protect others from the spread of infection. The application of force here springs out of the motive of doing unmixed good, both to the patient as well as many others who might come into contact with him. Since no harm is intended, the application of force does not amount to violence in the ordinary sense. Nor can it be adequately looked upon as non-violence, since it is a clear case of cutting a part
