[an error occurred while processing this directive]
TWO WINGS OF DHARMA
the case of India it has been said that the non-violence of the
country allowed it to be overrun by foreign conquerors. Historians
like Toynbee have noted that the Muslim conquest of India was one of
the bloodiest in history and that Hindu non-violence does not appear
to have been able to save lives or protect Hindu culture.
Oriental cultures which incline toward non-violence are looked at
by Western people as inferior, as lacking in strength compared to
those in the West who stand up for their rights by force of arms as
soon as they see the need. Hindu non-violence and tolerance has been
perceived by such groups not as a form of strength or spirituality
but as a type of weakness, cowardice or lack of faith.
After all, if
you really believe in something, won't you stand up for it when it
is challenged or attacked? When a violent group perceives a
non-violent group as weak, this very non-violence gives them the
incentive to promote their advantage. Hence it is argued that
non-violence can actually incite violence, while a strong defense
can protect against attack.