It made me think about the choices we’re normally given: violence or subservience. Black liberation theology by and large remained silent about any violence in the black power movement because the theologians understood why the black community was angry to the point of violence. In central America, some liberation theologians took up arms with the resistence movements, and most at the least aided the resistence.

Those are the only two choices the dominant culture uses. And unfortunately, in the short- to mid-term, it often works for them. (I just read a book about genocide in 16th century Mexico, 18th century Tasmania, 19th century Apacheria and 19th century German southwest Africa, so I’m a little cynical.) What’s going to work for the tribals?

But the post itself makes me aware that there are more serious challenges than avoiding traffic collisions. It is complex, and I too wonder just how far my own pacifism can extend under certain circumstances. To always act in ways of peace requires a tremendous amount of strength and faith, and if placed in an extreme situation, I’m not sure I’d be up to it.

You know, I happened to glance at a headline from September 23 just after posting this about police shooting 7 Maoists to death under kind of suspicious circumstances, and more than a few people think that the arrest of one of their main leaders was intentionally antagonistic, so there is more than one side, and when my uncle talked about praying we’d all become monkeys again, he said it with an awareness that the people with resources utilize them in profoundly punitive ways. Nonetheless, I agree that violence isn’t strategically wise any more than it’s moral. Try telling that to a middle class Indian regarding Kashmir, though….

Thanks very much for an interesting post.

I lit on the word “tempt” in your recounting of your friends’s views on pacifism in southern Mexico. Did he use that word (if you remember)? Did he / do you see it as temptation to sin, to be resisted, or are you just using it in a general sense?

I don’t know anything about the situation in Southern Mexico, but it sounds from your recounting like in this case the Naxalites are at least as oppressive as the Indian government. Few other poverty-reduction measures are as effective as roads. Similarly, blowing up railroads inconveniences the “middle class”*, but it hurts the poor much more by denying them goods from outside. How many government rupees would be going to health clinics or schools, if they weren’t used for rebuilding railroads and hiring anti-Naxalite soldiers?

Maybe there’s another side, but I see this as a lesson in why violent resistance is wrong even from a self-interested perspective, let alone a Christian perspective.

* [I always think the term "middle class" is a lie in South Asia. If it doesn't include the median, it ain't the middle. I also think it's a pernicious lie, with political overtones. I understand your usage, though; I've never gotten a South Asian to agree with me on this.]