When Gandi pleaded with his political rivals to renounce violence against the oppressive British Empire, some reminded him that all human beings are not mahatma s and that the British are the least so. Although Gandhi s non-violence played a great deal in achieving India s independence, it was not the only factor that forced the British out of India. But the vanishing British Empire found, in Ghandi s non-violence, a dignified exit out of India. I am posing all these questions not for a theoretical diversion but to make you ponder over the issue and to make you realize that non-violence cannot be adapted at all times and in all circumstances as the only strategy. Some dictators may respond to non-violence, but ours is certainly not among them.
Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love.
Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't even call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence. The keyword above is intelligence. To respond non-violently when cornered by a hungry wolf or when trapped by a deranged psychopath is to exhibit extreme poor intelligence. Behavioral psychologists and psychiatrists have long known the phenomenon of incorrigible or hardened criminals who are beyond psychotherapy.