Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent

A young boy named Aarav lived in a small village in India. His family, like most others, had a hard time making enough money. One afternoon, Aarav found himself watching a heated argument between two important men in the village — the rich landowner and the poor farmer. The argument started over something small, like who had the right to use the village’s water for farming, but it quickly grew worse.
 

At first, the argument was just words, with each man blaming the other. But then, the landowner, who had a lot of power, started making threats against the farmer, who didn’t have the same kind of influence. Aarav watched as the argument turned into violence. The landowner, feeling threatened by the farmer’s accusations, pulled out a gun and pointed it at him. The sudden violence shocked everyone, especially Aarav. The landowner’s choice to use force instead of talking things through left Aarav confused.
 

Later, after the violence ended, the landowner walked away without facing any real consequences. He kept his power, while the farmer lost everything — his land, his livelihood, and his sense of pride. The violence didn’t solve anything; it just made things worse. It was clear to Aarav that violence is often used when people can’t solve their problems any other way.
 

Explanation of the Story
 

The story of Aarav and the village dispute shows a bigger truth about how people handle problems. When someone doesn’t know how to solve a problem through talking, thinking, or planning, they might choose violence because they feel it’s their only option. This can happen because a person is afraid, lacks emotional skills, or simply doesn’t know how to fix the situation in a peaceful way.
 

In the case of the landowner, he used violence as a way to stay in control. When he felt unable to deal with the problem by talking or negotiating, he turned to violence. This shows that violence is often a sign of weakness, not strength.
 

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” means that when someone resorts to violence, it’s usually because they don’t have the ability to solve a problem in a better way. People who can’t find peaceful solutions might use violence as a shortcut, but it rarely solves anything in the long term. This can be seen in both personal situations and on a global level.
 

Global Context – The War in Iraq (2003)
 

A global example of this can be seen in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United States, led by President George W. Bush, decided to attack Iraq, claiming that the country had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, when the invasion happened, no WMDs were found, and the reasons for attacking were questioned by many people.
 

The decision to go to war was seen by many as a failure of diplomacy and negotiation. The leaders involved didn’t try hard enough to solve the problem through peaceful means or dialogue. Instead, they turned to violence and military action. Many argue that the U.S. invaded because they felt it was the only option left, even though there were no clear reasons for war. In the end, the war caused massive destruction, many deaths, and created long-lasting problems in the region, including the rise of groups like ISIS. This shows how violence, rather than being a solution, often leads to even bigger problems.
 

Indian Context – The 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
 

Another example of violence as a result of incompetence in India is the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots. After the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, violent mobs attacked Sikhs across India, especially in Delhi. The violence that followed wasn’t just a reaction to the assassination; it was a reflection of deeper issues in society, like communal tensions and a lack of proper leadership.
 

Instead of trying to understand the reasons behind the assassination or working to prevent the violence, people turned to anger and hatred, attacking innocent Sikhs. Those who took part in the violence were unable to deal with their emotions or the situation in a peaceful way. This only made things worse, deepening the divide between communities and leading to even more harm. The violence didn’t fix anything and caused lasting pain for many people.
 

The Psychological Perspective: Why Violence?
 

On a psychological level, people often turn to violence when they feel powerless, angry, or afraid. Violence may seem like a quick way to regain control or get what someone wants. When people don’t know how to communicate or solve problems in a calm, thoughtful way, they may think violence is their only option.

In both personal situations and big global conflicts, when violence happens, it shows that those involved don’t have the skills to find solutions without hurting others. Violence can be a way for people to control others when they feel they can’t influence them in any other way. This often leads to even more problems, as it doesn't truly solve the issue at hand.
 

The Teachings of Gautama Buddha: Non-Violence and Peaceful Resolution
 

The teachings of Gautama Buddha provide an important lesson in handling conflict without violence. Buddha emphasized that true strength lies in understanding, patience, and compassion, not in force or control.
 

One story that exemplifies this is when Buddha encountered a man named Angulimala. Angulimala was a killer who had committed many crimes. When he encountered Buddha on the road, he tried to threaten him, intending to kill him too. However, Buddha remained calm and unafraid. He did not react with anger or violence, but instead, he spoke to Angulimala with kindness and wisdom. Buddha’s peaceful response shocked Angulimala, who realized the error of his ways. Instead of reacting with violence, Buddha’s calmness and wisdom led to the transformation of Angulimala from a violent person to a peaceful one. Buddha’s story shows that peace, understanding, and non-violence can change even the most violent hearts.
 

Buddha’s teachings focus on Ahimsa, or non-violence. He taught that violence, whether in thought, speech, or action, only causes suffering, both to the one who commits it and the one who experiences it. Instead, Buddha emphasized resolving conflict with compassion, understanding, and a willingness to see things from the other person’s perspective.
 

Buddha’s core message was that peace is not just the absence of violence, but the presence of understanding and compassion. His teaching suggests that when people can resolve their conflicts through dialogue and compassion, rather than force, they will experience greater happiness and inner peace.
 

The Power of Non-Violence in Modern Times
 

Buddha’s message of non-violence resonates even today. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, who led India’s fight for independence, adopted Buddha’s teachings on non-violence (Ahimsa). Gandhi believed that non-violence was the most powerful tool for social and political change. He understood that violence only led to more violence, while peaceful resistance could bring about real, lasting change. Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence is seen in his famous Salt March in 1930, when he peacefully led thousands of Indians to the coastal village of Dandi to protest British salt taxes. Despite the harsh repression from British authorities, Gandhi and his followers remained non-violent, showing that strength doesn’t lie in violence, but in peaceful action and moral courage.
 

Gandhi’s approach also shows that true competence is found in the ability to influence others through wisdom and understanding, not through force or fear. When leaders resort to violence, they are revealing their incompetence, as they fail to address the root causes of conflict and resort to power instead of persuasion.
 

Conclusion: Moving Beyond Violence
 

Both the examples from India and around the world show that violence is not a good way to solve problems. True strength comes from the ability to deal with problems through talking, thinking, and finding peaceful solutions. When people use violence, it shows that they can’t solve things in a better way. Violence is a sign of weakness, not power. In a world that wants to move forward, we should work to find ways to deal with problems without using violence. Violence is not the answer, and it doesn’t bring real change. It is a sign of failure to handle situations in a smart, peaceful way. Instead, societies and individuals should learn to solve their issues through intelligence, understanding, and calm discussion.