สวัสดีครับ
ปกติผมจะป้วนเปี้ยนแต่แถวๆ ห้อง Blueplanet เพราะผมเป็นคนชอบเดินทางท่องเที่ยว แต่พอผมได้ยินข่าวความรุนแรงเมื่อวันที่ 7 ตุลาแล้วผมทนไม่ได้จริงๆ ครับ มองไปทางไหนก็มีแต่กลุ่มพันธมิตรจ๋าทั้งนั้น ตอนนี้ผมเรียนอยู่ที่อเมริกาครับ แต่ก็เป็นห่วงสถานการณ์ทางเมืองไทยไม่ยิ่งหย่อนไปกว่าคนไทยที่อาศัยอยู่ในประเทศไทยในขณะนี้
เพื่อประกาศให้โลกรู้ว่า การกระทำที่เรียกว่า "อารยะขัดขืน" ของกลุ่มพันธมิตรนั้น แท้ที่จริงแล้ว มันก็คือการกบฏนั่นเอง ผมเลยเขียนบทความภาษาอังกฤษเกี่ยวกับเรื่องนี้ เพื่อให้เพื่อนชาวอเมริกันของผมที่มีโอกาสได้อ่านเข้าใจความเป็นไปของบ้านเมืองมากขึ้นครับ (เว็บไซต์ที่ผมเขียนลงนั้นคือ facebook ครับ ซึ่งก็คล้ายๆ กับ Hi5 บ้านเรา แต่ที่อเมริกานิยมเว็บนี้มากกว่า ขออภัยที่ผมไม่สามารถนำลิงค์ตรงๆ ของบทความนี้มาลงได้ครับ แต่สามารถพิสูจน์ได้โดยหาจาก Google ครับ รับรองว่าไม่มีเขียนไว้ที่ไหนแน่นอน)
Civil Disobedience: Difference between the Thais and the Indians
What is civil disobedience? Last summer I went back to Thailand and found that PAD leaders claimed what they have done as 'Civil Disobedience' (อารยะขัดขืน). I really wondered what this word actually means. Therefore, I looked in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, civil disobedience is
"The active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of the government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence."
Please look at the meaning closely again, and focus on the phrase "without resorting to physical violence". If the resistance to State's power is done through violence, that is called 'Rebellion'. I want to point out that although the intentions to overthrow the government are the same, the actions are different. Therefore, civil disobedience and rebellion are different by a very small margin.
There were several people who had been involved with civil disobedience, including Mohandas Gandhi of India and Nelson Mandela of South Africa. Let's look closely at Mr. Gandhi's version of civil disobedience versus the PAD's version of civil disobedience. There are certainly differences.
Mohandas Gandhi was the key figure who fought for an Indian independence from the British Empire by 'ahimsa' method. Gandhi was the believer of truth and nonviolence. He said that the most important battle to fight is against our own evils and demons in our minds. For his devotion for nonviolence movements, please go ahead and read about him in Wikipedia. His weapons against the powerful British Empire back then were merely his following principles,
1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger.
2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.
4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.
5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Flag, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.
From his principles, he would never strike his opponents, even by swearing or cursing. His version of civil disobedience was merely the protection of Indian people's own land, property and people. His legacies inspired many civil rights movements, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.
Now let's look at the PAD's version of civil disobedience. The leaders always claimed that he followed the 'ahimsa' way of demonstration. Now what? Were the PAD's actions 'ahimsa'? By seizing a TV station, the government compond and several ministries, is this 'ahimsa'? By closing down airports and railway system. is this 'ahimsa'? I would not have any objections with the PAD if they peacefully protest the government. Of course, it's the basic of people's rights. In democratic society, of course everyone has equal rights. However, there must be a limit to the rights also. People attack or siege other people's properties and claiming "That's my right". However, this also violates the attacked people's rights in their properties as well. People, no matter rich or poor, have equal basic rights according to the constitution. The actions violating other people's right, therefore, are not the rights.
Now let's go back to Gandhi's famous 'ahimsa' method. His intention not to retaliate his opponents does not violate other people's right. The situation in Thailand is the opposite. The raids and seizures of many government places clearly showed that the group didn't demonstrate by the mean of 'civil disobedience', but instead, 'rebellion'. Like I said earlier, civil disobedience and rebellion are differed by only a small margin, only through actions.
If the violence started, the other party need to exercise violence as well. This is the same case, I believe that eventually the government must break down PAD's mob. Then what's the good for Thai people? PAD leaders bowed not to stop their seizures of the government offices. The government must eventually use the force to dissolve the mob. If both sides couldn't agree to stop violence (NOTE: BOTH SIDES MUST AGREE TO EACH OTHER), the bloody scenes in Bangkok will continue.
Please, do you really want Thai people to fight among ourselves? Do you want to damage the weakened Thai economy? We want peace, and we don't want people to fight each other just only because of different political views. People should judge things by reason and truth, not force and violence. That's what religions, sciences and philosophy are trying to explore.
ก่อนที่มันจะยาวเกินไป ผมขออนุญาตแปลในรีพลายถัดไปนะครับ
จากคุณ :
KP3@UTH 
- [
12 ต.ค. 51 09:58:58
A:24.14.35.11 X:
]
ความคิดเห็นต่อการ "อารยะขัดขืน" ของพันธมิตร
