The capacity for resistance II - Tolerance, The Pathway towards Self-Leadership

I would like to give some interesting examples of resistance and tolerance.

Gandhi’s fight

At the beginning, he was considered a crazy idealist man by those who met him. Gandhi used his skills to keep himself above the English domination. His fantastic Salt March was an example of a man’s charisma, who left the easiest option (about three hundred millions Indians with knives running after the British Lords) and who adopted the idea of the ahimsa, that is, non-violence.

We can see in him very clearly the former cycle: his idea was that mental and spiritual freedom was higher, which generated a change in the world perception. For the first time people were talking about the freedom of a whole population without violence. Nowadays, we see international negotiators traveling country to country, many of them successfully attaining peace. But at that time, Gandhi emerged as a deep paradigmatic change agent challenging the biggest empire of the moment.

By establishing the difference of potential, of consciousness between the English conquerors and the people of India, Gandhi got to create a huge resistance towards the empire where the Sun never sets. English weapons and the power of their culture could not overcome that.

A resistance that turns into tolerance: instead of fighting for their rights, Indians started to tolerate defamations and distress. Soldiers beat people without reaction. However, like ants in the jungle, the people did not stop. Tolerance made them even stronger and helped to increase their numbers until that point when the giant kneeled before the weak half-naked slim man who looked more a fakir than a Chief of State.

With tolerance, they got a bigger shift in their consciousness and that generate more resistance and so on. It was not a lineal process; it was not that millions of people joined the Mahatma immediately. No, at every cycle, more people joined the cause of non-violence.

Gandhi influenced many thinkers and known XX Century Western people. The idea of non-violence was the flag of the 60’s and 70’s hippies, and it is still present somehow in modern thinking.

Motherly love is the purest way to love

Mother’s consciousness enables the woman to stand in front of the worse suffering and insults for the sake of her child. In other words, the elevated consciousness increases her resistance in front of any adversity.

However, one of the most painful processes the Western society is going through at present is the breaking down of families. It is calculated that in United States, 40% of families have gone through a separation processes. In Latin-American, this number is increasing: in Colombia, a statistic indicates that marriages last in average a little more than twelve years.

Motherly love is also going through the consequences of a change in the family members’ lifestyle. In this way, resistance to day-to-day problems is less, tolerance decreases, which translates into an even lower level of consciousness. In this way, the cycle keeps on going until the person ends with stress and very exhausted.

In fact, at this moment, all of us – women and men – can be mothers… of the world. Perhaps we are living a unique situation in history in which our perception of humanity is stronger than the religious, cultural or race barriers. And for that we need to think of the self as a mother capable to give love and attention to the lives of our friends, co-workers and even to unknown people, to the whole world.

It might sound idealist, but it is a possibility we have to avoid stress. It is a question of not think too much, but developing this consciousness, either you are a mother or not, either you have children or not. It is a question of think of what you have within to give humankind. Physical charity is not as fundamental as feelings and thoughts.

When I put these examples, I try to show the role of resistance in terms of tolerance. Why don’t we reflect about the level of our own consciousness? I would like to ask three questions that may help you to check if the difference of potential is high enough to face the current. Sometimes, when we respond such questions, we tend to know the “right” answers, as they are a bit obvious. The idea is however to have honest responses even though they are not like the “right” ones.

1. When you wake up, where do your first thoughts go to?
2. During the day, are you more involved in problems or solutions?
3. By night, do you relax and try to forget whatever happened during the day or do you try to dedicate sometime to create, learn and live something new and different?

 (partial extract from the book El Camino hacia el Autoliderazgo)

Back or forth?

During years, since I started to get interested in the Nobel Prizes, there has been a very interesting fluctuation between politics and non-politics.

Well, to be sincere, most of the assigned prizes have been quite political. Perhaps the only exception I can really think of is Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

This year, 3 women have been chosen, which is by itself quite intriguing. Although all of the 3 have their actions embedded in politics, their choice goes beyond that. As it says in the statement, they have been chosen "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work".

First of all, STANDING OVATION to you three. I don't think there will any doubt or polemic as the former years. But it is the non-violent piece appeals to me. As I have said many times before, I really don't believe in peace as a result of the lack of violence or war. I live in Colombia, and I can see that even the war being eradicated, there is still so much violence. I have seen in countries where the biggest violence is a run-over, and still I see so much anger inside.

But I understand it is a process, perhaps longer than we would appreciate, to stop associating peace with war.

Is it possible? I think it is, and it will be real revolution, much more powerful than any other. When people - at least a critical mass of people - realise within that peace starts from the self, then the world will change dramatically.

Think what will happen with the economy when people are really satisfied, when marketing cannot attract others, but just inform. What will happen when people are not looking for show, but for being peaceful?

Probably, you would think it will be quite boring. I used to think like that. And, yes, in the present context it will be boring. But, contexts change. And really hope this way back to non-violence by the Nobel-prize granters can make people more aware of its importance.