To prefer violence?

You tend to think of philosophers as peaceful souls. I don't really think anyone thought of a philosopher who prioritises violence. I mean, like, the chappie is most likely to say that 'War indicates a failure of diplomacy' or 'There is nothing that cannot be sorted by sitting down to discuss' and things like that. In fact, the first advice that you expect a philosopher to give in times of conflict is to sit together and discuss. Perhaps, the idea is that you can kill a conflict by boring people to death.

Not so Tiru. At least, as it seems, not in this kural:

Ollumvaa yellaam vinai nandrae ollaakkaal sellumvai nokkich cheyal - Tirukkural

It is best to overcome by fighting if possible; if not, opt for any other workable method - Loose Translation

It needs be clarified that, in India, four methods of overcoming an enemy were outlined - sama, daana, bheda and danda. Sama is the art of discussion and, possibly, compromise; daana is attempting to bribe the enemy to concede; bheda is to try to divide the enemy by creating divisiveness in their ranks; danda is to attack and overcome the enemy.

So, Tiru prefers the violent option of attacking and overcoming the enemy as the first choice, if it is at all possible to win that battle. In the event that such a victory is seen as impossible, he advises that you should seek an alternative solution which is workable from out of the other three options.

On the face of it, this seems like war-mongering. Even if one takes it literally, and not metaphorically, the point is that Tiru probably sees the other options as only postponing the problem and not solving it. All compromises leave some on either side feeling that the compromise was treachery and, thus, leads to a conflict further down the road; bribery works only for a time as the natives of England had reason to find when they bribed the Norsemen to go away - they only come back for more; divisions are also a temporary ruse. If what was together can be split, what splits can come back together.

Tiru assumes that when the base cause of the conflict remains, the war will remain to be fought. You can only buy time to strengthen yourself but the war will still come back to you. THAT, then, IS the point. That Tiru is not really talking of battles that are fought on minor matters of dispute but on fundamental differences that really cannot be reconciled. (No such thing? Well, what about a cannibalistic tribe preying on your citizens? OR a tribe thriving on robbing travellers and merchants to your country? There ARE value systems that you will need to fight for.) Essentially, deciding the goal of a conflict can be open to discussion. Tiru is talking about how you go about ACHIEVING that goal having decided on the desirability of the goal - whether you go all out to achieve it or whether you compromise on achieving the goal.

THAT is, if it is to be taken literally. Metaphorically, a battle is anything that needs to be changed or implemented. Anywhere where there is a conflict, even if it is of opinions or habits, Tiru would call it a battle. AND in any battle, he prefers that you charge ahead and complete the job if you can see the possibility of victory, instead of dilly-dallying. ONLY if such victory is seen as impossible does he suggest the other options which are, indeed, varying forms of compromise.

Just so you can see the applicability, consider gender equality or changing over the indirect tax system to GST or adoption of automation/AI or whatever. Tiru says that if you can at all bull through to making the change-over, go ahead and do it, instead of discussing it to death. IF you find that impossible, THEN go in for a path that is workable on the day - compromise, bribe the opposition (Like, say, a VRS while adopting automation), divide the opposition etc. 

Tiru is more a pragmatist than a philosopher in that sense. 'Do what works, don't keep splitting moral hairs' is probably what he'd say. Even idealism, in his world view, needs to be tempered by practicality. AND who is to say he is wrong? A world moved an inch towards the ideal world is probably better than a completely ideal world that only stays in the mind!