War can be Non-Violent

By Upadhyaya Amar Muni

Guarding and respecting living beings and their environment - as well as foregoing all but absolutely unavoidable harm to sentient beings - is non-violence. Actions are necessary in our lives, and some violence or harm is inherent in every action, be it only dravya-himsa (external or physical violence). TO deny the sanctity of life and deliberately harm innocent beings is something that Jainism categorically rejects. That is why Jainism opposes nuclear testing with all its might, as it is ruinous of the biosphere and could destroy life as a whole. Though a powerful proponent of non-violence, Jainism nevertheless does not allow injustice or atrocious deeds of any kind to flourish in society as a whole; moreover, side-stepping retaliation to any outrage by hiding behind the banner of non-violence is nothing but cowardice. In fact, responding to brutality and oppression at the right moment is a form of non-violence, because the 'small' violence done today prevents the proliferation of a wider violence tomorrow. There are many misconceptions put about regarding the concept of non-violence in Jainism. In order to rifute these errors in interpretation, let us read some of the Munishri's thoughts about the subject.

Discussions about violence and non-violence have been going on since ancient times. Every great thinker to date has examined this issue minutely yet no comprehensive or categorical definition of non-violence or violence has been found, neither has their essence been unequivocally revealed.

Non-violence is the highest pinnacle of Jain philosophy. Every facet of the Jain path of spiritual purification comprises non-violence. Countless religious texts have been written on it, and its every aspect has been analysed in detail.

The important thing to understand about the concept of non­vi.oleJ4ce is that, so long as there is life, violence is implicit in our every act.. We commit violence in walking; there is violence in eating and drinking. There are microscopic creatures on the ground that are obliterated with our every step. Similarly there are tiny creatures suspended in the air, invisible to the naked eye, that are destroyed as our bodies move about. Our every breath kills some little creature; In every organ of our body, in our very blood, flesh and bone and in all our bodily fluids, a myriad microbes live and die by the second. In this situation we need to ask how we can observe the practice of no-violence, and prevent ourselves from committing violence. Jain tradition answers this question in terms of dravya-himsa (an external or physical act of violence), and bhav­himsa (being violent from within). If the seeker aware, can discriminate between the two, remains non-violent from within and is totally free of a violent attitude, he will still be called a non­violent peron even in the face of dravya-himsa. This dravya-himsa without bhav-himsa is himsa (violence) merely in appearance. Such an act of violence does not bring with it the bondage of negative­karma. In this way, since the mind is free of a violent attitude, though dravya~himsa has occurred, the practice of non-violence itself remains intact.

There is another aspect to abiding by the religion of non-violence that has to do with determining the' quantity' of violence and non-violence in any action. Imagine an action in which there is more non-violence than there is violence; this practice falls within the purview of non-violence. If an act of violence today is the means for the establishment of a much greater measure of non-violence in the future, then it too counts as non-violence. On the other hand a small act of non-violence in the present, which has within it the seeds of a much greater measure of violence in the future, must itself count as violence.

The True Form of Ahimsa : When we reflect deeply on this subject we find that there are two types of violence. One is the violence of attack, the other, violence for the purpose of defence. Should both be seen in the same way? No. The violence which is used to put an end to aggression may seem terrible at face value, but it cannot be categorised as violence alone. Imagine an abscess poisoning the body. If a remedy is not speedily administered, the whole body will be poisoned. It is better to amputate a poisonous finger than allow a person to perish. This means that, if the poison of one part of the body is going to affect the whole, then that part should be removed immediately. There is no need to weigh up whether the finger should be cut off or not. Clearly the person has to be saved, for without him the finger would in any case be 'life-less'. In this context, Jain philosophy maintains that a small act of violence to combat or avert a much greater one is a form of non-violence only. It is non­violence because it prevents a greater injury or violence from being done. Though outwardly violent, in reality it is full of mercy and kindness. Its roots are in compassion, as its motivation is the prevention of a greater evil. For this reason Jain philosophy maintains that this sort of defensive or preventative violence is consistent with non-violence and worthy of emulation.

Raja Chetak's Holy War : In order to put the discussion about greater and lesser violence into perspective, I would like to give as an example the war between Kunik and Raja Chetak. This was a gruesome war which occurred in Tirthankar Mahavir's time. It has been recorded in our religious literature. One of the protagonists was the leader of the famous Vaishali Republic, Raja Chetak, who had taken the twelve vows of a shravak. The other was Kunik, the Emperor of Magadh, who attacked Vaishali. What started the war was the issue of the protection of a refugee. Kunik had usurped his younger brother's rights, seized his wealth and deprived him of his independence. The young prince, fearing for his life, fled to Chetak to seek refuge. When Kunik heard what had happened, he sent the following message to Raja Chetak, 'Send my brother back immediately or pay a heavy price for your defiance.' Raja Chetak opted to fight to protect the refugee. A fierce battle ensued and thousands were killed on the battlefield. Raja Chetak himself died heroically.

Now the issue is this: If Raja Chetak had complied with Kunik's demand and sent the young prince back, then Kunik in retribution could have perpetrated any kind of violence on his sibling; be that as it may, only one life would have been affected and thousands of other lives could have been saved. If Raja Chetak had interpreted the concept of violence and non-violence as some people do today, then he might have sent the prince back, or he could have said, "Young Prince, you are here now, but how are we going to protect you? If we try to do this, many of our people might die. To save one life, many will perish and this would be an extremely violent act." But Raja Chetak did not say this. He went to war to protect an innocent refugee and terrible carnage resulted.

Raja Chetak had taken the twelve vows of a shravak; his ability to distinguish between violence and non-violence was extremely acute. He had often had the supreme privilege of listening to the discourses of Tirthankar Mahavir himself. He was no ordinary king; he was the democratically elected leader of the Vaishali Republic. In other words, he was one of the greatest thinkers of his age. He did not try to solve the question of violence and non-violence by the number of lives affected. In this case he could clearly see that the prince was innocent, an asylum seeker. He was not at fault and his rights were being usurped by the cruel tyrant Kunik. The issue was not merely one of the rights of refugees, but that of alleviating the suffering of an innocent and afflicted man. If asylum is refused to such persons and they are turned over to their persecutors, then where will they find shelter?

Imagine a frightened man surrounded on all sides by death. He is desperate for help and, at the end of his tether, he somehow manages to find a powerful individual who he thinks might give him protection. Abruptly he is turned away. He goes to another place and is turned away again. Try to put yourself in his place and imagine what he is suffering. How frantic he must be! Tears flow from his eyes, yet no-one cares to ask: "What is the matter? Why are you crying?" If this happens there is no question of finding any justice in this world.

There is no mercy or compassion for the wronged individual. If people like this, who have suffered atrocities at the hands of tyrants, are shunned by those who could give them succour, then what remains of the religion of compassion and non-violence?

In fact this is one of the most important questions in life. This is not a matter of pitting the life of one man against a thousand lives, nor is it a question of violence committed against a particular individual, or servitude forced upon him. Rather it is a matter of principle. If on the one hand you are 'murdering' a founding principle, whilst on the other you are saving thousands of lives, then the latter is hardly commendable. In other words, murdering a principle is the worst type of murder. If a principle is set aside in this way then the calamity that results will fuel atrocities and injustices for millions of years. If outrages like this were to increase, then the entire order of the world would be at stake.

In this war between Magadh and Vaishali, it is noteworthy that both Chetak and Kunik took up weapons. Both were responsible for much slaughter and both committed acts of violence.Yet Chetak died a hero's death and ascended to heaven, whereas when Kunik died, he went to hell. Why is it that one war had two such very opposite results. Both took part in the combat and were jointly responsible for it. If they were both partners in this enterprise, why were the fruits of their actions so entirely different? How did this come about? Clearly these two opposite effects have arisen due to an in-depth discriminatory approach towards the understanding of violence and non­violence.

Protecting a refugee is a religious duty because the refugee is in distress and oppressed by injustice. Death is poised like a sword above his head and he is obliged to flee hither and thither to find protection. To defend him is to defend a principle, and to support him is to support an ethical standpoint. To help innocent people who are oppressed or persecuted is the essence of religion. This holds good not only in the Indian tradition but is also accepted by all mankind today as a common ideal. The protection of a refugee is a precept espoused by all who call themselves humanitarians. Raja Chetak followed this ideal and therefore he went to heaven, whereas Kunik fought for the debased ideal of self­aggrandisement, committing vicious acts and hideous injustices against his little brother by depriving him of his rights, and so went straight to hell. Which of them fought on the side of religion? King Chetak fought a religious war and went to heaven. Kunik fought too, but in opposing the religious ideal, went to hell. It is apparent then that questions of violence and non­violence cannot be resolved externally; they can only be solved by inner reflection. The nature of any action is decided by intention, and the measure of him sa and ahimsa should be defined solely upon this intention.

In the administration of justice, a system of punishment is set up to control the growth of acts of atrocious violence, wrongdoing and savagery because if these are not controlled, they will increase day by day. It is absolutely vital to prevent these dreadful offences, as a small step taken now can stop the spread of these horrifying crimes in the future.

Protection of a Refugee - One Form of Ahimsa : If humanitarianism is not at the root of a religion then that religion becomes mere hypocrisy. True religion cannot forget humanitarianism. Which religion says that we should turn the refugee away from our door or shun the helpless when they entreat us to support them? It is said that he who oppresses others is certainly committing a terrible crime, but he who spurns a refugee who has come to his door, or refuses to relieve his distress, is the perpetrator of the greater sin. Imagine what would happen if a man, at his wits end, comes to you trusting in your protection and benevolence, and you betray that trust. Picture the awful situation he is in. Although endowed with the means to help him, you did nothing; on the contrary, you pushed him out of the door. This kind of treachery is a great sin. To deliver someone from fear is truly part of a great religion; to refuse him protection or deny him freedom from fear is a profanation of religion.

The reason for my detailed analysis of this issue is that Jain society has a greater responsibility to practise non-violence in a more discriminating way, as non-violence is at the very root of the Jain religion. Tirthankar Mahavir has distinguished violence from non-violence on the basis of the intentions of the doer. During these wars and acts of violence people are bound to die, but we should not just look at the statistics; more important than the number of the fallen is the motive for the war and the principles that are at stake. What are the intentions of the participants? What are their inner feelings? What do they want to achieve? Rama fights Ravana. Rama's motive is to retaliate against those who commit atrocities against women. He is fighting not only for an individual Sita but for all the wronged 'Sitas' everywhere. Rama is fighting for a principle. On the other hand Ravana is fighting to satisfy his own lust; his wickedness and viciousness are his incentive.

The Pandavas under the leadership of Shri Krishna go to war, but only to regain what is rightfully theirs. On the opposing side, Duryodhan is fighting too but only to gobble up the Pandavas' inheritance. When you ponder on these epic events, you yourself will be able to judge who was right or who was wrong. As I have said before, sometimes the external act of physical violence (dravya-himsa) takes place, but the internal intention of violence (bhav-himsa) may not be there at all. In fact bhav-himsa, the intention of violence, is at the root of violence. In the context of bhav-himsa alone we have to see whether or not the small acts of violence, carried out to prevent bigger acts of violence, are really necessary. Sometimes in life certain situations arise when violence is unavoidable, so it becomes obligatory to commit some smaller acts of violence to combat injustice, irreligious acts and atrocious deeds.

Violence is not only violence to someone's body; mental cruelty is also a significant act of violence. Consider a nation enslaved and a people put under an alien yoke - here, it is not only violence to the body but also violence to the mind. In losing their independence people lose their mental and spiritual autonomy, and slavery erodes their inner worth, leaving them like zombies. The religion, traditions and culture of those countries that have lost their independence degenerate swiftly and become like a rotting corpse.

Mahatma Gandhi took the path of non­violent resistance in the struggle for Indian independence but sometimes the oppressor is so cruel and barbaric that this path is of no use at all. Those whose armies slaughter innocent children, rape defenseless women, burn village after village and heap up mountains of skulls are worse than rabid animals. To oppose them with non-violent resistance is pure folly. The question is, what is the appropriate way of combating such barbarism? From the viewpoint of non-violence, what should be done? Should we take up arms of find some other way? In this situation defense is no offence: it is the only proper course to take, as shown by the example of Kunik and Raja Chetak. Such a war can be called a war for religion. Like Raja Chetak, those who fall on the battlefield, on the side of right, will gain heaven, whereas those who, like Kunik, are tyrants and oppressors, will go straight to hell. Violence does not just mean killing people; destroying their ethos, and their capacity as independent moral agents is also an act of violence. This is murder of the soul and the unethical practices and social injustices that perpetuate it are violent as well. If these injustices and immoral attitudes are not stopped, then barbarity will sway men's minds. The standard of justice will be debased, and in the foreseeable future, injustice will become the norm and justice will become as much of a myth or legend as the phoenix or the unicorn. From this viewpoint, to oppose such an atrocity is religion. We must oppose injustice - not just taking into account present violence and non-violence, but its likely consequences in the future as well. Present short-sightedness could be the reason for future catastrophe.

-----------------------------------------------------

Source :  "The Jains Through Time"
Veerayatan's  Silver Jubilee A Commemoration-An English Translation of' Samay Ki Parto Mein' published to celebrate the Twenty-sixth Centenary of the birth of Tirthankara Mahavira
English Translation by Sadhvi Shilapiji

Published By : Veerayatan U. K. The Wentworth, Pinewood Close, Oxhey Drive South
Northwood, Middlesex HA6 3ET

-----------------------------------------------------

Mail to : Ahimsa Foundation
www.jainsamaj.org
R080102