A Critique of The Concept of Ahimsa

DR. P. NAGARAJA RAO
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati

The concept of ahimsa is a complex ethical virtue. It has figured prominently and is given an enormous significance, in the religion of Jainism. It has acquired special importance as a philosophy of life, and a technique of action has grown around the concept, at the hands of Mahatma Gandhi, for over a period of three decades. Further, the concept of ahimsa has great significance for us today when we are insistently contemplating a new social order which will outlaw war from our midst.

Manu and the Mahabharata have declared that the cardinal virtues of Hinduism are purity, self-control, detachment, truth and non-violence. Non-violence is the law of love. The sacredness of life in all sentient creation is affirmed as a cardinal truth. Offence to sentient creation in any form is violence, e.g., physical injury, killing, hurting the feelings, insulting them, destroying their rights, or dignity of self-sense. Violation of any of these is named himsa. Their observance is described as ahimsa. The Jains carried the doctrine to incredible lengths. They were against killing in any form. They held the opinion that neither should we kill, nor get the killing done through an agent. The mere thought of killing is as much a moral evil, as the actual act of killing. Any word expressing the desire to kill is also evil. The principle of ahimsa involves purity of thought, word and deed in the practice of universal love. It is described as a great vow (Mahavrata). The Hindu ethical thinkers looked upon ahimsa as one of the Sadharana Dharmas. But they did not insist on its unexceptionable application to all defined and undefined eventualities. They made exceptions. In sacrifices they held the opinion that, animals can be killed, because the killing is enjoined by the Vedas. The sacrificial nature of the act purifies the agent and the animal alike; hence it is not deemed unethical. Kings were allowed to kill forest animals for sport. Vegetarianism was not deemed a violent act. The use of violence was not completely ruled out in Hindu ethics. It was hedged in by a number of restrictions. An unwarranted and arbitrary use of it, for the mere, pleasure, in order to spite others, is condemned severely. The use of violence is to be minimal in the case of the Brahmin and the hermit. The ideal Brahmin is to use spiritual force against physical violence even for self-protection. Though the Hindu emphasizes the supremacy of spiritual power, he does not say that physical force .should not be used. There is a celebrated verse in the Mahabharata which clinches the issues and formulates the ideal “In the front the four Vedas; at the the bow with arrows; on one side the spirit achieving its object through the might of spirit, on the other side military force achieving its ends.”

Force and violence are used to bring the anti-social and anti-ethical elements under control. Non-violence is the highest principle to which we are exhorted to approximate. Perfect ahimsa is an ideal. It is like the straight line in geometry. Because we are not able to love our enemies and win them over, we should not submit to injustice or acquiesce in the horrors done by others. There should be no neutrality between good and bad, values and disvalues. Manu declares that those who poison us, burn us, and kill us ought to be killed. The use of violence is necessary to stay off and punish anti-social and aggressive elements who hold the doctrine that Might is Right. The Hindu Rajya Dharma makes a clear distinction between violence (himsa) and pun1shment (danda). “The former causes injury to an innocent person; the latter is legal restraint of guilt.” Force is not the law-giver but it is an instrument that ministers to the need of Dharma. The theory of punishment is ingrained and worked into the structure of the cosmos. None can escape the consequences of his acts. No act of ours is private and none is unimportant. The act in its trail brings the punishment like Fate. Sometimes the punishment is realized here and now and at other times in the future life. The elaborate description of hell and the torments there and the pleasures of paradise are the means by which Hindu religion persuades men to do good and to keep away from evil. The Hindu theory of punishment is retributive and deterrent in its motive.

The Bhagavad Gita is regarded by many, with the exception of Sankara and Gandhiji, as supporting and enjoining the use violence against an evil doer.¹ The message of the Gita according to them is to fight the enemy and crush it. Arjuna is a warrior (Kshatriya). Krishna tried all peaceful modes of bringing peace between the two families; but, having failed, he advises Arjuna to fight for the cause of justice and from a sense of duty, as an act of dedication to the Lord, against the selfish and unrighteous foes. Krishna declared after the unsuccessful ambassadorial mission, “Duryodhana was told what was truthful, wholesome and beneficial; and the fool is not amenable. I consider therefore chastisement by war, danda, the fourth expedient, as proper for the sinner; by no other means can they be curbed.”

Violence has to be used to hold in check unruly elements. The Gita in modern political parlance stands for the principle of collective security and asks us to fight all unjust aggression. Ahimsa does rule out the use of force. Perfect ahimsa belongs to the sage. Violence is neutral in its ethical nature. Its value is determined by the use it is put to. A knife in the hands of a murderer leads to crime. We cannot say that violence in itself is evil.

Gandhiji’s interpretation of the concept of ahimsa is a glorious chapter in the history of Indian ethical thought and Hindu ethics. He regards violence as evil in itself. He does not consider it as neutral. He is uncompromising in his opposition to it. He wanted to build a world based on truth and non-violence; and not on untruth and lovelessness. He believed that violence can bring no good to man in any sphere. His doctrine is built on his conception of human nature as essentially good. He believed that man is divine in his essence. He also believed in the oneness of the Spirit that is behind all creation. It is our false view that “We are so many separate floating islands,” that is responsible for our violence. “There cannot be happiness for anyone of us until it is won for all.” Fear is the cause of violence, according to the Gandhian analysis. Fear is the most degrading human emotion. It destroys our mind and corrupts our morals. Thisis the reason why on many occasions Gandhi said that he “preferred violence to cowardice”. The moment we realise that we are all parts of a single Spirit, there will be no violence, for the simple reason that it hurts one’s own self. The Brihadaranyaka declares, “Fear results only from a second principle.” ² Further, Gandhiji believed that men are perfectible and educable through persuasion and reason. So, he declared that he would continue to preach non-violence till such time as there was no one of the opposite view. “If blood is to be shed, let it be mine.” He believed that good would ultimately triumph. He wanted not only individuals to use non-violence but nations and groups. He did not admit that what was ethically good for an individual could ever be politically reprehensible for the nation. He did not divide politics and morals, nor ends and means. He believed that an unjust means defeats any good end. In his philosophy ends and means are convertible terms. The end can never justify the means. Nor did he agree with the communist that the ends are the means. It is wrong to think that non-violence is an impracticable utopia, it is the urgent need of the age. The alarming nuclear developments, the inconclusiveness of wars, and the damage that war does not only to the combatants but also to the civilians and the future generations, is enough to regard non-violence as the imperative need of the age. We have realised today that wars are politically stupid, economically futile and ethically unjustifiable. If we do not have faith in the divine nature of man, it is difficult for us to give up violence. If we think that human cussedness and the principle of evil is part and parcel of reality, as real as man’s goodness, It is difficult for us to outlaw violence. It all depends ultimately on our faith and our conception of man.

Further, the psychology of violence is self-defeating. Every act of violence produces defiance in the others whom we attack. Violence produces greater violence. The greater violence is defeated by a much greater violence. The violence is not stopped. It leads toa series of world-wars. What we need is to put an end to violencing. This can be done by ahimsa or soul force. We should not run away from the scene. We meet the enemy to give him an opportunity to reflect on the wrong he has done. We seek to educate him and convert him not by inflicting physical violence on him. It is a lateral approach. It seeks to overcome the opposition by changing the mind of the opponent. All this is based on the faith that man is essentially good. Any body whose faith falters in this has no use for non-violence. Non-violence is not for the weak. The Mahabharata declares, “The hard is overcome by the gentle; even the non-hard is overcome by it; there is nothing impossible for the gentle. therefore the gentle is more powerful.” ³

“Therefore let man overcome anger by non-anger, let him overcome evil by good, let him overcome the miser by liberality, let him overcome the liar by truth.” ⁴

It is again the metaphysical faith in the unity of existence that makes the Hindu proclaim that “Non-violence is the highest truth from which all other truths proceed.” ⁵ There is no denying the fact that ahimsa played a very important role in the ethical philosophy of the Hindus.

¹ The injunction, to fight, is repeated five times in the Gita.

² Brihadaranyaka, I. 4.2.

³ Mrduna darunam hanti Mrduna hanti adarunam
Nasadhyam mrduna kincit tasmat tiksnataram mrduh.

⁴ Akrodhena jayet krodham asadhum sadhuna jayet
jayet kadaryam danena Satyenalika vadinam

⁵ Ahimsa paramo dharmah ahimsa paramam tapah,
Ahimsa paramam satyam, tato dharmah pravartate.