Ahimsa
Zak Franklin
Broadly speaking, ahimsa is the practice of non-violence in Indian traditions. However, it is more ambiguous than that. It varies between traditions and generations. It’s most contemporarily popular form is that which was adhered to and first advocated by Mahatma Gandhi, was a form of civil disobedience. For the sake of this paper, Gandhi’s form will be referred to as “protest ahimsa.” In the Jain tradition, ahimsa means absolute non-harming or “complete non-violence.” Yet in other forms and castes, ahimsa has been defined as an everyday lifestyle that allows for exceptions (“traditional ahimsa”). The ambiguous definition of ahimsa as it applies to various traditions does not allow for any single analysis of ahimsa as a whole. Each of the three main ahimsa beliefs has its own time and place for practice. Despite their many differences, the different ahimsa practices do have the same initial roots and background.
The Vedas make no mention of non violence or “the non desire to cause any harm,” (Vidal, Tarabaout, and Meyer 15). In fact, they actually detail sacrificial killing, abduction or conquest (Vidal, Tarabaout, and Meyer). This is likely one of the main reasons that there is not a uniform belief or adherence to it. The original ahimsa concept was deduced from later Brahmin texts discussing vegetarianism and the fear that the soul of the killed will be the killer’s enemy as their soul lives on. This belief in reincarnation is a central tenant in the Hindu tradition.
The other famous text in which the inspiration of Ahimsa can be derived is the “Bhagavad- Gita.” One of the ways that Krishna persuades Arjuna to fight is by explaining to him that even if he does kill his enemies their souls will live on, therefore their deaths are not permanent. While this logic is initially used to justify violence, it can also be used to justify non-violence. If one is only killing the body and not the spirit, then there is little reason to kill at all. Taking away much of the power of killing relegates it to near frivolity. This justification for ahimsa was the primary basis for Gandhi’s beliefs in non-violence.
The justification for violence that is found in “traditional ahimsa” is essential in this form’s overall understanding. The common term for this is “legitimate violence.” Legitimate violence consists of any violence that is justified because it is necessary for one’s own defense. “Simple realism dictates that non-violence is only possible if it is defended and protected by violence,” (Vidal, Tarabout, and Meyer 22). While this is not the romanticized non-violence that many foreigners perceive, it is inherent. In order to defend oneself from the wrath of the violent, one must embrace violence. This justification is initially expressed by Krishna in the “Bhagavad- Gita.” In later years this ideology would be embraced by many across Hindu society. Complete non-violence as practiced by ahimsa’s most extreme adherents is not practical in the political and survival-oriented “real world.” If one commits themselves to complete non-violence, they cannot maintain their own sovereignty. If one’s enemies do not fear the moral repercussions of their actions then they would not be deterred from imposing their will on those who refuse to physically defend themselves.
One very apt example of differing belief in and adherence to ahimsa resulting in increased hardship for those refusing to practice violence appears in the Naga Sadhus. The Naga Sadhus were one of a large group of ascetics that resorted to a life of violence while professing a wholehearted belief in non-violence. They claimed to be adherents to the most complete ahimsa, yet thrived and survived off of violence. However, their true beliefs were later summed up by Lajpat Rai’s declaration that “non-violence would result in ‘laziness,’ ‘fake contentment,’ ‘cowardice,’ ‘lack of spirit,’ and a ‘slave mentality’” (Bouillier 49). The fighting ascetics were prone to committing acts.....continued in print edition.
