Is Ahimsa a Param Dharma?

अहिंसा परमो धर्मः?

We all have grown up hearing this famous line: “Non-violence is an utmost duty (Ahimsa Parmo Dharma)”, which is believed to be the founding principle of the Republic of India as its road to independence was paved with the asphalt of non-violence.

Indian freedom struggle from 1915 (Gandhi Ji’s return to India) to 1947 was mostly based on ‘non-violence’. This was the time when Mahatma Gandhi’s popularity rose immensely and his ideology outspread the whole country. Gandhian ideology or more precisely the principle of ‘non-violence’ became the cornerstone of fledgling India. On every diplomatic front, India espoused the principle of ‘non-violence’ and characterized itself as the preacher of the same.

But is ahimsa actually a param dharma?

India’s independence journey says so. It is believed that the ‘weapon of ahimsa’ compelled the mighty British empire to eventually liberate India.

And after witnessing the devastation caused by the two world wars (1915-1919 and 1939-1945), the whole world commended India and its approach to non-violence.

They commended, never adopted.

India became an apostle of ‘Ahimsa’ and denied the need of military or any defense mechanisms in the post-independence era, proclaiming ‘ahimsa’ as its ultimate weapon.

The Indian army was on the verge of being scrapped out and happened the first Indo-Pak clash over the Kashmir region in October 1947. Indian army (consisting of soldiers of the British Indian Army) managed to push back the Pakistani army from Jammu and Srinagar up till today’s LOC. Over-optimistic and resolute over its ‘ahimsa ideology’, Indian authorities prevented the Indian army from completely liberating Jammu and Kashmir and decided to peacefully resolve the LOC and Kashmir issue in the United Nations. Turning down the use of force left one-third of Kashmir (POK) at the mercy of Pakistan. Moreover, the Kashmir valley became an epicenter of all terrorist activities in South Asia. Millions have been wounded and thousands have lost their lives. Diplomatic talks never worked out and ‘ahimsa failed’ time and again.

This lesson was not enough.

Baluchistan, an independent nation till 1947, knew that Pakistan had an eye over it and wanted to annex it. Baluchistan was not capable enough to defend itself. So, Khan of Kalat, a princely state in Baluchistan, opted to join India rather than Pakistan. He sent India a signed accession paper that officially made Kalat a part of the Union of India. India knew that this would invite another battle with the Pakistan and so remained adamant over its ‘non-violence’ ideology. This left another state at the mercy of Pakistan. Millions of people have been relentlessly killed, thousands of women raped and hundreds of families fragmented.

Not only this, ahimsa would have almost led to the creation of another Kashmir at that time. This time in the south - Hyderabad. Nizams of Hyderabad refused to accede to India and unleashed a private army of over two-lakh men which killed over thirty thousand Indians. In response, the union home minister decided to liberate the state using military force. Ahimsa acolytes tried to scuttle the plan but despite hindrances ‘Operation Polo (to liberate Hyderabad)’ succeeded and saved millions.

Ahimsa did no wonders for the country. Going unaligned during the cold war brought India an opportunity of becoming the first nuclear-armed country in Asia (in late 1950s) along with the offer of UNSC permanent seat, both from the United States. Citing them redundant for an amicable country like India (despite having a hostile neighbor), we rejected both the proposals and as a consequence witnessed the Chinese back-stab in 1962. There too, Ahimsa acolytes denied using Air Force in the battle and eventually shattered India’s sovereignty - Aksai Chin.

Can the path of dharma (ahimsa) bring such devastation to mankind?

In fact, see the fate it has brought us today - 'threat to our national security'. 

How?

Disregarding the need of defense mechanism post-independence, we disparaged our defense needs (thinking resolving every issue with ahimsa) and inexplicably gave away the strategically-located Coco islands in the Andaman archipelago to Burma (Myanmar) as a freebie which they subsequently handed over to China. Today, China has established an extensive surveillance station there to keep an eye on India's naval activities. Not only this, India also refused the Sultan of Oman's gift of Gwadar port in the Arabian sea in 1958. Pakistan then bought this strategic port, which today is the linchpin of Sino-Pak CPEC project and a major threat to India.

Path of ahimsa made us so blind that we dug our own grave.

Ahimsa and the history

One needs to understand that if ahimsa would have been a (Param) Dharma, then the Mahabharata war would have never eventuated, Lord Vishnu would have never incarnated as Rama or Krishna (or even as Varah, Narsimha, or Parshurama) and Mohammad Prophet would have never been worshiped.

Before intruding deeply into it, let's understand what actually is ‘Dharma’.

Dharma is not what we understand in today’s sense as ‘religion’. It is a much broader term having greater implications. In layman’s terms, Dharma is best understood as “morally and socially the righteous behavior which emancipates humanity and sustains the nature.” The behavior or activity which is right in every aspect.  

Ahimsa has unequivocally (or practice of non-violence) remained essential for human life to sustain. But "is it the utmost duty befitting every circumstance?"

In the Bhagavat Geeta, Lord Krishna has categorically said Arjuna “if however, you do not fight this holy war, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.”

It is to be noted that Krishna has called Mahabharata ‘a holy war (dharma yudh)’.

Does this justify a war or violence?

No.

Throughout the Mahabharata, there were talks of waging and winning the war. There were very only a few who were actively advocating a peaceful resolution of the dispute. In fact, Krishna was the front-runner in that group. He was the only one who kept talking about peace until the last minute. He even tried to negotiate for a peace accord and offered accepting only five villages for the five Pandavas, if that could save millions of lives in a deadly war.

“Establishing peace is the ultimate dharma (or param dharma). So too is the violence when used in the service of Dharma.” Note the key difference here - Krishna was not justifying the violence or war but opposing the unjust happenings which have occurred and would have aggravated if the war was avoided at that time.

“Fight for the right” is a must.

If waging a war was needed for saving millions of Kashmiri or Baluch lives and for attaining tranquility thereon, then it was the ‘utmost duty’ that time.

What was the relevance of ahimsa at that time when the world had already witnessed two world wars and was currently beholding a fierce cold war!

1962 defeat fortunately opened doors for more pragmatic approach (not relying solely on ahimsa) to India in terms of diplomacy, defense and foreign affairs, which turned out to be a boon in 1965 and 1972 (liberating Bangladesh from atrocities of West Pakistan) wars with Pakistan and 1967 war with China.

Ahimsa can never be a ‘param dharma’ in the contemporary world’. It has already done a lot of damage to India, the repercussions of which are still discernible.

This arose the need to also contemplate about the veracity behind the claim: "ahimsa (non-violence) liberated India”.

What do you think? 

 

Author: Gautam Sodani

 It is to be noted that the author in no sense promotes violence or degrade Gandhi Ji’s opinions/ ideology. The article aimed to just put forward the right definition of ‘Param Dharma’. We condemn violence but at the same time we condemn the silence or negotiation over injustice.

“Satyamev Jayate”