Lessons of Ahimsa and Anekanta for Contemporary Life

Author(s): Tara Sethia
Publisher: California State Polytechnic University Pomona

Page 36

Kim Skoog, “Jaina Response to Terrorism”
non-combatants, because one's primary goal in life is to avoid doing harm to all living beings; only those viewed as evil and destructive (combatants) could be the recipients of violence. Anticipating the "doctrine of double effect," Jainism distinguishes between intentional, premeditated violence (samkalpaja-himsā) and unintentional, accidental violence (arambhaja-himsā); thereby recognizing that some unintentional violence may occur in the process of carrying out one's daily activities, presumably including warfare if necessitated to do so. However, some of the stipulations of the western “looser” interpretation of double effect might not be palatable to the Jaina sensibilities: i.e., the allowance of terrorism or total war and the allowance of “minor infractions” to noncombatants to bring about a greater good and eradicate a great evil.
Looking at the overarching Jaina directive to avoid violence if at all possible, one could presume that the Jainas would support the western principle of proportionality as they advocate the least possible violence to ward off a terrorist threat. Going one point further, perhaps the real distinctive Jaina contribution to the philosophical dialogue over warfare and prevention again terrorism is the Jaina emphasis on the “internal” dimension of war. Under such circumstances where a Jaina must engage in war, he is required to remain calm and detached. This emphasis on a cool head will lead to more care in the military activity (hence less careless unintentional destruction of innocent noncombatants), a heightened sensitivity to when and where violence is warranted and when and where it can be avoided (hence, minimizing the use of violence), and a general reduction in the psychological and spiritual damage that the violence of war inflicts on the combatant.20
20. Consider the focus of the criticism directed against U.S. anti-terrorism policies and attitudes after 9-11 and the co-current ultraconservative Israeli stance in regards to the status of the Palestinians. Some feel the highly emotional, nationalistic, and extremely patriotic attitudes that dominate both administrations at this time, blinded them to the real causes of the terrorism and bloodshed in the first place and prevent them from recognizing and implementing any plausible solutions to the upheaval in the Middle