________________
64: Śramana, Vol 64, No. III, July-Sept. 2013
supporting governments in a number of cases. (Jaini 1998: 274-313; Jain, Jyoti Prasad 2010: 26-37) This meant that Jain kings engaged in violence (Long 2010: 109, 152). The Jains were probably even such experienced soldiers that they distinguished between 338 different cuts and thrusts used in a battle. (Glasenapp 1999: 397) In addition to that, "Jaina literature (...) is by no means pacifist (in the sense that Quakers are, for example): only aggressive war is proscribed, while the subject of fighting in defense of one's country is passed over almost without comment."18 (Jaini 1998: 313)
But, on the other hand, it must be put in mind that "Jainism does not preach cowardice". (Tukol 1980: 205) It is justifiable, when virodhi himsă is committed in self-defense, in defense of person or property of members of the family or relatives and friends, or in defense of country. "No unnecessary himsă must be indulged in as a matter of hostility or revenge." (Ibid.) Or, in other words, "although a king is allowed to make use of violent means and although they are against the Jaina-principle of Ahimsa with respect to all beings, it may be pointed out here that force is to be used only in emergency when all other means of warding off the enemy have proved to be unsuccessful. If war cannot be avoided, it has to be seen that there is, as far as possible, little loss to human life and that unnecessary cruelty is avoided." (Glasenapp 1999: 362)
As the scope of objects of non-violent behavior of the Quakers is much narrower and includes only humans, their attitudes are much more clear-cut and at least in their classical era, unanimous. The Quakers strictly refuse any violence committed on another person and reject any kind of war including a war waged in defense. Their pacifism reaches so far that in the name of their religious principles, they, at least in theory, as it is an extremely hard task, do not even defend themselves when attacked or abused. (Stein 2000: 43)
Pacifist attitude was developed by George Fox and his followers in the cruel wars during the period of Oliver Cromwell in the 1640s and 1650s. In 1661, after the restoration of the English monarchy, Fox and his companions wrote a declaration addressed to the king Charles II. containing the following famous words: "... and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world." (Fox 1990) The Quakers were probably the first conscientious objectors (Yoder 2007) and contributed in a substantial way to develop a legal status of conscientious objection in some states.
It is necessary to say that, in contrast to the Jains, the Quakers have never accepted full political responsibility for the society they live in. This difference between them and the Jains becomes apparent most clearly when remembering the events in Pennsylvania in the 1750s. Soon after establishing this colony by William Penn, the Quakers became the leading political faction in the Pennsylvania Assembly in Philadelphia. In this position, they were confronted with the task to defend the borders against French troops supported by Native Americans. Their moral dilemma
