Jaina View of War, Warrior and Violence By Sushil Jain

Though Jainism and ahimsa are inseparable, and Jainism has often been seen through its mendicants, some of whom have taken the practice of ahimsa to its extreme, it nevertheless attracted a good number of the kshatriyas to its fold. This would appear to be a contradiction since martialism and non-violence (ahimsa), the corner-stone of Jaina philosophy, are not complementary.

It is therefore quite interesting to raise the question of war, warrior and violence vis-a-vis Jainism.

The spirit of martialism in Jainism is manifest in its very own name (Jain meaning a conqueror), and the epithet accorded to the last Jain _tirthankar_ of our present yuga is Mahavir, i.e., the great hero.

In fact the first hero of Jaina lore, the greatest hero of all, and the first one to achieve moksa, according to certain Jaina traditions, is Bahubali (one with strong arms -- one of the many definitions of Bahubali).

The story of Bahubali, son of Rishabha, the first tirthankar, is told, among others, in Jinasena's _Adi-Purana_ where Jainism is described as a weapon of war (1.4), the various ascetic practices are compared to an army which conquers the enemy, karma (4.153 etc.), and the monk is instructed to abandon his body like that of an enemy on the battlefield (11.98) (see Paul Dundas, "Jain Digambar Warrior" (=DJW), in Carrithers and Humphreys, _Assembly of Listeners_ pp. 173-4).

Though Bahubali did defeat his elder brother Bharata in the battlefield, he did so in a non-violent fashion. Having won the war, Bahubali abandoned his claim over the territory and renounced the world.

"The pivotal position which the Jain religion gives to non- violence is (not necessarily) at variance with being patronised by 'practising' warrior adherents. In fact, Jainism has always been ambivalent about war (see Jaini, _Jaina Path of Purification_ p. 313), and two examples testify to the existence of Jain practitioners of warfare at completely different periods of Jain history. The Pali canon refers to a Jain general (senapati) called Siha, contemporary with Mahavira and the Buddha, who was a Jain layman (niganthasavaka) while, two thousand years later, in the sixteenth century A.D. and afterwards, Jains participated in what Bayley has called the 'all-India military culture' (C.A. Bayley, "The pre-history of 'communalism': religious conflict in India 1700-1860", _Modern Asian Studies_ 19 (1985), 183) and fought in the armies of the Mughal emperors. However, despite this, Indian historians of the Deccan have always been uneasy when attempting to account for the undoubtedly violent activities of the many rulers who were connected with Jainism in the medieval period, often expressing bafflement at the incongruity involved" (see, S.R. Sharma, _Jainism and Karnataka Culture_, Dharwar, 1940, p. 148). "In fact, it does seem likely that total adherence to the principles of non-violence was of importance only in certain specific and precisely defined religious contexts, such as ritual or contact with a monk, and that non-violence did not inform broader issues, such as a king's obligation to expand his kingdom. In the light of this, it has to be asked why kings and warriors were attracted to Jainism and wherein lay their 'Jainness'; did they actively espouse and promote Jainism or merely protect it?" (Dundas, op. cit. DJW, pp. 174-5).

Professor Basham has noted, that "despite its nonviolence, Jainism never strongly opposed militarism; several great Jain kings were conquerors, and the ideal Jain king, Kumarapala, who is said to have enforced vegetarianism throughout his realm, is nowhere said to have given up warfare. No Jain monarch had the enlightened sentiments of Ashoka in this respect, and nowhere in the whole body of Jain literature is a plea for peace between states to be found such as that in the Buddhist _Excellent Golden Light Sutra_. Yet, in normal personal relations, ahimsa is repeatedly stated to be the greatest virtue" (_Sources of Indian Tradition_ (=SIT), ed. by de Bary, 1958, pp. 89-90).

In fact, several works on Jaina polity, the most famous of them being Somadeva's _Nitivakyamritam_, accord the same rights and duties to Jaina kings in defending their kingdoms and subjects as do other Indian texts on polity. But still Jaina view of the warrior is not of a knight with a shining armour on a white horse, or a soldier engulfed in a battlefield but that of an ascetic soldier fighting to conquer his passions (see, for example, Nemi's reply to Indra in _Uttardhyayana Sutra_, 9).

Here lies a small but special difference between a Jain hero and other heroes. Though born as princes (all the Jain _tirthankaras_ were kshatriyas), destined to be rulers, the Jain heroes renounce the idea of power over others to achieve victory over themselves. The Jain hero does not conquer territories but conquers himself; hence the term 'jina' (conquerer of self) from which the word Jain comes. However, when duty calls, a Jain ruler, king, general or soldier must defend his kingdom and subjects as required by his dharma. _Virodhi-himsa_ for lay professionals, like soldiers, is permissible in Jainism.