A few months ago, I had written a
post explaining my understanding of Dharma and Yoga, and how while Yoga is a practice, Dharma is what manifests out of it.
It is in this context of Dharma that I want to further explore the concept of
Himsa and
Ahimsa.
Himsa and
Ahimsa are roughly translated as violence and non-violence respectively. Any act of aggression on any other living creature is an act of violence. In usual public discourse, this violence is used to refer to only physical aggression. Non-violence is the opposite of violence, and a typical example that is given to explain this is to 'turn the other cheek'.
In India,
Mahatma Gandhi exemplified non-violence through his words and actions by imploring Indians to participate in the struggle for freedom against the British rule and by responding to the cruelty of the British administration by turning the proverbial other cheek. He believed in this theory of non-violence to the extent of
pleading with the Jews to happily embrace the atrocities that Hitler was committing on them, and return his hatred with love if that were possible.
However, is the principle of non-violence applicable universally? Consider
what happened in Mumbai on 26 November 2008, or what happened in
Orlando or
Dhaka a few days ago. If the theory of non-violence was applied against the perpetrators of these horrific attacks, would the terrorists have stopped, or would they have continued with their manslaughter unperturbed? Would risking the lives of innocent people at the hands of the terrorists justified, or would it be more prudent to kill those terrorists with violence and protect the lives of other innocent people?
By indulging in violence to kill the terrorists, are we following the principles of
Dharma or
Adharma?
Let us consider another example. In a dense forest with rich ecological bio-diversity, a new weed gets introduced. This new weed grows and spreads rapidly, and extracts inordinate amount of water from the ground. Soon, the existing plants and trees in the forest are run over by this fast-growing weed in a vicious cycle. The more the weed spreads in the forest, the more water it draws from the soil, thereby causing more plants and trees to dry up and die, leaving more areas for the weed to spread to. This rapidly changing ecology causes distress to animals too as they are now deprived of their natural source of food, shelter, and camouflage. Soon, the animals start dying too, and the forest with a rich diversity of fauna and flora ends up being a vast grassland covered with the invasive weed. A popular example of this is the
vilayati keekar (विलायती कीकर) that was
introduced in the lands around Delhi.
If the principle of
Ahimsa means that one must not inflict any violence on any living creature whatsoever, then does that mean one must not kill the weed and protect the forest? Must one let the entire forest be lost to the invasive weed and put the native flora and fauna at severe risk?
Here is where I would like to draw your attention to the definition of
Dharma -
Dharma can be understood to be all those actions or duties that help in maintaining the natural order of all things in cosmos.
Before the weed was introduced, the forest had maintained its delicate ecological balance for perhaps thousands of years. No one species, plant or animal, had overridden the forest. Every species, plant or animal, had found a place to survive in the forest and was able to ensure the continuity of itself while not impinging on the survival of other species.
Animals that were hunted more, reproduced more off-springs (e.g. rabbits), while animals that were predators, or were hunted much less, had possibly much slower fertility rates (e.g. elephants and tigers). Similar phenomenon could be observed in plants too.
Furthermore, predator species like tigers do not prey on all animals, and do not hunt indiscriminately either. A tiger, for example, would hunt only when it was hungry, and only as much as was needed to satisfy its hunger. This meant that the tiger would not hunt again until it was hungry. Even though the tiger is indulging in an act of violence through hunting, it is not disturbing the ecological balance of the forest.
This system of co-existence of different species is what is called the
'natural order'. It is our duty through our actions, words, and deeds to ensure that this natural order is maintained.
With this understanding, one can now see that the destruction of the weed becomes a paramount act of
Dharma. The weed is a symbol of
Adharma that seeks to destroy the natural order of cosmos. It is an act of corruption in a delicately balanced system of co-existence. It needs to be destroyed. The weed cannot seek a non-violent treatment by invoking principles of
dharma. Destruction of
adharmic entity is one of the fundamental principles of
dharma; the other being nurturing and maintenance of
dharmic entities.
Therefore, while one does well to remember अहिंसा परमो धर्म:, one must also remember धर्म हिंसा तथैव च.
The whole of Bhagavadgita expounds on the need for Arjun to take up the war against
adharma as a necessary duty to uphold
dharma.
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि (2.33)
Therefore, while non-violence is a preferred state of affairs in a
dharmic system, one must not hesitate to use violence when faced with an
adharmic entity. Kill the weed, as it were.
