On incorporating non-violence into good governance
Few religions will advocate the taking of life. On the other hand history is replete with innumerable examples where religious leaders have sanctioned war, often in the name of the religion itself. And so we have Pope Nicholas V issuing the first Bull Dum Diversa in 1452 conferring genocidal-rights to King Alfonso ofPortugal
Few religions will advocate the taking of life. On the other hand history is replete with innumerable examples where religious leaders have sanctioned war, often in the name of the religion itself. And so we have Pope Nicholas V issuing the first Bull Dum Diversa in 1452 conferring genocidal-rights to King Alfonso of
We had the Crusades. We have the term ‘Jihad’. We know about ‘Ayodhya’, about periodic
blood-letting in Hindu-Muslim clashes.
Skinheads. Desecration of places
of worship by so-called adherents and defenders of the (particular) faith. All acts which the founders of faith would
have abhorred and rebelled against.
Human beings are frail and part of this frailty is a
propensity to indulge in punditry, in assuming interpretive superiority and
invariably in de-contextualizing philosophical edict to suit time-bound,
self-justifying and political objective.
Articles of Faith, therefore, are pregnant with interpretive slant and
political convenience. There has been
little ‘turning the other cheek’; indeed it has mostly been a case of slapping
first he who would not slap back and returning the non-slapping favour by
slapping the other cheek as well.
Religion is more an alibi therefore than anything else;
something that has a corpus of edicts so voluminous that it is a readily
available source of justification for any act, especially violence. It is not some divine entity but a
self-appointed interpreter of god-word, if you will, who weighs, decides,
sanctions and thereby raises sword, pull trigger. Not the fault of prophet but the will of
follower (so-called).
The eighth article of the Dasa Raja Dharma, the incomparable
doctrine of good governance articulated by Siddhartha Gauthama clearly places
non-violence at the heart of state-craft.
‘Avihimsa’ or non-violence, is advocated as an integral element
of the ruler’s handbook.
Avihimsa, in Buddhism, is not limited to human-human
engagement for Budun Wahanse went beyond that admirable rule of engagement
proposed by Jesus Christ to the Pharisees , ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’
(Matthew 22: 36-40); extending the virtue to engagement with all living things,
‘Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta’ (May all being be happy!). One notes that a dead being cannot be happy
(or sad), but more importantly causing harm does not confer joy to any
creature, human or otherwise. The
relevant lesson is ‘desist from violence’ and violence, one notes, is many
faceted and is not limited to things physical.
A ruler must consider the greater good of the majority for
invariably there will be situations where one person’s happiness directly
causes unhappiness in another. What is
key in the matter is the employment of wisdom as a necessary complement of
compassion. A ruler has to defend the citizenry and in situations where war is
imposed from outside (as in the case of invasion or even insurrection), the
driving force of response has to be the need to protect. Budun Wahanse spoke of compassion, yes, but
also dwelled at length on wisdom.
It is natural (consequent to embedded frailties) for a ruler
to err and be swayed by convictions and self-interest. This is how infringement of rule comes to
require justification and is duly justified, often with a liberal smattering of
book-quote.
Non-violence is about making a conscious effort not to
hurt. Hurting and revenge have no place
in good governance. This is not to say
that infringement of law should go unpunished of course. On the other hand, it strongly advocates the
elimination of revenge-intent and anger from all action. It implies also the negation of self-interest
to the extent possible given frailty in dispensing judgment as well as
formulation and implementation of policy, including legislative enactment and
constitutional amendment.
How does a ruler achieve the kind of detachment that feeds
engagement of this order; i.e. cultivate the ability to balance compassion with
wisdom, to resist and overcome self-promotion, political exclusion and quelling
of opposition outside of the employment of reason? How is ‘avihimsa’, the deliberate decision
to desist from any act that can harm the citizenry (including the decision to
look aside while enemies not beholden to the corpus of the law freely plunder,
kill and desecrate) cultivated so that there a net wholesomeness accrues to the
people?
I believe that the doctrine of avihimsa, like all
things that find residence in the Buddha-vachana (Word of the Buddha),
was underwritten by a consistent reference to the worth of cultivating
equanimity. This more than anything else
is the sobering referent that rulers ought to but do not often cite,
incorporate and internalize. Passion
clouds reason. Emotion gnaws away at
compassion. It stops us from seeing
(forget loving) our neighbour as ourselves, as sharing the same will to live
and same fear of death.
A ruler, more than anyone else, given his/her
responsibilities to entities larger than self, family, neighbourhood, village
and province, is by definition conferred with a greater and more complex volume
of factors to consider in decision-making than the ordinary citizen. Confirming adherence to the eighth element of
the Dasa Raja Dharma requires maturity, humility and practice. It requires acknowledgment of error and
correcting of flaw. It requires constant
allusion to the greater good, not by word alone but concrete and effective act.
It requires the continuous cultivation of the sathara brahma viharana,
compassion, kindness, the ability to rejoice in another’s happiness and
equanimity. When a leader is endowed
with such qualities or has resolved to equip him/herself with these, then and
then alone is it possible to practice and indeed embody the virtue of ‘ahimsa’.
Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta, may all beings be
happy!
The following is the complete set of articles on the Dasa Raja Dharma
The following is the complete set of articles on the Dasa Raja Dharma
Dana: the virtue of giving
Sila: the moral component of the Dasa Raja Dharma]
Pariccaga: the third element of the Dasa Raja Dharma
Ajjava: the discourse on honesty and integrity in governance
Majjava: the kinder, gentler elements of governance
Tapa: the virtues of austerity and restraint
Akkodha: the need to eschew enmity
Avihimsa: incorporating non-violence into good governance
Khanti: the virtue of patience and tolerance
Avirodha: a must-cultivate for the effective and benevolent ruler
1 comments:
'articles of faith are pregnant with interpretive slant'. This is very true. When the Lord Jesus said'Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself', he, like the Lord Buddha went far beyond the words.He was not speaking only of violence. Moses had already made the authoritative statement 'Thou shall not kill'.
That remained rock-solid.When asked by his disciples 'who is my neighbour?' Jesus gave them the parable of the Good Samaritan.
He spoke of love,irrespective of race, caste or creed.
Post a Comment