Part of The Cottonwood Collection — a public reference library on harm, care, and stewardship.
Indian philosophical traditions offer a rich and multifaceted discourse on harm, duties of care, and the protection of vulnerable populations. These concepts are explored through diverse lenses, ranging from the individual ethical conduct prescribed by ahimsa to the pragmatic statecraft outlined in the Arthashastra. This survey examines key concepts and historical examples across various schools of thought, highlighting both the common threads and the points of contention.
Ahimsa, often translated as non-violence or non-harming, is a central tenet in Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. While the term itself appears in various ancient texts, its significance as a foundational ethical principle solidified over centuries. In Jainism, ahimsa is the supreme virtue. Jain monastic practice involves extreme measures to avoid harming any living being, including insects and microorganisms. This commitment extends to both physical and mental actions, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all life.
Buddhist interpretations of ahimsa emphasize the avoidance of harm through mindful action and speech. The Dhammapada (129-130) states, “All tremble at violence; all fear death. Comparing oneself with others, one should not kill or cause to kill.” This perspective highlights the universality of suffering and the ethical imperative to minimize harm. In Hinduism, ahimsa is considered a cardinal virtue (yama) in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras (2.35), forming a foundation for ethical conduct. However, the application of ahimsa within Hinduism has been subject to varied interpretations, particularly in relation to social duties and the use of force in specific circumstances.
The concept of ahimsa extends beyond individual conduct to encompass institutional and social obligations. It calls for creating social structures that minimize harm and promote well-being. This broader application raises complex questions about the role of the state, the justice system, and economic practices in upholding ahimsa.
The dharma traditions of Hinduism provide a complex framework for understanding duties of care, often rooted in the concept of svadharma, one’s own duty or role-specific obligations. The Bhagavad Gita explores the tension between duty and compassion through the dilemma of Arjuna. Faced with the prospect of fighting his relatives in battle, Arjuna is overwhelmed by grief and contemplates abandoning his dharma as a warrior. Krishna advises him to fulfill his duty, arguing that inaction in the face of injustice is also a form of harm. The Gita (2.31) states, “Considering also your own duty as a warrior, you should not waver, for there is no greater good for a warrior than a battle fought according to dharma.”
However, the Gita’s emphasis on svadharma raises ethical questions about the potential for conflict between caste duties and universal compassion. Critics argue that the traditional dharma framework can perpetuate social hierarchies and justify harm inflicted upon marginalized groups. Arjuna’s dilemma remains a powerful case study in the complexities of harm reasoning, forcing individuals to confront the ethical implications of their actions and the potential for conflicting duties.
In Buddhism, compassion (karuṇā) is intrinsically linked to the understanding of suffering and the path to liberation. The Four Noble Truths identify suffering (dukkha) as a fundamental aspect of human existence and offer a path to end it. This framework provides a foundation for understanding harm as a manifestation of suffering and compassion as a means of alleviating it.
The Bodhisattva ideal embodies the highest expression of compassion. Bodhisattvas are individuals who have attained enlightenment but choose to postpone their own final liberation in order to help all other beings overcome suffering. This selfless commitment to the well-being of others is a central tenet of Mahayana Buddhism. Nagarjuna, a prominent philosopher of the Madhyamaka school, argues that all phenomena are empty (sunyata) of inherent existence and are interdependent. This understanding of emptiness implies that the suffering of one being is connected to the well-being of all others, reinforcing the importance of compassion and the need to minimize harm.
The reign of Emperor Ashoka (3rd century BCE) provides a compelling historical example of a ruler attempting to translate philosophical principles of non-harm into governance policy. Following a bloody conquest of Kalinga, Ashoka converted to Buddhism and embraced a policy of dhamma-vijaya (conquest through dharma). His edicts, inscribed on rocks and pillars throughout his empire, articulate his commitment to non-violence, compassion, and the welfare of his subjects.
Ashoka’s edicts emphasize the importance of non-violence towards all living beings, including animals. He banned animal sacrifices, promoted vegetarianism, and established hospitals for both humans and animals. The Rock Edict II states, “Everywhere in the dominions of King Piyadasi [Ashoka]…two kinds of medical treatment were established: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals.”
Ashoka also implemented policies aimed at promoting social justice and protecting vulnerable populations. He appointed officials to oversee the welfare of women, children, and the elderly, and he encouraged tolerance and understanding among different religious groups. Ashoka’s edicts demonstrate the potential for ethical principles to inform governance and promote a more just and compassionate society. However, scholars debate the extent to which Ashoka’s policies were truly effective and whether his emphasis on dhamma served political as well as ethical goals.
In contrast to the emphasis on ahimsa in many Indian philosophical traditions, the Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya, presents a pragmatic framework for statecraft that prioritizes the security and prosperity of the kingdom. The Arthashastra argues that the king’s primary duty is to protect (raksha) the people, even if it requires the use of deception and force.
Kautilya acknowledges the importance of ethical conduct but argues that the king must be willing to act ruthlessly when necessary to defend the state and maintain order. The Arthashastra advocates for a strong military, a well-organized bureaucracy, and a sophisticated system of espionage. While the text emphasizes the importance of just governance and the welfare of the people, it also recognizes the realities of power politics and the need for strategic calculation. The Arthashastra thus presents a tension between the ethical ideals of ahimsa and the practical demands of statecraft, raising questions about the limits of non-violence in the face of existential threats.
Mahatma Gandhi transformed the concept of ahimsa into a powerful tool for social and political change through his philosophy of satyagraha, or “truth force.” Gandhi argued that non-violence is not passive withdrawal but rather an active form of resistance that seeks to convert the opponent through love and understanding. He believed that ahimsa requires confronting injustice and challenging oppressive systems, even at great personal cost.
Gandhi drew inspiration from various sources, including the Bhagavad Gita, which he interpreted as an allegory for the internal struggle between good and evil. He emphasized the importance of selfless action (nishkama karma) and the need to detach oneself from the fruits of one’s labor. Gandhi’s interpretation of the Gita provided a philosophical foundation for his commitment to non-violent resistance. Gandhi’s satyagraha campaigns in South Africa and India demonstrated the power of non-violent action to challenge injustice and promote social change. His philosophy continues to inspire movements for peace and justice around the world.
B.R. Ambedkar, a prominent Dalit leader and social reformer, offered a critical perspective on traditional dharma frameworks and their role in perpetuating social inequality. Ambedkar argued that the caste system, rooted in Hindu scriptures and social practices, was a fundamental source of harm and injustice. He challenged the notion of svadharma as a justification for maintaining the caste hierarchy and advocated for the abolition of caste altogether.
Ambedkar argued that true care ethics must include a commitment to structural justice and the dismantling of oppressive systems. He believed that the Dalit community, historically subjected to discrimination and violence, could only achieve true liberation through political empowerment and social transformation. Ambedkar’s critique of caste provides a powerful reminder that ethical principles must be applied to address systemic forms of harm and injustice.
The Tamil Sangam literature, a collection of poems composed between the 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE, offers insights into the ethical values of ancient Tamil society. The concept of aram, often translated as virtue or duty, is a central theme in Sangam literature. The Thirukkural, a classic Tamil text attributed to Thiruvalluvar, provides a comprehensive guide to ethical living, encompassing personal conduct, social relationships, and governance.
The Thirukkural emphasizes the importance of compassion, justice, and the ruler’s duty to protect the vulnerable. It advocates for a just and equitable society in which all members are treated with dignity and respect. The Thirukkural (546) states, “That is the true government which shields its people from harm, supplies them with wealth, and cherishes the good.” Thiruvalluvar’s teachings highlight the ethical responsibilities of leadership and the importance of creating a society that promotes the well-being of all its citizens.
In conclusion, Indian philosophical traditions offer a rich and diverse tapestry of ethical perspectives on harm, duties of care, and the protection of vulnerable populations. From the emphasis on ahimsa in Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism to the pragmatic statecraft outlined in the Arthashastra, these traditions provide a range of frameworks for understanding and addressing ethical challenges. The historical examples of Ashoka’s reign, Gandhi’s satyagraha movement, and Ambedkar’s critique of caste demonstrate the ongoing relevance of these philosophical traditions to contemporary debates about social justice and the pursuit of a more compassionate and equitable world.
Primary source: gemini (11080 chars). Cross-referenced against 4 provider(s). Generated 20260228-020111.