In this regard Gandhi tried to impose celibacy upon his workers as well, which similarly, given human nature, could not work. Like other monastic rules non- violence was never turned into a general rule of social conduct in the older Hindu Dharma. Historically Hindu, Buddhist and Jain Kings of India, Tibet and China were allowed to use force to protect their kingdoms, and to punish criminals, even though their religions teach non-violence as a spiritual discipline. 

To tell such people that it is wrong for them to defend themselves and their loved ones is to make them feel guilty and confused. It weakens their self-esteem and their vitality, which only makes them prey to violence from the outside. It invites attack and thereby leads to more bloodshed than if people were allowed to defend themselves in the first place. When we try to artificially impose a standard of absolute non-violence upon ordinary people, or make it the policy of a nation, we are acting in violation of the natural order of things. 

Such an impossible standard can only undermine the social order. In fact the imposition of non-violence on everyone is itself a form of violence, the imposition of an artificial standard on our natural instincts that must cause suffering. The great Swamis of India did not seek to undermine the Kshatriya Dharma. Adi Shankaracharya accepted the value of Kshatriya Dharma as he did a Vedic order for Hindu society. Let us also look at the example of the great Swami Vidyarananya of Sringeri (fourteenth century), an Advaitin (non-dualist) and a Mayavadin, who yet inspired two Hindu Kshatriyas who had become Muslims to reconvert to Hinduism and found the great Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar to protect the Dharma. He did not ask for these Kshatriya rulers to follow absolute non-violence.

[ Back ] [ David Frawley ] [ Up ] [ Next ]