Justice and Violence

Political Violence, Pacifism and Cultural Transformation

Eric Nelson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780815390053
• eBook ISBN: 9781351154628
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Originally published in 2003. Justice and Violence brings together a fascinating and varied volume that focuses on the ethics of both political violence and pacifism. Incorporating historical, geopolitical and cultural case studies, it takes a unique look at comparative analyses of these two phenomena and contending world views. The volume is a 'must read' for political scientists, ethicists, historians, sociologists, anthropologists and policy analysts. As we move deeper into the twenty-first century, the contradictory and conflicting forces of globalization and cultural fragmentation make it increasingly crucial to give serious consideration to the issues raised here.

PART 1

The Justice of Violence

Chapter 1

Just War

An Ethic of Restraint or the Defense of Order?

Valerie O. F. Morkevicius

University of Chicago

Holy community and holy war are related ideas – not necessarily because holiness makes for hostility toward foreign nations, more likely because community does.¹

Michael Walzer

The defense of social order seems to lie at the heart of the just war traditions in all of the world’s major religions. Domestic stability is perceived as one of the highest values, for it is only within a well-ordered, stable society that human spirituality can reach its highest potential. Such domestic stability is predicated on two types of order. Order within society – in terms of a just socio-political system, usually unified under one legitimate ruler – is necessary so that the human community may flourish and that the religion in question can be practiced most faithfully. Likewise, some sort of ordered relationship between societies (or states) is necessary to ensure the survival of the domestic community itself.

When the importance of order is highlighted, the logic behind just war thinking takes on a different cast. Customarily, just war regulations are seen as attempts to limit the evils of war, alleviating some of war’s destructiveness. Perhaps because of the excessive brutality of wars in the twentieth century, we tend to conflate war’s destructive nature with the high toll on human life. But death may not be the worst evil of war. Rather, the concern with restricting the frequency and scope of wars via just war principles may instead reflect an interest in ensuring that a particular social order and stability are not destroyed during the course of the war, so that a war for the defense of the community does not result in the destruction of the community’s potential to live up to its ideals.² Prevention or reduction of violence may not serve only as a good in itself, but rather as a means to an end – the defense of a just social order. This is not to say that human life is not seen as sacred or worthy of protection, but rather that the life of the community as a whole may be of an even higher priority. When the preservation of a certain society is the base, the focus of the theory then becomes self-defense and the meting out of “just punishment” when others’ infringe on the society’s rights.

This paper will explore this perspective on the just war tradition.³ It will begin firstly by drawing on insights from Hindu and Islamic thinking about war, where the emphasis on protecting domestic stability and order is emphasized to a greater extent. Second, it will re-examine Christian just war in light of these new ideas, judging to what degree the same logics might be operative in this case. Finally, it will discuss the possible implications of understanding just war theory in terms of its emphasis on social order rather than on its violence mitigating aspects.

It was in reading Hindu and Islamic philosophers’ discussion of just war that the centrality of defending the community first occurred to me, although the idea can also be found in such canonical Christian just war authors as St. Augustine. Since the concern with protecting the community, and thus ensuring the possibility of a just social order, is more evident in Hindu and Islamic thinking, it seems like a good place to begin exploring this concept. Each of the subsections below will begin by establishing the centrality and importance of the concern with order, before examining how this concern shapes each tradition’s classification of the just causes and means of war.

Hinduism: Order as the Foundation for Any Just Society

This concern with stability and order is perhaps the most evident in Hinduism.⁴ Man’s relation with society is “the basic social relation,” morally prior and superior to all other relationships.⁵ Order itself is intimately connected with force and violence: “the existence of all fine and noble life, of higher morality, or all happiness, of all order, depends entirely on the basis of force.”⁶ In nature, stronger animals prey upon the weaker. The same would be true in human society if it were not for force justly used on behalf of the weaker. As one Hindu text reads, “Force was ordained by the creator himself, for protecting religion and wealth, for the happiness of all the four orders, and for making them righteous and modest.”⁷ The preservation of order is so important that “non-destruction of the wicked is as great a sin as the destruction of righteousness.”⁸

Although the internal life of contemplation, understanding and ultimately enlightenment are of the utmost importance, men (and gods) must act relentlessly to maintain order. Philosophy and discipline, renunciation and action, are not inherently contradictory – wise men must avoid such a simplistic duality and apply both correctly, according to the circumstances. In fact, at some points action may even be superior to contemplation.⁹ As Lord Krishna reminds Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita: “These worlds would collapse if I did not perform action; I would create disorder in society, living beings would be destroyed.” ¹⁰ Following in his footsteps, “wise men should act with detachment to preserve the world.”¹¹

The use of force to ensure order is not only a right (as in the Christian jus ad belium tradition of self-defense), but also a duty. In traditional Hindu ethics, duties are delegated to different social classes, and the duty to protect society falls to the warrior class, the ksatriya.¹² Inherent to men of this class are “heroism, fiery energy, resolve, skill, refusal to retreat in battle, charity, and majesty in conduct.”¹³ As the highest representative of the warrior class, it is the king’s duty to use force against those internal and external enemies who would threaten the just and righteous order of society. This concept is expressed in numerous Dharmasutras, or ancient Hindu law codes. These laws were not simply secular, but also carried religious sanction.¹⁴ For example, the Dharmasutra of Vasistha states that while “a Brahmin or a Vaisya may take up arms to defend himself and to prevent the mixing of classes, a Ksatriya, on the other hand, should do so all the time, because it is incumbent upon himself to protect the people.”¹⁵ Likewise the Code of Manu lists the ksatriya’s duties as “protection of the people, study of Veda, offering sacrifices and bestowing of gifts and abstention from attaching himself to the sensual pleasures;” since their function is to protect the people – indeed all of Creation, warriors and kings come from this class.¹⁶ In modern times, the caste system is outdated, and the injustices that too easily stemmed from it prevent any nostalgia. But it is not too much of a logical leap to imagine that the modern political elite could be seen as taking on the ksatriya mantle, as a way of modernizing the theory.

The ksatriya’s duty to act to restore order is emphasized in Hindu mythology. In the Bhagavad Gita chapter of the greatest Hindu epic, the Ramayana, Lord Krishna exhorts Arjuna to “look to [his] own duty; do not tremble before it; nothing is better for a warrior than a battle of sacred duty.”¹⁷ Classifying the battle ahead as a “sacred duty,” Krishna warns that abandoning such a duty would not only lead to shame and slander among men, but would also be in itself a morally evil act.¹⁸ If men fail to perform their sacred duty and do not act to preserve order when “chaos prevails,” then Krishna appears to inspire men of virtue to their duty, and to protect them while destroying men who do evil.¹⁹ Indeed, the Bhagavad Gita itself, as a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna, is meant to encourage Arjuna to do his duty and to fight the battle without fear or guilt.

The fact that the use of force is married to the defense of order can also be seen in the way that wars are classified in several important Hindu texts. The types of wars that are considered just reflect the importance of defending the community, for the sake of upholding a just order. In Kautilya’s Arthasastra,²⁰ for example, Indra divides just wars into four classes: “(1) wars caused by invasion of one’s territory, (2) wars caused by something done by others prejudicial to the exercise of the regal powers, (3) wars resulting from some dispute about boundaries, and (4) wars caused by some disturbance in the mandala.”²¹ Each type of war relates in some way to the restoration (or preservation) of order. It is important to note that while there is religious sanction for the preservation of order via force, there is no mention of wars of religion in the sacred texts, and thus no justification for fighting in order to propagate Hinduism abroad.²²

Furthermore, although war may be necessary for the sake of order, it should always be the last resort. In the words of the Arthasastra, “Even when the advantages of peace and war are equal one should prefer peace, for war causes loss of power and wealth and is troublesome and sinful.”²³ War inevitably tears at the fibers of a well-ordered society. It is also evident that for Kautilya “peace is the very basis for the existence and continuation of any political system,” and that peace is the best means for obtaining the ideal of progress.²⁴ Peace is the environment in which human goodness and spirituality thrive; peace is the necessary foundation for the development of society, which is seen in Hinduism as one of the highest goods. But true peace only exists when there is order – therefore, in times of extreme need force may be used for the sake of order and peace.

The need for order is not only reflected in the just causes for war in the Hindu tradition, but also in the means by which wars may be justly fought. In general, Hindu sacred texts and philosophical and legal treatises on war uphold the principle of non-combatant immunity. Helpless people cannot be slain, whether they be innocent civilians, prisoners of war, or even combatants who have lost their weapons or are running away. In the Sauptika, it is asserted that “one should not cast weapons upon kin, Brahmins, kings, women, friends, one’s own mother, one’s own preceptor, a weak woman, an idiot, a blind man, a sleeping man, a terrified man, one just risen from sleep, an intoxicated person, and one that is heedless.”²⁵ Additionally, the severity of the violence should be limited, and kings should not take advantage of their military superiority. The Mahabharata suggests, “the victor should protect the land newly conquered, from acts of aggression. He should not causes his troops to pursue to much the routed foe … Warriors of courage do not wish to strike them that run away with speed.”²⁶ There is a deep-seated concern with fighting fairly, in particular that both parties should be more or less equally matched, and that “no unfair advantage is to be taken of the opponent’s weakness.”²⁷ Together, these restrictions on combat have t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Contributors
• Introduction
• Part 1 The Justice of Violence
• Part 2 Violence as Injustice
• Part 3 Beyond Justice and Injustice
• Select Bibliography
• Index