Jainism & Politics
By: Young Jain Professionals, Yjp
Tags: Politics, Young Jain Professionals, Jainism, Values, Impact

By: Naman Shah

If your experience is similar to mine, we’ve met Jains at all ends of the political spectrum — from far left, to far right, to plain apathy. Religion and politics are two domains where our values, and sometimes our emotions, can be expressed both collectively and through institutional forms. Yet, if we as Jains share a set of core values — Ahimsa (non-violence), Aparigrah (non-possessiveness), and Anekantavada (multiplicity of views) — then why do our politics differ so dramatically? I’d like to share some thoughts on common questions which we all grapple with, though with the disclaimer that I’m still figuring this all out.

“If we as Jains share a set of core values — Ahimsa (non-violence), Aparigrah (non-possessiveness), and Anekantavada (multiplicity of views) — then why do our politics differ so dramatically?”

Is political activity a moral matter?

Similar to religions, political parties are built upon a set of values. In religion, these values are of a clear moral nature. In politics, those same moral values are often present and furthermore, are expressed as social action. We can, as individuals, act in consistency with our values, however we don’t live on isolated islands. What I do affects others and vice versa. So it is politics that give us the means to manifest our moral values at a community level. Therefore, both forms of action are critical.

Aren’t politics more complicated than religion?

Yes, but this does not absolve us from going deeper. Where politics differs from religion is that it incorporates other forms of values in addition to the moral. These range from the aesthetic/cultural, what do we want our public spaces to look like, to the technical, what form of X policy better achieves Y goal, and quite often, the personal interest, which tax policy will benefit me the most? The segregation between such considerations and moral values is, of course, not always so neat. Regardless, people who share the same moral values can differ along these lines. For example, if as Jains we believe in non-violence and we know poverty is a profound form of structural violence, we should insist on poverty reduction as a component of our politics. But whether poverty is best addressed through targeted social programs, a universal basic income, or a specific fiscal policy can be reasonable grounds for difference. If we ensure in our politics that moral values trump the aesthetic and the personal interest, and guide the technical decisions, we can improve the consistency between what we profess and how we infuse those values into the world we live in.

“If we ensure in our politics that moral values trump the aesthetic and the personal interest, and guide the technical decisions, we can improve the consistency between what we profess and how we infuse those values into the world we live in.”

Shouldn’t religion be politically neutral?

Impossible. Neutrality as a form of non-engagement is, in effect, an endorsement of the status quo. Neutral as a form of equivalence, that different forms of politics represent the same range of our moral values, is a logical fallacy that we’ll discuss below.



Don’t all politicians/parties break our values?

There is a somewhat understandable tendency towards cynicism in politics: “It doesn’t really matter, they’re all the same.” And yes, all political groups are imperfect, being human like us, coupled with the challenges of representing and coordinating within a diverse group of people. But some good actions minus some bad ones does not become an equation that equals out to zero. Unfortunately, we’re left with the difficult task of assessing trade-offs and working with the best available political forces where we can still improve society even if it doesn’t result in perfection. The lack of clarity can be frustrating. Stated differently, aren’t there multiple viewpoints? So how we do what constitutes the ‘best available’? This is an old critique of Anekantavada, but we know the answer — multiplicity of viewpoints is not the same as simple relativism; there is an ultimate truth which must be worked towards.

Why critique anyone and not just focus on doing good?

Doing good is wonderful. It’s hard to argue with that. What we miss is sometimes the good can come from, or even be an attempt to actively hide, much larger costs. Think about the oil companies which donate a few million but spend hundreds more lobbying to prevent regulations that would reduce the billions in harm they cause in the first place. Or the parable of the engineer trying to build a bridge over a river where people are drowning without addressing the person who is throwing them in just ahead. Sometimes what’s more or as important is to do less harm to begin with. We shy away from this because it can involve conflict and threatens privilege, often including our own.

This is too abstract, what are some examples?

Looking at political leaders such as Trump or Modi, I cannot reconcile their positions with our core moral values. Both casually mention using nuclear weapons, boast gleefully about killing enemies, and openly pursue policies that discriminate against minorities, creating an atmosphere of fear and devaluation. Some might defensively term these opinions or accusations, but even in our post-fact era, these acts are in plain view if one bothers to look. While their opposition leaves much to be desired, and may have committed similar offenses at one point in time, their political alternatives do not repeatedly and systematically denigrate our most cherished beliefs. As YJP prepares to meet with one of these two in the near future I hope we will advocate for our key values of non-violence and tolerance. That would be worthy of an interaction with a Jain organization. By engaging with politics we are individually and collectively empowered to impact both our soul and our world.