PENALTY

contradictions in the world. But capital punishment can be a deadly
interruption of the possibility of balancing the different karmas and
improving the world, favouring a higher level of mercy and life: a
death sentence would be a powerful obstacle to communication
between the reproductive karma, the supportive karma, the obstructive
karma and the destructive karma.
When the Dalai Lama subscribed to the appeal I submitted on
behalf of the Community of Sant’Egidio in Rome, he also submitted
this message, read at an event organized by Peace Center on
April 9, 1999:
HINDUISM
The death penalty fulfills a preventive function, but it
is also very clearly a form of revenge. It is an especially
severe form of punishment because it is so final. The
human life is ended and the executed person is deprived
of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or
compensate for it. Before advocating execution we should
consider whether criminals are intrinsically negative and
harmful people or whether they will remain perpetually
in the same state of mind in which they committed their
crime or not. The answer, I believe, is definitely not.
However horrible the act they have committed, I believe
that everyone has the potential to improve and correct
themselves. Therefore, I am optimistic that it remains possible
to deter criminal activity, and prevent such harmful
consequences of such acts in society, without having to
resort to the death penalty.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” This adage of
Mahatma Gandhi, who is regarded as a sage by many Hindus and
others, is often quoted by opponents of the death penalty. India, while
home to diverse religions, is heavily influenced by Hinduism. The
country recently restarted executions after an almost decade-long de
facto moratorium. But given the small number of executions, the
death penalty is almost non-existent.
Those who do support the death penalty give reasons that are different
from those most often heard in the West. The founder of the Hare
Krishna movement, Srila Prabhupada, said that the reason a murderer
should be condemned to death is so that “in his next life he will not
have to suffer for the great sin he has committed.” 4 Another Hindu
thinker has argued that
Hinduism is full of compassion and forgiveness. Leave
aside human beings; we are supposed to be kind even to
insects and animals. We are not supposed to kill a small
insect. Therefore, taking the life of a human being is a very
big issue for us. Our Hindu dharma is very clear that use
of violence against anyone is not allowed. Any other type of
punishment may be given, but we should not take anyone’s
life. Our scriptures and Vedas do not favor capital punishment.
They advocate the principle of non-violence. 5
That is akin to the teachings that Mahatma Gandhi made well
known, rooted in Ahimsa, a Hindu form of thinking based on
non-violence: “By birth I am a Vaishanavite, and was taught Ahimsa
in my childhood. . . . In its negative form, it means not injuring any
living being, whether by body or mind. I may not therefore hurt the
person of any wrong-doer, or bear any ill will to him and so cause
mental suffering.”
This attitude is very nearly inscribed in the Indian Constitution,
where the death penalty is reserved for “the rarest of the rarest cases.”
On the one hand, this means that the framers of the Constitution must
have approved of capital punishment; on the other hand, it suggests
that disagreement among them was strong enough that they sought
to strictly limit its use. Babasaheb Ambedkar, a primary architect of
the Indian Constitution, wanted to keep capital punishment out of
it. He said that while many people who believe in nonviolence may
not follow it in practice, “they certainly adhere to the principle of
non-violence as a moral mandate which they ought to observe as far
4 Srila Prabhupada, Bhagavad-Gita as It Is (New York, Macmillan, 1968).
5 Samvidananda Saraswati, the head of Kailam Ashram, in Hinduism Today (October-December
2006).
194 195