The Application of Indian Tradition of Ahimsa in Modern Politics: Conceptual Analysis on the Foundations of Hard Power and Immorality in National and International Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Indian tradition, Ahimsa which instils absolute non-violence, equality, universal love and oneness of all human beings is believed to have a guiding role in the conduct of national and international politics. But, the practical contribution of Ahimsa has been insignificant and questionable both in modern national and international politics. Historically contingent truths about the natures of modern national politics have witnessed; values, norms and laws of states are mainly executed by the use of hard power and immoral instruments as conditions dictate. Monopoly of coercive apparatus and conditional immorality are proved to be the core essences of modern states. International relation is also characterized by the logic of political realism which gives priority to state power and national interest than Ahimsa’s universal principles of love and oneness of all human beings. In this article, by using analytic approach, an effort is made to critically analyze concepts to expound the existence of basic contradictions of the moral principles and values of Ahimsa with the basic natures and purposes of the politics of modern sates and international relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".