Current Affairs 14 January 2026

Content

1. End of 10-Minute Delivery: Gig Workers’ Safety vs Platform Capitalism
2. Source Code Disclosure Debate: Cybersecurity vs Digital Rights
3. Urbanisation of Small Towns: India’s Silent Urban Transition
4. Passive Euthanasia and the Right to Die with Dignity: Supreme Court Jurisprudence
5. Shaksgam Valley: Sovereignty, Illegality and the China–Pakistan Axis
6. Why Buddhism Went Global and Jainism Did Not: Doctrine, Patronage and Diffusion

---

End of 10-Minute Delivery — Gig Workers’ Safety vs Platform Capitalism

---

Why in News ?

• Major delivery platforms (Blinkit, Zepto, Zomato, Swiggy) decided to remove 10-minute delivery branding after intervention by the Union Labour Minister.
• Triggered by:
  • One-day strike by gig/platform workers (Dec 31).
  • Demands citing accidents, health stress, and unsafe working conditions.
• Marks a policy-relevant moment in India’s evolving gig economy governance.

Relevance

• GS I (Society)
  • Changing nature of work, informalisation, urban labour precarity
  • Platform economy & “invisible urban workers”
• GS II (Social Justice & Governance)
  • Labour welfare, unorganised sector, State intervention
  • Code on Social Security, 2020; labour as Concurrent List

Vulnerable Workforce Category

• Gig workers fall under informal, unorganised, and non-standard employment.
• Characteristics:
  • No fixed employer–employee relationship.
  • Absence of minimum wages, social security, paid leave.
  • Algorithmic control without human accountability.

10-minute delivery intensified precarity and risk, deepening social injustice.

Changing Nature of Work

• Shift from traditional employment → platform-mediated work.
• Speed-based service models:
  • Normalise hyper-productivity culture.
  • Transfer business risk (time pressure, road safety) to workers.

Social Impact

• Accident-prone urban delivery ecosystem.
• Health issues:
  • Stress, fatigue, unsafe driving.
• Creates a class of “invisible urban workers” sustaining middle-class convenience.

Constitutional Ethos

• Article 21: Right to life → includes right to safe and dignified working conditions.
• Article 23: Prohibition of forced labour → economic compulsion + unsafe mandates raise ethical concerns.
• Directive Principles:
  • Article 39(e): Health and strength of workers must not be abused.
  • Article 42: Just and humane conditions of work.

10-minute delivery model arguably conflicted with constitutional morality.

Governance & State Intervention

• Labour Minister’s intervention shows:
  • Soft regulation through persuasion, not coercion.
  • Recognition that branding and algorithms shape work intensity.
• Shift from:
  • “Consumer-first convenience”
  • to “worker-first safety framing”.

Gig Economy Regulation: Static Linkage

Existing Framework

• Code on Social Security, 2020:
  • Recognises gig & platform workers.
  • Enables social security schemes (insurance, maternity, old age).
• Gaps:
  • Codes not fully operational.
  • No regulation of algorithmic management, delivery timelines, or work intensity.

Ethical Dimension 

• Utilitarian consumer logic: Faster delivery = better service.
• Rights-based ethics: Worker safety > marginal consumer convenience.
• Corporate ethics issue:
  • Is speed-driven branding ethical if it externalises risk onto workers?

Government action reflects ethics of care and dignity of labour.

Economic & Urban Governance Angle

• Hyper-speed delivery:
  • Encourages unsafe driving → public safety issue.
  • Externalises costs (accidents, healthcare) to society.
• Sustainable platform economy requires:
  • Balancing efficiency with human costs.

Significance of the Decision

• Symbolic but important:
  • Removes normative pressure of “10 minutes”.
  • Acknowledges worker voices & collective action.
• Signals:
  • Beginning of labour-sensitive platform governance.
  • Precedent for regulating algorithm-driven work practices.

Challenges 

• Removal of branding ≠ end of implicit performance pressure.
• Warehousing logic may still incentivise speed.
• Weak collective bargaining power of gig workers.
• Absence of enforceable workplace safety standards for platforms.

Way Forward 

Regulatory

• Notify and operationalise Social Security Code provisions for gig workers.
• Define reasonable delivery timelines as part of labour standards.
• Mandate accident insurance & health coverage funded by platforms.

Institutional

• Establish Gig Workers Welfare Boards at State level.
• Enable platform worker unions/associations.

Technological Governance

• Audit algorithms for:
  • Work intensity
  • Penalty systems
  • Incentive structures
• Transparency in ratings & delivery metrics.

Social Justice Lens

• Recognise gig workers as workers, not mere service providers.
• Shift discourse from convenience to dignity of labour.

Prelims Pointers

• Gig workers are recognised under Code on Social Security, 2020.
• They are part of unorganised workforce, not regular employees.
• Labour is a Concurrent List subject.

---

Source Code Disclosure Debate — Cybersecurity vs Digital Rights

---

Why in News ?

• Reports (Reuters) suggested the Indian government was considering mandating smartphone manufacturers to:
  • Disclose source code to third-party testing agencies.
  • Notify the government before rolling out major software updates.
• Government has officially denied any finalised demand, stating discussions are exploratory.
• Triggered concerns over cybersecurity, privacy, transparency, and regulatory overreach.

Relevance

• GS II (Polity & Governance)
  • Right to Privacy (Art. 21), proportionality doctrine (Puttaswamy)
  • Transparency, stakeholder consultation
• GS III (Internal Security & S&T)
  • Cybersecurity, critical digital infrastructure
  • Supply-chain risks, state-sponsored cyber threats

What is Source Code?

• The core human-readable instructions that define how software functions.
• Includes:
  • Algorithms
  • Security architecture
  • System design logic
• Kept confidential because:
  • Commercial IP protection
  • Cybersecurity (prevents attackers from identifying vulnerabilities).

Why Source Code Disclosure Is Risky ?

• Security-by-obscurity vs Security-by-design:
  • Full disclosure increases attack surface.
• Risks include:
  • Easier identification of zero-day vulnerabilities.
  • Supply-chain attacks via testing agencies.
  • Potential state or non-state cyber exploitation.
• Smartphones = critical digital infrastructure:
  • Banking, Aadhaar, health, communications.

Paradox: A measure meant to enhance security may weaken systemic cyber resilience.

Internal Security Dimension 

• Smartphones are gateways to:
  • Personal data
  • Critical communications
  • Location and biometric-linked services
• Any compromise affects:
  • Individual security
  • National cyber posture
• India already faces:
  • Rising cybercrime
  • State-sponsored cyber threats

Source code exposure magnifies internal security vulnerabilities.

Governance & Regulatory Dimension 

Existing Regulatory Framework

• Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2017
• MTCTE (Mandatory Testing & Certification of Telecom Equipment):
  • Includes Indian Telecom Security Assurance Requirements (ITSAR).
• Telecommunications Act, 2023:
  • Shifted regulatory approach.
• Smartphones already undergo:
  • BIS certification for India.

Institutional Overlap

• Earlier: DoT → MTCTE & ITSARs.
• Now: MeitY assumes lead role.
• Raises issues of:
  • Regulatory clarity
  • Jurisdictional overlap

Polity & Constitutional Dimension

Article 21 – Right to Privacy

• Source code access could:
  • Enable mass surveillance (directly or indirectly).
  • Undermine data security guarantees.
• Puttaswamy judgment (2017):
  • Any intrusion must satisfy:
    • Legality
    • Necessity
    • Proportionality
    • Procedural safeguards

Blanket source code access fails proportionality test.

Transparency & Democratic Governance

Civil Society Concerns

• Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) flagged:
  • Closed-door consultations.
  • Lack of public disclosure of draft ITSARs.
• Governance issue:
  • Stakeholder consultation ≠ Big Tech consultation alone.
  • Democratic regulation requires public scrutiny.

Comparative Global Practice

• China:
  • Heavy state control, but even China does not mandate Apple to share full source code.
• EU / US:
  • Focus on:
    • Security audits
    • Vulnerability disclosure programmes
    • Standards-based compliance
  • Not source code handover.

India’s reported approach would be globally atypical.

Technology & Innovation Impact

• Risks:
  • Discouraging foreign investment.
  • Undermining India’s image as a trusted digital market.
• Potential chilling effect on:
  • Innovation
  • Startup ecosystem
  • Global supply chains.

Ethical Dimension 

Competing Ethical Claims

• State ethics: Protect citizens from insecure devices.
• Rights ethics: Protect users from overreach & surveillance.
• Corporate ethics: Duty to protect users’ data and systems.

Ethical governance demands least intrusive means.

Way Forward 

Regulatory Design

• Prefer:
  • Black-box security audits
  • Penetration testing
  • Bug bounty programmes
• Avoid:
  • Blanket source code access.

Institutional

• Clear division of roles:
  • DoT vs MeitY vs CERT-In.
• Strengthen:
  • CERT-In
  • National cyber testing labs.

Governance

• Publish draft ITSARs.
• Open public consultation.
• Parliamentary oversight of digital security norms.

Rights Protection

• Embed privacy-by-design and security-by-design.
• Align with Digital Personal Data Protection Act principles.

Challenges

• Balancing:
  • National security
  • Cyber resilience
  • Privacy & trust
• Rapid technological change outpacing regulation.
• Capacity constraints in indigenous testing infrastructure.

Prelims Pointers

• Source code ≠ executable code.
• Smartphones already certified by BIS.
• MTCTE stems from Indian Telegraph Rules, 2017.
• Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.

---

Urbanisation of Small Towns — India’s Silent Urban Transition

---

Why in News ?

• India’s urban debate remains metro-centric, while the most significant urbanisation is occurring in small towns (population <1 lakh).
• Of ~9,000 census/statutory towns, only ~500 are large cities.
• Editorial argues that small-town urbanisation is a structural outcome of capitalist development under stress, not a benign decentralisation.

Relevance

• GS I (Society & Urbanisation)
  • Urbanisation patterns, migration, informal labour
  • Urbanisation without industrialisation
• GS II (Governance & Local Government)
  • Municipal capacity, decentralisation vs devolution
  • Metro-centric bias in AMRUT

Core Argument

• India is witnessing urbanisation without urban prosperity.
• Small towns are not “alternatives” to metros; they are new frontiers absorbing surplus labour and capital displaced from over-saturated cities, often under weaker regulation and governance.

Nature of India’s Urban Transition

• From Metropolisation (1970s–1990s):
  • Large cities as centres of industry, state investment, labour absorption.
  • “Spatial fixes” for capitalism.
• To Small-Town Urbanisation (Present):
  • Driven by:
    • High land costs in metros
    • Infrastructure saturation
    • Rising cost of living
  • Small towns emerge as:
    • Logistics hubs
    • Agro-processing centres
    • Warehousing & construction economies
    • Service & consumption markets

Social Composition

• Migrant workers pushed out of metros.
• Rural youth with declining agrarian options.
• Dominance of informal labour:
  • Contract-less construction workers
  • Women in home-based piecework
  • Youth in platform/gig work without security

Urbanisation of rural poverty, not inclusive urban growth.

Municipal Weakness

• Small-town municipalities:
  • Understaffed
  • Underfunded
  • Low technical capacity
• Planning deficits:
  • Outsourced to consultants
  • Minimal local participation
  • Procedural rather than deliberative governance

Policy Bias

• Metro-centric urban missions:
  • AMRUT (even expanded) largely excludes small towns from meaningful investments.
  • Infrastructure design (water, sewerage) tailored to large cities.
• Consequences:
  • Tanker economies
  • Groundwater over-extraction
  • Ecological stress

Decentralisation without devolution.

Economic Dimension

• Small towns as:
  • Low-cost accumulation zones (cheap land, pliable labour).
  • Sites for informal capitalism.
• New power hierarchies:
  • Real estate brokers
  • Local contractors
  • Micro-financiers
  • Political intermediaries

Capital relocates, but labour precarity persists.

Infrastructure Stress

• Fragmented schemes instead of integrated systems.
• Absence of long-term urban services planning.

Environmental Dimension

• Unregulated groundwater extraction.
• Absence of sewage and solid waste systems.
• Ecological degradation without institutional safeguards.

Social Justice Angle  

Who Loses?

• Informal workers without:
  • Job security
  • Social protection
  • Collective bargaining
• Women workers concentrated in low-paid, invisible labour.
• Migrants lacking urban entitlements.

Structural Injustice

• Benefits of urbanisation accrue to:
  • Local elites
  • Land intermediaries
  • Platform corporations
• Costs borne by:
  • Workers
  • Urban poor
  • Local ecology

Unequal urban citizenship in small towns.

Ethical & Political Economy Perspective 

• Urban growth without dignity violates:
  • Justice
  • Equity
  • Human-centred development
• Planning reduced to technocracy, not democracy.

Way Forward 

1. Political Recognition

• Acknowledge small towns as India’s primary urban frontier, not peripheral spaces.

2. Reimagined Planning

• Town-specific plans integrating:
  • Housing
  • Livelihoods
  • Transport
  • Ecology
• Avoid replication of metro templates.

3. Empowered Local Governments

• Fiscal devolution to municipalities.
• Transparent budgeting.
• Capacity-building of local cadres.

4. Labour & Social Justice

• Space for:
  • Workers’ collectives
  • Cooperatives
  • Women’s groups
• Extend urban social protection to migrants and informal workers.

5. Discipline Capital & Platforms

• Regulate:
  • Platform economies
  • Digital infrastructures
• Ensure:
  • Labour rights
  • Local value retention
  • Data accountability

Prelims Pointers

• Majority of India’s towns are small towns (<1 lakh population).
• Urbanisation ≠ industrialisation or formalisation.
• AMRUT primarily targets larger urban centres.

Takeaway

• India’s future urban crisis will not be written in its megacities, but in its small towns—where capital has moved faster than planning, governance, and social justice.

---

Passive Euthanasia, Right to Life & Supreme Court Jurisprudence

---

Core Issue

• Family of a man in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) met Supreme Court of India judges seeking permission for euthanasia.
• The patient has been in a vegetative state for over 13 years.
• Judges sought views of primary and secondary medical boards on whether continuation of treatment is in the patient’s best interest.

Relevance

• GS II (Polity & Constitution)
  • Article 21, judicial interpretation of dignity
  • Supreme Court role in rights expansion
• GS IV (Ethics)
  • Autonomy vs sanctity of life
  • Medical ethics: beneficence, non-maleficence

What is Euthanasia?

• Euthanasia: Intentional act/omission to end life to relieve suffering.
• Types:
  • Active Euthanasia: Direct act to cause death (e.g., lethal injection) → Illegal in India.
  • Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal/withholding of life-sustaining treatment → Legal under conditions.
• Assisted Suicide: Providing means to commit suicide → Illegal.

Article 21 – Right to Life

• Interpreted as Right to live with dignity, not mere animal existence.
• Includes:
  • Right to privacy
  • Bodily autonomy
  • Right to refuse medical treatment

Key question: Does dignity extend to the end of life?
SC answer: Yes, in limited circumstances.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence

1. Aruna Shanbaug Case

• First legal recognition of passive euthanasia in India.
• Allowed withdrawal of life support for patients in PVS.
• Required:
  • Approval of High Court.
  • Medical opinion.
• Laid foundation but procedure was cumbersome.

2. Common Cause v. Union of India

• Landmark Constitution Bench judgment.
• Held:
  • Passive euthanasia is legal.
  • Living Will / Advance Directive recognised.
• Established:
  • Right to die with dignity as part of Article 21.
• Replaced HC approval with medical boards.

Legal Framework for Passive Euthanasia

Who can decide?

• Competent patient → Through Living Will / Advance Directive.
• Incompetent patient (PVS/coma) → Family + Doctors + Medical Boards.

Safeguards:

• Opinion of:
  • Primary Medical Board.
  • Secondary Medical Board.
• Certification that:
  • Treatment is futile.
  • Continuation not in best interest of patient.
• No criminal liability if procedure followed.

Medical Boards – Role Explained

• Primary Board: Treating doctors, hospital specialists.
• Secondary Board: Independent experts, acts as safeguard.
• Purpose:
  • Prevent misuse.
  • Ensure decision is medical, not emotional or economic.

Ethical Dimension 

Competing Ethical Principles

• Autonomy: Respecting patient’s will/dignity.
• Beneficence: Acting in patient’s best interest.
• Non-maleficence: Avoiding prolonged suffering.
• Sanctity of life vs Quality of life debate.

Indian approach: Middle path – no active killing, but dignity-preserving withdrawal.

Social & Governance Concerns

• Fear of misuse against:
  • Elderly
  • Disabled
  • Economically dependent patients
• Indian society:
  • Strong family involvement.
  • Limited palliative care infrastructure.
• Hence emphasis on procedural safeguards.

Relevance of Current Case

• Tests implementation of SC guidelines in real-life scenarios.
• Shows shift from judicial approval to medical ethics-based governance.
• Reinforces:
  • Family’s role.
  • Medical board centrality.
• Highlights growing acceptance of end-of-life dignity.

International Context

• Many countries allow:
  • Passive euthanasia (UK, India).
  • Some allow active euthanasia (Netherlands, Belgium).
• India follows conservative, dignity-based model.

Challenges

• Low awareness of Living Wills.
• Hospital-level hesitation due to fear of litigation.
• Uneven capacity of medical boards across States.
• Emotional burden on families.

Way Forward

• Standardise hospital protocols for end-of-life care.
• Public awareness on Advance Directives.
• Strengthen palliative care services.
• Periodic training of doctors on legal safeguards.
• Ethical committees at hospital level.

---

India’s Assertion, Pakistan’s Cession — How China Took Shaksgam Valley

---

Core Issue

• India has reiterated its sovereignty claim over Shaksgam Valley, after China referred to infrastructure activity in the region.
• The issue revives debates around the 1963 China–Pakistan Boundary Agreement, legality of territorial cession, and implications for India’s territorial integrity.

Relevance

• GS I (Geography)
  • Strategic location: Karakoram, Siachen region
• GS II (International Relations)
  • Sovereignty, boundary agreements, international law
  • India–China–Pakistan relations

Location & Geography 

• Shaksgam Valley (Trans-Karakoram Tract):
  • Lies north of the Shaksgam River, north of the Siachen Glacier.
  • Part of the larger Ladakh region of J&K claimed by India.
  • Area: ~5,000 sq km.
• Strategically located between Xinjiang (China) and PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir).

Historical Background

• Pre-1963:
  • Region historically linked to Jammu & Kashmir; never legally ceded by India.
  • China began asserting control post-1962 India–China war.
• 1963 Boundary Agreement:
  • Signed between China and Pakistan.
  • Pakistan illegally ceded ~5,180 sq km of Indian-claimed territory to China.
  • India not a party → Agreement void ab initio under international law (no third-party territorial transfer).

India’s Official Position

• Reiterated by Ministry of External Affairs:
  • Shaksgam Valley is Indian territory.
  • 1963 agreement has no legal validity.
  • China’s presence is based on illegal occupation facilitated by Pakistan.
• Consistent stance since 1960s, including Parliamentary statements by Jawaharlal Nehru.

China’s Position

• Claims Shaksgam based on 1963 agreement with Pakistan.
• Built infrastructure linking Xinjiang–Tibet through the area.
• Treats region as settled boundary, despite India’s objections.

Pakistan’s Role  

• Pakistan lacks locus standi to cede territory of J&K (disputed under UNSC resolutions).
• Pattern of territorial concessions to China for strategic & economic support.
• Weakens its own Kashmir position internationally.

Strategic & Security Dimension

• Shaksgam Valley forms a critical Sino-Pak strategic link.
• Enhances China–Pakistan military coordination near Siachen–Ladakh sector.
• Raises concerns for India’s northern front security.

CPEC Angle  

• Region’s proximity to China–Pakistan Economic Corridor:
  • Alternative routes connecting Xinjiang to Gwadar.
  • Part of China’s strategy to reduce dependence on Malacca Strait.
• India’s objection:
  • CPEC passes through Indian-claimed PoK → violation of sovereignty.

International Law Perspective 

• Principle violated: Nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what they don’t own).
• Boundary agreements involving disputed territories lack legitimacy without consent of all claimants.
• Reinforces India’s argument against third-party legitimisation of PoK.

Political & Diplomatic Dimension

• India maintained claims despite pressures during Cold War era, including from John F. Kennedy to compromise on Kashmir talks.
• Demonstrates continuity in India’s territorial claims irrespective of regime or global alignments.

Implications for India

• Territorial Integrity: Sets precedent against legitimising illegal occupations.
• India–China Relations: Adds another layer to boundary disputes (LAC, Aksai Chin).
• India–Pakistan Relations: Highlights Pakistan’s inconsistent Kashmir stance.
• Strategic Autonomy: Reinforces India’s refusal to accept faits accomplis.

Challenges

• De facto Chinese control since 1960s → difficult on-ground reversal.
• Growing China–Pakistan strategic convergence.
• Limited international awareness of Shaksgam issue compared to Aksai Chin.

Way Forward

• Persistent diplomatic articulation of India’s legal position.
• Integrate Shaksgam issue within broader boundary negotiations with China.
• Highlight illegality of 1963 agreement in international forums.
• Strengthen infrastructure & security posture in eastern Ladakh.
• Strategic communication distinguishing PoK, Aksai Chin, Shaksgam in public discourse.

---

Why Buddhism Went Global and Jainism Did Not ?

---

Context 

• Article explains divergent historical trajectories of Buddhism and Jainism, despite:
  • Common origin in Śramaṇa tradition
  • Similar period of emergence (6th century BCE)
  • Shared opposition to Vedic ritualism
• Core question: Why did Buddhism become a world religion, while Jainism remained largely India-centric?

Relevance

• GS I (Ancient History & Culture)
  • Śramaṇa tradition, heterodox philosophies
  • Role of doctrine, patronage, trade routes

Indian Thought: Two Broad Traditions

• Brahmanical tradition
  • Authority of Vedas
  • Emphasis on ritual, sacrifice, social order
• Śramaṇa tradition
  • Rejection of Vedic authority
  • Emphasis on renunciation (tyāga), moksha
  • Included Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikas

Both Buddhism and Jainism belong to the Śramaṇa stream

Buddhism (Middle Path)

• Rejects extremes of:
  • Self-indulgence
  • Severe asceticism
• Key doctrines:
  • Four Noble Truths
  • Eightfold Path
  • Impermanence (anicca), non-self (anatta)
• Flexible ethics → adaptable across cultures

Jainism (Ascetic Rigour)

• Core doctrines:
  • Ahimsa (absolute non-violence)
  • Anekantavada (multiplicity of truths)
  • Aparigraha (non-possession)
• Strict code:
  • Mahavratas for monks
  • Extreme ascetic practices

Doctrinal rigidity vs flexibility is central to divergent spread

Role of Royal Patronage

Buddhism

• Received imperial backing from:
  • Ashoka
  • Kanishka
• Effects:
  • State-sponsored missions
  • Monasteries (viharas) along trade routes
  • Diplomatic-cum-religious outreach to:
    • Central Asia
    • Sri Lanka
    • Southeast Asia

Jainism

• Patronage from:
  • Chandragupta Maurya
  • Kharavela
  • Later regional rulers
• Limitations:
  • Patronage remained regional
  • No organised missionary state support

Empire-backed Buddhism vs regionally-supported Jainism

Approach 

Buddhism

• Actively proselytising
• Monks:
  • Travelled widely
  • Interacted with local cultures
  • Adapted practices without diluting core tenets
• Monastic code (Vinaya) allowed:
  • Flexibility in food
  • Cultural accommodation

Jainism

• Non-proselytising
• Jain monks:
  • Travel on foot only
  • Avoid interaction with other belief systems
• Strong inward focus → community preservation, not expansion

Outreach vs inward preservation

Social Accessibility

Buddhism

• Simple ethical code
• Use of local languages (Pali, Prakrit)
• Open to:
  • Women (bhikkhunis)
  • Lower social groups
• Compatible with urbanisation & trade networks

Jainism

• Highly demanding ascetic ideals
• Monastic life difficult to replicate outside Indian socio-cultural context
• Better suited to:
  • Mercantile communities
  • Urban elites within India

Historical Turning Point (~1200 CE)

Buddhism in India

• Decline due to:
  • Loss of royal patronage
  • Revival of Brahmanism
  • Turkish invasions (monastic destruction)
• But: Buddhism already global → survived abroad

Jainism in India

• Continued to flourish within India
• Strong community institutions
• No equivalent global footprint

Geographical diversification ensured Buddhism’s survival

Ethical Philosophy & Global Reception

Buddhism

• Universal ethics:
  • Compassion
  • Moderation
  • Mindfulness
• Easily integrated with foreign belief systems

Jainism

• Anekantavada promotes tolerance
• But doctrinal position:
  • Truth is multi-faceted
  • No need to convert others
• Mahavira’s teaching (Sutrakritanga):
  • Respect other ideologies, do not impose

Ethical universalism vs ethical exclusivity

Summary

Dimension	Buddhism	Jainism
Asceticism	Moderate	Extreme
Patronage	Imperial	Regional
Missionary zeal	Strong	Absent
Cultural adaptability	High	Low
Global spread	Extensive	Limited
Survival outside India	Yes	No

---