Within the Jain doctrine of Anekantavada, conflict is approached by recognizing that every standpoint reveals only a partial aspect of truth. Each person’s view is understood as conditioned by a particular standpoint, so disagreement need not imply that one side is wholly right and the other wholly wrong. This awareness cultivates epistemic humility: positions are held firmly yet without the insistence that they exhaust the whole of reality. As a result, the dogmatism that often fuels conflict is softened, and space opens for more nuanced engagement with others’ claims.

Anekantavada is closely linked with the method of Syadvada, in which assertions are framed as conditionally true—“from a certain perspective.” Through this lens, apparently contradictory statements can be seen as valid in their own limited contexts, rather than as absolute rivals. Such conditional validity allows conflicting parties to recognize that each may be grasping a different facet of the same complex situation. The focus shifts from defeating an opponent’s view to discerning how multiple perspectives might be integrated without erasing their distinctiveness.

This doctrinal stance also has a profound ethical and psychological dimension. By acknowledging the limits of one’s own understanding, attachment to a single, rigid solution is loosened, which in turn reduces anger, pride, and the urge to dominate. Intellectual humility becomes a form of nonviolence in thought and speech, discouraging harsh, absolutist language such as “only this is true.” As emotional intensity subsides, dialogue becomes less adversarial and more genuinely exploratory, oriented toward understanding rather than victory.

In practical terms, Anekantavada encourages a mode of engagement in which opponents are invited to articulate the standpoint from which their view holds. This fosters active listening, empathy, and a willingness to search for solutions that honor the valid concerns on all sides. Conflicts are then addressed not by suppressing differences, but by treating them as complementary insights into a many-sided reality. Such an approach supports constructive, cooperative communication and provides a philosophical basis for tolerance and peaceful coexistence.