Jains: Santhara Ritual
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Contents |
More Jains embracing ancient santhara ritual
The Times of India, March 18, 2010
Hemali Chhapia & Mansi Choksi
The death of 60-year-old Jain monk Sadhvi Charan Pragyaji on September 11 last year was different from any that the tiny town of Bhilwada in Rajasthan had witnessed. Over 20,000 Jains from across the country thronged the hamlet, not in white to mourn the loss but in their finest bandhnis. They came to join a massive celebration to mark Sadhvi’s death, for she was the only Jain to have survived a santhara of 87 days, the longest in recent collective memory.
Santhara is the Jain practice of voluntary and systematic fasting to death. Jain texts say it is the ultimate route to attaining moksha and breaking free from the whirlpool of life and death. According to Babulal Jain Ujjwal, editor of the All India Jain Chaturmas Suchi(a veritable fount of information of Jainism), the practice is spiralling — more than 550 Jains took the vow in 2009 compared to 465 in 2008. This year, 45 Jains have already embraced santhara.
‘‘Every single day through the year, a Jain somewhere in the country takes up this holy vow,’’ says Ujjwal, adding that in Mumbai, the longest santhara was observed for 59 days last year by a Jain sadhvi in Malad. Kutch in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Karnataka account for the most santharas in the country.
Contrary to popular belief, Santhara is not the preserve of Jain monks who have renounced worldly affairs. ‘‘In fact, more ordinary Jains take up santhara than monks,’’ says Jitendra Shah, director of the LD Institute of Indology. ‘‘Another common misconception is that only people suffering from illness embrace the practice. That’s not true. Santhara is taken up with a view to sacrificing attachments, including one’s body.’’ Shah says the woman-man ratio of Santhara practitioners stands at 60:40, perhaps because ‘‘women are generally more strong-willed and have a religious bent of mind’’. Of late, Santhara has been embroiled in controversy, with critics equating the practice with suicide. But there are differing legal opinions on this. While advocate Sanjay Jain says that Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution protect all religious practices, unless otherwise prohibited by law, Mahesh Jethmalani argues that any practice that eventually leads to death is attempted suicide.
The legal debate surrounding the practice has made the Jain community wary of publicising santharas. ‘‘Earlier, mainstream Gujarati and Hindi papers would advertise santharas so that people could pay their respects. However, the police have been cracking down, in some cases force-feeding the individual,’’ says a Kandivli housewife.
Jain practice of Santhara suicide: HC
Source:
1. The Times of India, Aug 11 2015
2. The Times of India, Aug 11 2015, PJ Joychen
The Rajasthan high court declared the practice of `Santhara' or `Sullekhana' -or fasting unto death -within the Jain community as illegal, reports P J Joychen. The court called the practice punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as an attempt to commit suicide. It said support to Santhara would be punishable as abetment under section 306 of the IPC.
The centuries-old practice has been in the news since 2006 when 93year-old Keila Devi Hirawat from Jaipur performed Santhara, triggering a debate in the world media whether such a practice is out of place in the modern era.
Jain saints argue that Santhara is a voluntary act carried out rationally and cannot be considered suicide.They say it is something one does with full knowledge and intent, unlike suicide, which is typically an emotional and impulsive act.
The court of chief justice Sunil Ambwani and justice VS Siradhana, issuing the order on a PIL filed by a human rights activist Nikhil Soni, said, “The state shall stop and abolish the practice of Santhara in the Jain religion in any form. Any complaint made in this regard shall be registered as a criminal case and investigated by the police in the light of the recognition of law in the Constitution of India and in accordance with section 309 (attempt to suicide) and section 306 (abetment).“
The petitioner had argued the Constitution guarantees the right to life and protects life.
“The right to freedom of religion under Article 25 is subject to public order, morality and health. A practice, however ancient, cannot be allowed to violate the right to life of an individual,“ the petitioner argued.
The court said the respondents had failed to establish Santhara as an essential religious practice without which the following of Jain religion would not be possible.
“There is no evidence or material to show that Santhara has been practiced by persons professing Jain religion even prior to or after the promulgation of the Constitution. The over riding and governing principle of public orders, morality and health conditions the right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion,“ the court said.
Soni and his lawyer Madhav Mishra had filed the PIL claiming Santhara should be considered suicide under the law. One of the concerns raised was that it is old people who usually resort to Santhara, and that allowing an elderly person to suffer without medical assistance, food and water is inhuman.
Jain saint Munishri Praman Sagarji Maharaj said the community would appeal in the Supreme Court within 90 days.
Santhara is not suicide: Singhvi
The Times of India, Aug 28 2015
Abhishek Singhvi Rajasthan high court judgment equating the two must be rectified
A charitable description of the judgment would be to call it a digest of arguments and rival contentions, compiled in haste, arranged without finesse, concluded largely without logic and reason, and written perfunctorily and casually.
Forty-one of its 46 pages are a mechanical collection and recitation of rival contentions, with the last four pages perfunctorily reaching the above conclusion, without repelling any of the detailed material and weighty submissions of the Jain community.
Secondly, the Article 25 constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practise and propagate one's religion is repelled qua santhara by reaching the startling conclusion that there is no evidence or material to show that santhara has been practised by Jains as a religious tenet prior to or after 1950! This will make ancient scholars turn over loudly in their graves and Jain researchers, analysts and authors weep.
References to santhara are many and diverse, physical as also documentary .Many were filed in the high court.
It is explained extensively in Ratnakarandaka Shravakachara of 2nd century AD by Acharya Samantabhadra (Shlokas 122 to 135, also translated by Champat Rai Jain); Chandragupta Maurya, who took and implemented the santhara vow, is archaeologically depicted by ASI Bengaluru Circle 2005; the commemorative Brahmdev pillar at Shravan Belgola of 974 AD with the Kannada inscription depicts the valour and greatness of the Ganga King Marsimha, who, after fulfilling all his promises, relinquished sovereignty, observed the santhara vow for three days and attained samadhi in the presence of his guru Ajithsena Bhatarakha; diverse memorial stones depict 13th century Nishadhi Jains in Haveri district of Karnataka doing santhara; Hermann Jacobi's several books, Umaswati's Tatvavarthasutra, Millacra's KundaKunda and so on.
Thirdly , the judgment proceeds to propound that santhara has not been treated as an essential religious practice in any of the scriptures and, further, that what is required to be shown is not only that it is an essential Jain religious practice but that this practice is necessarily required for immortality or moksha or that this “is the only method without which moksha is not attainable“. This is a grievous legal error compounded by the earlier factual ignorance.
There is no mention of the word “essential“ nor of “essential religious practice“ in Article 25. Ambedkar's speech in the Constituent Assembly on December 2, 1948, and the early 1950s Supreme Court judgments make it unambiguously clear that “essential religious practice“ is used in contradistinction to non-religious secular activities. A key shift changes the word “essential“ from qualifying the nature of the practice (religious versus secular) to the later apex court orders using the same word to qualify its importance within the religion (ie essential to religion).
The high court proceeds in blissful ignorance of both the factual material referred above as also such legal nuances while arriving at sweeping conclusions, without giving a single reason why the aforesaid diverse ancient material does not qualify this practice as an intrinsic and essential part of Jainism.
Fourthly, the judgment has completely mixed up the philosophical origins of santhara and its fundamental conceptual differences with suicide, sati or euthanasia. Santhara is simply a Jain way of mastering the art of dying as much as the art of living. The animating object of the exercise is neither speedy death nor desire for enhanced lifespan.
Preconditions for santhara are unavoidable calamity, terminal illness, great natural disaster or imminent death in old age. A Jain may then embark on the ultimate renunciation of his life by preparing for a cheerful, stoic and positive outlook on death after having sought all forgivenesses and made every attempt to divorce himself from every possible attachment of life (like affection, attachment, grief or fear), in order to ensure permanent escape from the eternal and unending life cycle of karma.
By purely passive acts of omission, he may let life ebb away with bravery and stoicism. All the negativity, depression, despair, hopelessness, exhaustion, frustration, anxiety or tension associated with suicide is conspicuously missing as also are acts of positive commission involving himsa (violence), which are an essential ingredient of suicide and which, being anathema to Jains, are proscribed.
Similarly , the passionate attachment to a departed relative, the violent acts of commission and the glorification associated with sati are the very antithesis of santhara, apart from the significant difference that sati has been banned by parliamentary enactment.
All these fundamental differences are ignored in a simplistic, casual, superficial and perfunctory approach of the high court and no such analysis worth the name finds mention in its operative paragraphs.
It is a patently erroneous judgment waiting to be reversed and rectified.
2008-15: 400 Santharas in Dombivli, Mumbai
The Times of India, Aug 16 2015
Hemali Chhapia-Shah
In 7 yrs, Mum suburb sees 400 Santharas
Wrapped in a white linen cloth, Ratanshi Samji Savla's forehead is smeared with sandalwood powder as he lies listlessly on the floor of his tiny apartment in Mumbai suburb, Dombivli. A steady stream of harried visitors slip out of their footwear, bow down to the elderly man and then scurry to find a spot with a back rest. A fortnight ago, Savla's house wasn't like this. Posters directed people to his home; there were no designated visiting hours. His iconic status within the Jain community only came about in July this year when he decided to adopt the voluntary systematic fast to death called santhara, which lasted for nine days.
Soon after him, Kasturben Gala took the same spiritual decision to give up food and embrace Santhara. She made up her mind, and in the presence of her family and guru, vowed to abandon her body and purify her soul by purging old karmas, preventing the creation of new ones and “remaining indifferent to death“.
After 17 days of fasting, Kasturben passed away . Her body was draped in white, put into a palanquin in the lotus position (to symbolize that she would attain moksha) and taken to the cremation ground in a procession. Hundreds of Jains in bright clothes thronged the procession to get a final glimpse, and no one was permitted to shed a tear, for it is believed that Kasturben has moved on to a higher place.
“There is a chain of Santhara that bonds a sect of the community residing in Dombivli and Nalasopara. When one Santhara among the Kutchi Visa Oswal sect ends, another person picks it up,“ says Babulal Jain, a veritable fount of information on Jainism. The Rajasthan high court's ruling to declare Santhara (also known as sallekhana) as suicide and illegal notwithstanding, the century-old practice is only spiralling.
Santhara is the Jain practice of dietary abstinence that eventually leads to death. Jain texts say it is the ultimate route to attaining moksha and breaking free from the whirlpool of life and death.“In Dombivli and Nalasopara, there have been close to 400 Santharas in the last seven years,“ says Manish Gala, president of the Kutchi Visa Oswal Sangh, the section of the Jain community that is largely made of cloth and grain merchants. Dombivli has a dominant population of Kutchis -close to 20,000 who subscribe to their very own daily religious newspaper, Khabar Patika -that enlists, apart from the lectures of various monks, details of Santhara too.
In the first six months of this year, 118 Jains across the country relinquished food and water voluntarily and decided to exercise autonomy over one's body to free the soul. Of these, 11 Santharas were from Dombivli. Gala adds that in the last 20 years, 1,000 Kutchis have taken to Santhara. Contrary to popular belief that this is a morbid obsession, Jains believe that only the fortunate live to sign off their time in their world with a Santhara. “So many monks die a sudden death and cannot go on to do Santhara,“ adds Jain.More women than men go on to adopt it and the ratio stands at 60:40, adds Gala, whose father-in-law also embraced Santhara last year.
The vow as it is taken
When all the purposes of life have been served or when the body becomes unable to serve any purpose, I wish to be able to adopt santhara, a religious fast to death. I will abandon my body, which is very dear to my mind, the abode of my faith, like a box of ornaments containing precious stones. I will not care for the body in spite of feeling cold, hot, hungry, thirsty, or undergoing insect bites, troubles by other people, diseases, including those which may cause delirium, or other severe physical suffering.“
