So what if Santhara is even suicide?

As old as human civilisation is the propensity of people to evaluate others, particularly those seen as ‘lowly’ on standards defined by them. A manifestation of such evaluations have been Abramhmic reactions to Indian people, their ‘satanic’ cults and ‘barbaric’ rituals.

This blogger has previously pointed out that even though Islamic rule in India lasted much longer than that of the British, despite of all its atrocities the former could not break the spirit of our people, their belief in the infinite superiority of their culture, religion and their way of life. Even at the very peak of Islamic role in the country, the Muslims remained unclean Mlechha, barbarians without culture, or as the Bhavishya Purana explains, asuras and danavas reborn in human form to wreak havoc on a righteous people.

One would have expected Indic reaction to the European rule to be similar - feared but treated with righteous disdain. Yet, the Hindu not only succumbed to the firang without much ado, he imbibed in its very veins, the notion of the latter’s cultural and moral superiority over him. The reasons are not hard to seek. As depicted in Bankim Chandra’s ‘Anand Math’ and numerous other writings of their time, many Indians saw the British as those who would unshackle them from the last vestiges of Islamic rule (even though the Marathas and Sikhs had reduced Islamic power to rump, even they recognised the nominal suzerainty of the Mughal ruler). The British were seen as our noble cousins, who had been sent by divine provenance to restore our learnings and to support and ‘enable’ us to win back our rightful place in the community of Nations.

Acceptance of the others' capacity to help carries with it an underlying acceptance of the latter’s superiority. Here was a bunch of people seen as physically superior and more importantly, much more advanced materially. Even the more inward looking of Indians grudgingly accepted that on most subjects, European sciences were far more advanced compared to whatever Indians then possessed.  Compared to the British, the Islamic invaders hardly possessed any knowledge which had not reached them from India herself. With hardly any science or skill which the Indians did not possess better, the Muslims were in little position to command cultural superiority. Hence, Islamic denouncement of the horrors of Indic religions remained pinpricks hurled by unworthy lilliputs.

Unfortunately for India, the eighteenth century image of India as the mother of all civilisations, of all sciences or more poetically, all that was good in the human civilisation, was very soon eclipsed by a more virulent imagery - of an India populated with ‘devil worshippers, of a people with little nobility or sense of character. Christian missionaries and those associated with the clergy had a significant impact on moulding this new image of our country. Right from the immensely injurious ‘The History of India’  by James Mill to the minutes on Indian education system by Lord Macaulay, the theme of India being a land of superstitions and devil-worshipping cults got reinforced for ages to come.

While the Hindu could ignore Islamic attacks on his religion as demonic assaults, he could not dismiss the overt and covert Christian attacks the same way. The attackers were materially superior, followed a strict policy of exclusion (making them Brahminical in some sense), had previously been accepted as saviours and came armed with weapons of logic and persuasion. These were not invaders who desecrated temples and forcefully converted a subjugated population. They were those who poured systemic ridicule and scorn over what they declared as cults and superstitious practices.

Is it any wonder that in less than a century, (and to borrow from B. R. Ambedkar) the Hindu was a broken man. The entire Bengal renaissance, even the Arya Samaj and the overall Nationalist movement, was built on a canvas which was undeniably European. The central thrust of all the social movements in the 18^th-19^th century India was to remove ‘non-Hindu/non-Vedic’ baggage from Hinduism and prove that it met all the criteria of a ‘genuine’ religion as defined by the Christians. That the virulence of a Brahmo Samaj and the Arya Samaj against polytheistic Hinduism was no less than that of by Christian Missionaries, is by itself ample testimony to deep-rooted need of the Hindu for a European validation.

Any society stagnates without movement and it is imperative that social reforms be a continuous process. It is again, highly welcome if we continue to learn from other civilisations and adopt that what is good in them. What is, however, self-defeating is the urge to change ourselves just to seek others endorsement. Unfortunately, what was true a century back, continues to hold true even now. Our laws, particularly those directed at the Hindu society, continues to wear colonial blinkers and are determined to ‘reform’ us exclusively from a colonial prism.

If the above seems bombastic, consider the recent ban imposed by Rajasthan High Court on the ancient Jain practice of Santhara on the grounds of it being suicide. This judgement came after a busybody, Nikhil Soni, filed a petition in the Rajasthan High Court, apparently moved by the ‘forced suicide’ of Smt Bimala Devi in 2006. As per Soni, in the final moments, the frail woman ‘appeared’ to make a last-ditch request for food and water. He further claims that her voice was ‘drowned’ out by the bhajans sung around her.

Just how ridiculous can it get? Anyone who knows about Santhara/Sallekhana would know that it is an act which is commenced after permission from the muni, and is a gradual process. In order to prepare the spirit for leaving the bodies, people at times take even years, reducing both quantity, frequency and number of items they consume, before actually discarding food completely. More importantly, there is little stigma attached to those who desire to give up Santhara mid-way and resume food. It is merely seen as symptom that the spirit is not ready to leave the body yet. Even more, the last moments of a person following Santhara are public, at times visited by stream of visitors wising to pay homage to the noble soul and more often, accompanied by munis and sadhvis. While it may be argued that for all the focus of non-violence in Jains, there would be proverbial bad apples who, in their greed for riches, would not hesitate to force their ageing parents to opt for Sallekhana. Yet, it is beyond the pale of logic that a non-related bunch of people, i.e., lay Jains coming for the last darshan and the pious sadhvis and munis would turn a blind eye to the gasp of a dying soul for water or food. Just which Jain or a religious person would want to partake share of a sin as huge as murder, which forced Sallekhna would be?

In its effort to sensationalise, the initial report quoting self proclaimed ‘human rights activist’ that it ‘appeared’ that the lady was requesting for food and water has already morphed into claims of ‘screams’ for food and water. Sadder still is the fact that some unscrupulous Jains have hitched to this human right bandwagon and are acting worse than the know-all ‘activist’ who decided to tell Jains how they need to live!

That apart, the entire fracas over this petition and the subsequent judgement raises at least 3 important points.

First, the judge applied the test of ‘essentialness’, i.e., whether Santhara forms such an essential component of Jainism that its removal will render a non-practitioner a lesser Jain? This is not the first time the Courts have abrogated to themselves the right to judge suitability of rituals. Previously, judgements have banned animal sacrifice, specific rituals seen as demeaning by our rootless liberals and have even restricted worship of certain deities. It is surprising that the judges feel it is right to do so, given that their knowledge does not extend to issues spiritual. Just who would know more about Hinduism and its practices – a Shankaracharya, who is an expert on our scriptures or a judge, who is an expert on the constitution and the IPC?

Even more importantly, just which practice can be defined as essential to any religion? For Hinduism, the foremost duty of a dvija was to perform sandhya and agnihotra. Wonder if even ritualistic Brahmins follow these practices completely these days! Does their non-performance leave us any less Hindus? Or take the case of more codified religions like Islam or even Sikhism. A Khalsa has to carry the 5 Ks. Still, recent decades have seen young Sikhs, even when fiercely asserting their distinctiveness from Hinduism, refusing to carry either Kesh or at times, Kripan. So, can the court now declare that 5 Ks are non-essential to Sikhism. Or that since vast majority of Muslims do not adhere to the principles of zakat (one of the 5 pillars of Islam) or most do not engage in Jihad or that many sub-continental and Central Asian Muslims venerate pirs and their dargahs; are zakat, jihad and veneration of one God and His Prophet non-essential to Islam?

Test of ‘essentialness’ is a misnomer. What is deemed essential or otherwise is merely reflective of the judge’s assessment of the arguments presented in the case. The non-standard nature of this test should itself ensure that it is discarded once and for all. As Shekhar Hattangadi has pointed out, the judge even found the mantras chanted in scriptural support of Santhara by the Jain counsel, ‘amusing’. Just what empathy can be expected from non-practitioners on aspects which they clearly either don’t understand or worse, believe that they (the practitioners) belong to the age of barbarians!

Two, just what is the locus standi of people desperate to reform ‘others’? The last three centuries witnessed many social reform movements in India. Most of them, focusing on issues as varied as widow remarriage to removal of untouchability to banning of Sati, worked at 2 levels. First and foremost, working with influential community leaders and religious figures to denounce the non-scriptural basis of social evils, and secondly, working with Government agencies to suitably modify laws. It was of course not an easy process. But, given the number of stakeholders involved, a certainly more inclusive and democratic means of bringing change. Now, any Tom, Dick and Harry can approach any court on any act which hurts his/her sensibilities. How right is it to give power to one individual to impose his/her version of religion over others, something which seems to be happening with nauseating frequency over the last many years? A few years back, a Parsee lady decided that the current practice of ‘open cremation’ of their dead is demeaning to individuals as in absence of vultures, bodies rot for days. She did not approach the court. She decided to force a dialogue within the community. Should any reform initiative not be similar to it rather than taking a short cut of involving courts when they may not be the best of authorities to rule on religious practices?

Three, just why is the act of giving up one’s life an anathema? Is it because it has some scriptural sanction? Or is it because it is a gift of our sensibilities moulded by centuries of Abrahmic conditioning? Indic religions do not condemn act of giving up one’s life. The first recorded death was of Yama, who did not die but ‘dissociated’ with his body. We have Sati, who decided to immolate herself using her inner fire, then Vedvati, who decided to end her life in the yanga fire so that her rebirth could be hastened. The entire cast of Ramayana, right from Sita who went back to her mother’s womb, to Ram and his siblings (who immersed themselves in Sarayu), sought and embraced death. Amba ended her life and so did Bhishma, who could have continued to live as long as he wanted. These are but a few celebrated cases. Our Dharmshastras prescribe ritual suicide as penance for some sins. Remember Shankaracharya meeting Kumaril Bhatt on his pyre made of paddy husk? Kumaril Bhatt had decided to atone for his sins of lying to his Gurus (pretending to be a Buddhist) by opting for the shastra prescribed death by slow combustion of rice husk! 

Overall, the Hindu scriptures recognise the primacy of atman and its movement from one body to another. If what all is to be achieved in life is achieved or some greater purpose is to be achieved in the subsequent life, just what is wrong in choosing death? Even when suicide is condemned, it is but a paap, the outcome of which is birth in lower or degraded yonis like that of a pishacha or a bramharakshasa. The state had little role in deciding on the morality of giving up one’s life.

Moving on to the modern times, at one level, we speak of a fiercely individualistic persona, we speak of ‘free will’ and find it absolutely acceptable to live life the way we want (subject to some homilies on how it should not adversely impact others), going to the extent of celebrating the ease of killing an unborn child as a woman’s right over her body. Just how can these sentiments be reconciled with the virulent liberal opposition to one’s absolute right over his/her life?

It all comes down to the Christian distaste for suicide. As pointed out in Shiv Vishwanath’s article on Santhara ban, even in the aggressively individualistic society of France, suicide carried a huge stigma. W.E.H. Lecky, in a History of European Morals where he writes of the stigma attached to suicide. He claims that even in 1749, “a suicide named Portier was dragged through the streets of Paris with his face to the ground, hung from the gallows by his feet and then thrown into the sewers.” Right from its origins up to the French Revolution, suicide was a mark of stigma of criminality and pollution.

We Indians, at least the elite sections of it, seems to have deeply imbibed the state’s duty to condemn and punish people for attempting to give up their lives. Worse, while the Abrahmic faiths, for all their moralising, recognise that certain acts of voluntarily giving up life (like a captain willingly going down with his vessel) is not suicide, we, the still colonised act more loyal than the king and decide that not only does an individual not have any right on his body, there are absolutely no nuances when one decides to let go of life.  Here we are talking of a practice which has been adopted by Jain Teerthankars, almost all venerated saints right from Bhadrabahu and Hemchandra Suri, noble practitioners like Chandragupta Maurya and countless lay-Jains, now being declared lowly suicide by a court! A practice which is clearly highlighted in Jainism as the most venerated way of giving up life, practicing the highest precepts of Jainsim, without injury to any living being now being equated with suicide!

For arguments sake, let us assume that the nauseatingly self-righteous Nitin Soni was right about Bimla Devi’s Santhara being a forced one. Does one forced case justify banning of the ritual altogether? There is hardly any law which has not been misused. Some like Dowry Prevention Act and Domestic Violence Act are used more for blackmail and harassment than for the purpose they were designed for. Has any court declared any Act or any section of IPC null and void on account of real or potential misuse? So, what is so different about the practice of Santhara?

Not only does this judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court be contested legally, this act of defence should not be left to sundry Jains alone. The Rajasthan HC judgement, like more before it, strikes at the very foundation of religious freedom by the court’s assuming powers on issues clearly spiritual. How secular is the state when it believes that it can decide on issues which has nothing to do with its material authority? Slowly but steadily, our way of life is being chipped away. If change has to happen, let the seed come from us, not from legal shenanigans of those who are not us!