Dhar Bhojshala - Reinventing the past

A few days back, I happened to come across an article by Hartosh Bal on the Dhar Bhojshala. In this article, Hartosh has, without even bothering to visit the structure, 'set the record straight'. He has conclusively 'proved' that the Bhojshala is 'indisputably' a mosque, all his evidence based on over-reading of a mealy-mouthed description of the structure on the ASI website and a deep insight on the working of Hindutva minds on such issues (had they not claimed that the Babri mosque was built over a temple)?

A cursory reading of the even more cursorily penned note would convince the reader that the sole evidence of the structure being a mosque is its name - Bhojshala Kamal Maula mosque and that Muslims offer Namaz on its premises.

Having happened to follow the issue ever since it gained prominence outside the Dhar region, i.e., in 2002-03, when the BJP happened to be in opposition, I believe that the only aspects which are required to be set straight are two: historically, there has been little dispute over the original nature of Bhojshala, which happens to be a Hindu structure later converted to a mosque; and the other, that barring the common Hindu of the Dhar region, no-one is interested in resolution of the issue. Though when in opposition, the BJP had raked up the issue of Hindu right to worship at Bhojshala, once in power, the BJP Government's brutal police crackdown on Hindu worshippers on the two occasions when Vasant Panchami fell on a Friday (the day Muslims are allowed to offer Namaaz at the structure), would have made even Mulayam Singh Yadav wonder if he had actually attempted to stop Ayodhya Kar Sevaks in 1990!

Yet, there is nothing like first hand proof. I visited Dhar in September 2015 and took some pictures of the structure. I am not going to refer to the large stone inscriptions at the site for I have little expertise in deciphering the inscriptions. I believe that the structure by itself is a proof enough of its original nature. 

A. The Pillars

The doorway to Bhojshala opens up to a vast open piece of land with a tank like structure in between, and parallel pillared corridors leading to a pillared hall. Structurally, the pillars are primarily of two complimentary designs which are consistent in shape and motifs across the entire edifice. The probability that the mosque was constructed with pillars and other parts of demolished temples can be ruled out as such mosques, e.g. Quwwut-ul-Islam in the Qutab Minar complex (constructed out of parts taken from 27 Hindu and Jain temples) resemble a patchwork, even when synchronised. On the other hand, the Bhojshala offers a uniformity of design as far as its wall, ceilings and pillars, i.e., the defining feature of its structure are concerned.

B: The ceiling

The ceiling of the main hall, just below the small shikhara is intricately carved with floral Hindu motifs, rising in concentric circles, each smaller than before,and ending in carved lotuses, a structural commonality across numerous Hindu temples of North and West India

C: The Patchwork

There is little dispute that the Bhojshala was being used as a mosque for centuries. To convert the Hindu structure to a mosque proper, some alterations were made. These alterations, of black and white marble, attached to granite stones practically scream that they were grafted later.

D: The Yajnavedi

Though probably converted to a vaju tank later, this was very likely to be the platform and altar for homa.  

Interestingly, Bhojshala is the not the only Hindu structure which was converted to a mosque in the medieval period. The Jama Masjid at Mandu has similar marble patchwork in what is otherwise a majestic granite strucure

The bone of contention at Bhojshala today is not really the Namaaz offered on Fridays, it is the demand for uninterrupted worship on days when Vasant Panchami falls on Friday, an event which usually occurs once in 7 years, i.e., a request to Muslims to forego 1 out of 364 Fridays in a cycle. In a normal world, and among people who stood for fairness and peace, this would not have been a contentious issue.

Whether the Bhojshala should be made a place of worship exclusively for Hindus now is a matter very different as compared to denying the very nature of the structure. Over the last 3 decades, we have seen a largely successful attempt at re-writing history. A history in which no temples were demolished by the Muslims, or if they were, they were for all reasons but for religious. Just how can inter-community relations be built on basis of lies and denial? Germany, rather than whitewashing its Nazi past has projected it so that the coming generations do not forget their forefather's culpability in a genocide and hopefully, make them pause before they think on similar lines. Even a Nation as puritanically Islamic as Iran, recognises its pre-Islamic past and the havoc which Arabian armies had wreaked on its civilisation. Just why do we get so queasy and prefer to deny the truth? And that too, for people who have passed on to ages long back?

Just who cleaves the Nation more? We, or the self-proclaimed secularists?

'Secularism khatre mein' - The murder of reason

A few days back, University of Hyderabad students, or more precisely those affiliated to the Students Federation of India (CPM's student wing) and other assorted leftist bodies protested against yet another brazen attempt at 'saffronisation' of education. 

This contemptible attempt was the University floating a circular asking graduating male students to wear kurta-pyjama or dhoti-kurta and women to wear saree or salwar kameez, rather than gowns during covocation ceremony. While the more innocent among us would have seen this circular only in light of a series of efforts to indegenise our ceremonies (remember Jairam Ramesh condemning convocation gowns as barbaric, Uttar Pradesh Governer Ram Naik asking for doing away with the gowns, or students at BHU and many other universities in North India switching over to Indian attire during convocations?), our leftists with deeper perspective on all issues under the universe, discerned an attempt to ‘impose RSS’s idea of Indian culture’, which is ‘Brahminical and patriarchical’ and of course religious (what else can an angavastram denote?)

SFI’s valiant defence of Indian secularism was successful and the RSS had to withdraw licking its wounds. It is now probably planning its next assault on that modern and only true religion, Indian secularism!

----

Globally, the left has had the most fantastic of conspiracy theories (though upstaged by the Islamists now). In all seriousness, they still believe that the telecommunication reforms started by Rajiv Gandhi was a tool to popularise television, which in turn was meant to popularise Ramayana, which in turn was meant to polarise people. In times when common sense had not yet met its demise, the above assertions would have elicited only mirth and ridicule. Yet, years of brainwashing by dominant section of media has ensured that our own beliefs, preferences, sense of outrage are all dictated by others. Not for nothing did one of the hoardings at the Mahim Church proclaim – ‘The media is the most powerful institution in the world. It controls what we think!’

When does a crime stop being a crime and become much more sinister? How do we determine that acts committed by an individual have been influenced by the groups she/he belongs to? Does the outcome of a crime change depending on the identity of the victim? When does a crime committed by individuals or motely groups become heinous enough so as to demand condemnation of the community they belong to? How does it get determined that ‘x’ act is a provocation and ‘y’ a reaction? Or does crime become excusable if committed by certain groups but punishment-worthy only when committed by some others?

In a world with its moral centre intact (ooops... sorry for having used the regressive 'M' word), the response to above questions would have been a no-brainer. A crime is a crime irrespective of the identity of the criminal or the victim. Unless supported by a common consensus of the community, no crime committed by an individual or a motley group would become a pretext to hound any community. The criminal’s mere association with a group would not make the group party to the crime. Most of all, the outrage and judgement on crimes would not have differed from case to case.

In spite of having followed socio-political developments quite closely since 1989, I cannot really quite make out the tipping point when Indian Nation-hood, Indian Culture, Indian tradition, Indian religion became cuss-words. It is quite inconceivable that even in the late 90s, leading media houses would not have had the guts to condemn India for taking a strong line against Pakistan or China. It would again have been quite inconceivable that the media would have openly promoted Hinduphobia the way it does now.  In the late 80s and early 90s, even when the bulk of media was ranged against the Ram Janmabhoomi reclamation movement, there were quite a few media and social personalities who openly sympathised with the National sentiments. Even those who opposed, qualified the opposition on the grounds of the issue being time-barred, generally avoiding mocking the Hindu faith in existence of Rama or his divinity. Post destruction of the disputed structure in 1992, while it became quite fashionable to condemn the RSS-BJP more virulently, the visceral hatred which the left-liberals have for the Nationalists is quite a recent development. Was this tendency exacerbated when the BJP lost the 1993 assembly polls, or then when it tried to cleanse itself of its Hindutva leanings or when Sonia Gandhi’s leadership gave a decisive anti-Hindu tilt to the Congress or post Gujarat riots 2002, when the RSS-BJP proved hopelessly inadequate in countering the left-liberal propaganda?

Maybe a mix of all!

Currently, we are in throes of mass hysteria over lynching of a Muslim man over suspicions that he had consumed beef. Just what makes this crime so noteworthy? It is not the first time that a lynching has happened. In India, thieves, docaits, suspected rapists, child-lifters have all been lynched at some time or the other. A few months back, a Muslim man was snatched from police custody and lynched by thousands in Nagaland. Scores of women get branded as witches and get killed by mobs every year. A couple of years back, Rudrapur was hit by riots. It started with some roadside temple being defiled with beef. Hindus lodged a complaint. Nothing happened. Then, the incident got repeated, the difference was that the beef was loosely packed in pages carrying Quranic verses. Riots happened. Muslim mobs roamed the streets of Rudrapur and lynched 3 men, before any action was taken to restore calm. Are these crimes any lesser than the crime committed in Dadri? Of course not. So, what is different here?

Have we not always been pontificated that crime must not be given a communal colour. When Sachin and Gaurav were lynched by Shahnawaz’s family and other Muslims in Muzaffarnagar, were we not told that this issue was merely of competitive machismo over eve-teasing and that it was only incidental that the Hindus were Hindus and Muslims, Muslims? In news-reports almost every other day, have we not been told how nefarious designs of the chaddi gang (RSS and its co-horts) were defeated when the conscious liberal bravely fought its attempts to communalise a crime? So, why is it different now?

A few months back, a Hindu cow-protection activist was killed by Muslim butchers when the latter were caught smuggling cattle at Devengaore, Karnataka. Does anyone even remember this event, leave aside it becoming the National rage? Very recently, a Muslim father killed his 4 year daughter for her ‘failure’ to cover her head properly. Did any single news-report make it a cause celebre and claim that this was an outcome of rising fundamentalism among Muslims?

So, why do our scales of judgement change when the criminals happen to be Hindus and the victims Muslims? How can a Kavita Krishnan or a Mukul Kesavan ‘bravely’ write that ‘murderous Hindus kill innocent Muslims’ but the media becomes mealy mouthed and report ‘members of a particular community’, when the victims are Hindus and the perpetrators Muslims?

A Charlie Hebdo massacre does not become a cause to poke fun at Muslim fascination with imagery of the Prophet. So why does reinforcement of a ban on beef become a focal point of ridicule of Hinduism and its belief systems?

It has become quite fashionable to claim that the ancient Hindus consumed beef. Yes, they did, under certain circumstances as pointed out here and here. Are those eating it now fulfilling those requirements? And in any case, Hindu taboo on beef is over two millennium old. Even the medieval Islamic rulers recognised cow’s sanctity to Hindus. Some prohibited its slaughter, others ritually killed it in temples and adorned idols with its entrails. The entire early twentieth century, particularly the decade of the 1920s is full of communal riots triggered by cow slaughter. During the partition riots and East Pakistan massacres, the conversion of Hindus to Islam would be sealed only when the Hindu consumed had publicly consumed beef. None of the sixteen sanskars governing the Hindu life can be completed without a cow.

Given the salience of cow in the Hindu religion and its symbolism in the Hindu-Muslim relation, do I then need a BJP or an RSS to tell me that the cow is a venerated animal? Or is it that only RSS-BJP stand for Hinduism? Did riots over beef happen only after Modi became the PM? We cannot be expected to remember the massacre of Sadhus (not aligned to any political party), when they laid seige to the parliament demanding law for ban on cow slaughter in 1966. But how stupid are we if we don't remember the series of minor riots plaguing Haryana and parts of West UP over cattle smuggling for slaughter in the last few years? A time when neither Modi was the PM nor BJP ruling in Haryana.  Then just why is the blame of the lynching being laid on the doors of the RSS-BJP? What a case that neither the local police, nor the district administration, nor the state government is responsible for the crime, but the RSS is!

What is painfully clear is that the traditional RSS-BJP way of managing media has resulted in zero impact. With more and more of the younger generations growing up in nuclear families, far beyond any association with traditional groups, their sense of world-view gets impacted more and more by media which is all around them. Many ape the ‘cool thing’ to do without even bothering to understand the issue and its cause. At one level, we condemn khap. At another level, our social media behaviour makes us worse than the worst of kangaroo courts where the first allegation becomes the crime and its proof!

Just taking the example of beef, while the social media imagery of Muslims mocking cows was on expected lines, what has been a revelation is the stand taken many young Hindus. What was taboo even a few years back is very clearly isn’t one any longer. On what grounds? Individual choice? Give us a break!

The State which bans beef also bans consumption of wildlife, something which has directly impacted existence (not merely taste buds) of our forest dwellers. Did we hear any voice of outrage? Many European countries have outlawed consumption of cats, dogs and horses on account of their ‘association of love and service to humans’. Even in India, killing of a dog or a cat can get you behind bars. So, those bans are ok because they have been imposed by more ‘enlightened’ people?

What the left-liberal demands is that in order to accommodate the ‘dietary preferences’ of others, we have to forego an article of our faith. After all, as per them, since it is the Hindu faith, of course, no article of faith is worth having!

Some pompously claim that since Hindus cannot take care of their cows post their productive age, they have no right to get offended if someone kills them. Oh, I did not know that respect and killing were a binary and nothing could exist in between!

One would like to believe that people can see through the evil behind selective outrages. Sadly, little has happened which would make one believe that people actually do so. Through repeated assertions, Gujarat 2002 has become a tale of Muslim massacre (the Godhra carnage and Hindu deaths never happened), Church attacks and nun rapes have become real, bombings perpetrated only by the Hindu fringe, a Muslim suspect automatically declared innocent while a Hindu suspect - guilty by birth. Where is it ok to handover relief to Muslim victims of a riot but impose penalty on Hindu victims in the very same riots. When it is 'known' that Hindus start rioting and it is only the 'poor Muslim' who is the victim!

As life becomes simpler and our capacity to think independently reduces, our belief will be more stark. We will then openly bray: Hindus bad, non-Hindus good!

Indian mis-adventure in Nepal

Indians have a short memory. We have forgotten that before the Green Revolution made us self-sufficient, we led a ‘ship-to-mouth’ existence, surviving on low-cost wheat from the US under PL480 and red wheat fit for cattle from Australia.

It is worth remembering that the wheat under PL480 was low-cost and not free. Yet, given that the reins of power lay with the US, it held those shipments under tight leash, withholding shipment to punish us now and then, say for criticizing its adventures in the Vietnam. Of course the Indian people were outraged and demanded an end to this humiliation. To her credit, Mrs. Indira Gandhi realising that the well-off would survive while the poor, with little idea of the politics behind the grain, could starve, continued with the aid-trade till results of the Green Revolution started coming in.

One would imagine that a Nation which has suffered slavery for over a 1000 years and was reliant (and still is) on goodwill of other countries for many of its basic requirements, would be sensitive to the plight of those other Nations which are poorer than it or in any way, dependent on it. Yet, in classic bully behavior, while India seems to bend over backwards to accommodate powerful neighbours or those who will never be its friend, it wants to play the colonial overlord to its weaker neighbours. Ever since their birth, both Pakistan and Bangladesh have been recipient of India’s benevolence, with the relationship with Bangladesh particularly being a one-way gift street from India. On the other hand, tiny Nepal, a civilizational brother has had to face India’s overwhelming pressure on an ongoing basis.

Imagine a situation where the US or any other Nation tries to dictate India’s constitution to India. Even if flaws in Indian constitution would be as large as a Black Hole, no self-respecting Indian would like to be ‘dictated’ by the other Nation, howsoever close or critical friend it might be.

Much before PL480, in 1950 itself, India had made a formal request for 2 million tonnes of wheat to US. The US Congress was not in sympathy with Indian requests for various reasons, among others, Nehru’s propensity to pontificate, its closeness to China and its stand in Korea. The US Congress dragged its foot leading to an outburst from a feckless Nehru "We would be unworthy of the high responsibilities with which we have been charged if we bartered our country's self-respect or freedom of action, even for something we need badly." Needless to say, the US Congress was miffed. Mercifully, better sense prevailed and Nehru changed his tone after a few days. The grain arrived but Indians rather than thanking the US, resented its actions. In a marked contrast, a much smaller shipment from the USSR was thanked profusely.

When India could not stomach the US attempt to use aid as a lever of policy, just why do we think that Nepal would bear it with a grin?

It is be quite unfortunate that the Nepalese elite has refused to honour its commitments and share power with the Madhesis and Janjatis. Yet, just what locus standi does India have in this issue? We might share close relations with the Madhesis but they are not Indians. Both the hill and plain Nepalese will need to learn how to co-exist. A partisan India will not carry any credibility and will make life only tough for those it professes to sympathise with. Over 40 years back, India intervened in Sri Lanka to protect its Tamil minority. Certainly, the persecution of Tamilians was harsh, in many ways, reflective of a genocidal mindset of the majority Sinhalese. But did Indian intervention benefit either the Tamilians or India in any way? Tamilians today are a smaller and a more scattered minority and India is not seen as a trusted friend by any of the parties in Sri Lanka.

With the Madhesis, the situation is much better in the sense that though discriminated against, they are not persecuted. While discrimination itself is an anathema, are anti-hill feelings so strong that the Madhesi-Janjati would demand a separate state? And if they do demand, can India really afford to support them?

No. It cannot. It should not and it will not.

By its overt and covert act of rejecting Nepalese constitution, India has only made the Madhesi appear even more as a fifth column for India, something which will only harm Nepalese integration. Just how can a democratic nation ignore the fact that in the previous elections, the Madhesi parties were routed and that the current constitution was passed by over 90% of Nepalese lawmakers? If it believes that absence of Madhesi parties invalidate the constitution, it is dangerously parroting the Muslim League and secularist formulae that only a Muslim can speak for a Muslim or a only a Dalit can speak for a Dalit.

While there can be no doubt that the current Indo-Nepalese stalemate is a glaring failure of Indian diplomacy, it is sad that the Indian opposition, rather than offering sage counsel, is rubbing its hands in glee.

Many commentators are now outrageously claiming that the Nepalese were unhappy with Indian demands that Nepal revert to being a Hindu Nation. Can those worthies provide even a single piece of evidence to back such claim? It was in fact, the Nepalese public which had forced their politicians to consider such an act. Something which was considered a given till September 7 quite mysteriously did not happen, much to the dismay of vast majority of Nepalese. It will not be an unreasonable conjecture that the same Mani Shankar Aiyyar, now berating Modi for interfering in Nepal would have berated Nepal, if horror of horrors, it had become Hindu again!

With bombastic statements from Indian journalists quite common (they are of course secure in the knowledge that anyone attempting to point out their falsehoods would be dismissed as a troll, an Internet Hindu or a Sanghi), many have claimed that the current crisis is the worst ever in Indo-Nepalese relations.

One can only admire their brazenness in ignoring the Rajiv Gandhi dictated economic blockade which ostensibly was on account of Nepalese buying cheaper Chinese arms though the Nepalese versions claim that the blockade happened on account of King Birendra declining Mr Gandhi’s breakfast invite and more because of the Nepalese barring his Christian spouse from visiting the Pashupatinath temple!

Very clearly, we have learnt nothing from our past misadventures.

In these times, let us please remember the pragmatism of Mrs. Gandhi in face of US’s adventurism on PL480. Like the Indian elite then, the Nepalese elite now will not be troubled by Indian economic blockade. It will be the millions of poor Nepalese, with who we share a common religion, a common culture, a common heritage and above all, common ideals of human existence, who will be harmed.

Let better sense prevail!

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!