Abstract
This paper aims to analyze the scholarship on Sallekhanā from an ethical and legal perspective. In this paper, I argue that Jainism distinguishes Sallekhanā as a non-violent death as opposed to Euthanasia, self-killing, suicide on the grounds of intention, situations, means adopted, and consequences. The practice is approved in Jain canonical literature, and there is considerable evidence that Jains embraced this voluntary death in primeval times. However, Jains claim Sallekhanā to be different from suicide or Euthanasia (assisted suicide) as they consider other practices as inhumane and violent. The paper will reflect from a Jain perspective, how do Jains differentiate Is Sallekhanā an appropriate ethical practice compared to suicide as an unethical practice? The work will endeavor to reiterate Sallekhanā as non-violent under the Jain doctrine.
Introduction
My first experience with the practice of the Jain way of voluntary death occurred during the summer school (2018) in a Jain pilgrimage in Uttar Pradesh. Adjacent to the temple, a Jain nun was lying over the mat surrounded by other nuns in the next room. Her body was feeble and shriveled. One of my colleagues who was researching on Sallekhanā tried to engage in conversation with her, where I played the translator’s role. One of the senior nuns briefed that she was in her final stage of fasting and stopped consuming food and water. Though her speech was unclear, she was continuously reciting something. What I witnessed sparked a curiosity in me, but I understood it during a lecture by Dr. Nitin Shah[2] in winter school in India. As he mentioned, the practice is known by different names; Sallekhanā or Santharā or Samādhi maran, where one voluntarily eliminates regular food consumption ensued by liquids. It is considered as the Jain vow of taking voluntary death towards the end of life. Jainism, being an atheistic religion, directs attention to practice equanimous attitude in thoughts and behavior to attain liberation. Jains choose to lead a nonviolent life from conception to death through indulging in austerities such as fasting and meditation.
Ascetic Ethics: Heart of Jainism
The origin of Jainism is found in ascetic śramaṇa (mendicancy) tradition as opposed to Brahmanical doctrine (Bilimoria 332). The ethical code in Jainism is governed by the ultimate goal of attaining moksha/liberation possessing the right worldview, right knowledge, and proper conduct (the three jewels). Every Jain is entitled to follow these five vows to their extent irrespective of their status in the society: ahimsā (nonviolence), satya (truthfulness), aparigraha (non-possessiveness), acaurya (non-stealing), and brahmacārya (celibacy). Jainism advocates a “consequentialist ethical system” (Vose 416), where the intention behind it equally influences karmic action. Every individual is responsible for his actions and cannot eschew the consequences of karma. However, one can reduce the burden of these karmas by performing asceticism/ austerities (tapas). Basic teachings of Jainism are found in Ācārangasutra and Sutrakrtānga. These canonical texts were found few years after Mahāvirā (the last Jinā and founder of Jainism) (Chapple 215):
He who injures does not comprehend and renounce the sinful acts; he who does not injure comprehends and renounces the sinful acts. Knowing them, a wiseman should not act sinfully towards animals, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to do so. (Mueller 12)
A monk or nun should not wipe or rub a wet or moist alms-bowl. But when they perceive that on their alms-bowl the water has dried up and the moisture is gone, then they may circumspectly wipe or rub it.
(Mueller 170)
The Jain monks or nuns to practice asceticism renounce all their possessions, family, and homes and adopt the five essential vows for the rest of their lives. They lead a non-violent life by sweeping the ground carefully, vigilant of their actions while walking, talking, sleeping, or doing any activity. In other words, the ascetic efforts must always be informed by the ‘right view’ and by attentive watchfulness, self-monitoring, and discipline (Laidlaw 184). One way they can avoid committing violence is by following Jain doctrine that believes in the omnipresence of living beings, some are visible from naked eyes, and some are not. Sallekhanā is considered the highest form of ascetic practice, in which a person performs ritual fasting till death under the supervision of a teacher or guru (Ullrey & Vose 433). An ascetic paragon of Jainism comes to overpower and curtails the model of worldly well-being by establishing Sallekhanā at the highest level and most important of all Jain practices (Sethi 145)
An American Jain scholar in bioethics asserts, “Philosophically and logistically in life, the only way to be completely nonviolent is to stop taking other lifeforms and the only way to completely stop taking life forms is to not consume them. So, for Jains, the ultimate way to exit this life is to stop eating, to stop taking those lifeforms” (Eplett 2015). The Jain ethical texts categorize Sallekhanā as ‘abstaining indefinitely from taking food until death arrives’ (Bilimoria 340). since the practice connected to the vow of ritual fasting to death is viewed as a commitment uniting a mutual responsibility to oneself and the environment by permitting honor of dying, freeing the soul from karmas. The rationale behind Sallekhanā emanates from the Jain doctrine of karma, rebirth, asceticism, and spiritual purification. (Braun 915)
Relevance of Sallekhanā: Now and Then
Many evidence have been gathered about the voluntary death through Sallekhanā in Śravaṇbelagolā in South India. Śravaṇbelagolā is also known as Kātavāpra to its earliest inhabitants (7th century) recognized by some to be ‘sepulchral hill’ or ‘the hill of death.’ This place holds great relevance as its history begins with the ritual death of a saint, Bhadrabahu. Influenced by their predecessor, nuns and monks believe they should also end their lives at the same place. These terms persisted in use till the early half of the 12th century. In Kannada, kata derived from the Sanskrit root, Kal means to die, extricate, while Kalal is a state of emaciation (poor/thin), and kalivu is the end (Settar 94). This hill was a favored resort of saints and nuns for the voluntary death or termination of their life.
This vow is termed variously as Sallekhanā, Santharā, Samādhimaraṇa or pandita Marana (Caillat 1977). It was a belief that one (holy) who took samadhi maran will determine a place in heaven along with the liberation from worldly life. It is interesting to note that the term Sallekhanā did not emerge until the end of the 12th century. The process of taking Sallekhanā starts from the beginning. Like, a warrior should train himself to obtain command over different weapons to ensure victory in the war. Similarly, it advised that the penance should be practiced throughout one’s life to embrace Sallekhanā in the end. There were memorial pillars in Koppala (Karnataka) and Śravaṇbelagolā – inscribing not only those who undertook Sallekhanā but also nuns and laywomen attending the dying ones. It depicts how profoundly women were invested in penance and fasting religious activities, most central to their community (Parasher 151-174).
Sallekhanā’s practice was earlier restricted to monks and nuns only, but now the tradition has been adopted by householders too. However, female religiosity has always been a topic of discourse in Jainism. In contrast, Ṡwetāmbara sect believes that women can attain liberation. Still, on the other hand, the Digāmbara sect believes that women cannot attain salvation without taking rebirth as a man due to physical confinement to her body. The period of practice is not absolute, it could last as long as twelve years and as short as three days, depending on the condition of the person and the kinds of vow or rite he or she is initiated into for the desired fulfillment (Bilimoria 339). Statistically, according to Baya’s research survey of 350 cases between January 1994 to December 2004, the number of men surpasses women in Digambar tradition. In contrast, Ṡwetāmbar Jains, particularly women, are more likely to take Sallekhanā ‘s vow (Baya). Noticeably, his sample is striking for the sectarian disparities between ascetic and laity propensity for Sallekhanā. Whilst, among Digambaras, 46% of monks and 39% of nuns undertook Sallekhanā, contrary to only 1 and 0.6% of lay men and women (Sethi 137). The lay followers vigorously led the field among the Svetambara.
The practice has been in existence from the era of Mahavira, who undertook this voluntary practice of death through self- starvation to the Gautama Buddha, attained mahparinirvana (the pinnacle of enlightenment) at his desire after his frail substantial body lost all reflex movement. In the present era, Gandhi (being a non- Jain) has set a paradigm for this practice through his ‘fast unto death’, and in formulating the principle of satyagraha or ‘holding onto truth’ promoting nonviolence, even it engenders death, till the end of struggle (Bilimoria 339). Recently, a profound Jain scholar, Dr. Sagarmal Jain, renounced his body by undertaking Santhara on Dec 4, 2020. He spread his wisdom of Jain doctrine worldwide and, in the end, proved in his actions and conduct by adopting this practice (India print).
Facing Death Voluntarily and Peacefully
I will explain this section by examining the case study of Sri Ācarya Shanti Sagar (1873- 1955), one of the prominently revered saints in Jainism illustrated by Tukol in his book. Born into a religious family wherein his father took a vow to consume a meal once a day for 16 years preceding death. Saatgauda (Ācarya Sri’s birth name) couldn’t complete formal education beyond third grade but was flooded with religious knowledge due to devout parents. By the end of his teenage years, he became proficient in understanding scriptures and visited many sacred places that aroused a desire to adopt asceticism. After his parents’ death, he was initiated as a monk on the first level (kshullaka) in 1918 and later attained a higher level of a naked monk (muni) in 1922. He reinstalled the manuscript (Dhavālā, Jhavālā, and Mahādhavālā) that contains Jaina’s fundamentals. He brought a wave of religious transformation in the country due to his wisdom and adherence to religion.
Coming to the remarkable episode of his life, he suffered from defective eye disease during his stay at Baramati (Pune). His devotees requested him to continue his visit in one place, but he continued his journey to Kunthalgiri. His eye condition worsened in due course. Sensing the indiscretion of vows and dependency on others for walking; he announced his intention to undertake Sallekhanā. He decided to observe silence and to fast the same day. During his diagnosis, the doctors examined the cataract, and it will take eight years to recover. Ācarya Ji realized that the only viable option in this situation was to formulate the body to take Sallekhanā due to old age, incurable disease, and his disability to fulfill vows. Since a monk must be vigilant in his actions, like walking, sitting, and taking food, he must avoid himsā (violence) by trudging any being due to his eyesight. He followed natural means for the process. Initially, he took Niyama Sallekhanā, refrained from taking food as per his decision. After a month, on August 8, 1955, he abstained from food and took almond water. On August 14, he informed his devotees that Niyama Sallekhanā will last for a week. Later, on August 26, he asked forgiveness from everyone and vice versa. He decided to give up water on August 28, and people from all over the place came to visit him and revered him. He delivered his last sermon on the 25th day of complete fasting about how the destruction of all karmas can lead to salvation, and every individual should aspire for it. He was spiritually active in a state of peace and contentment throughout and would engross himself in meditation or chanting at times. He took his last breath on September 18, 1955, with the recital of “Om Namah Siddhebhya” (praise to the Siddhas, the perfect souls) (Tukol 98-104).
The Jain monk portrayed an approach to living and dying peacefully. The idea here is that abstention from food, while being engrossed in mediation and spiritual purification intercepts accumulation of karmas. Since the practice is prevalent in the main sects within Jainism, the Digambara and the Śvetāmbara, and to all their constituent branches (Laidlaw 181), his death was celebrated all over the country as an example of nonviolence, and there was no sign of remorse.
Some of the canons mentioned here prescribe different conditions to undertake Sallekhanā. The Umāsvāmisŕāvakacāra and Sŕāvakacārasaroddhara put forth six conditions, i.e., famine, old age, fatal disease, one is about to be killed by hostile forces, sight loss (ascetic), one is near to death. Siddhasenagaṇin elucidates Umāsvāti’s commentary on the Tattvārthasūtra when dharma and āvaśyaka are damaged based on the following three defects (dośā ): kāla (times of great famine ), samhananadaurbalya (weakening of the body), upasarga (calamity caused by a god, man, an animal or oneself). Yogāśastra and Yogāśastravati encompass two conditions, where one cannot practice the six āvaśyaka[3] (necessary duties), one is at death’s door (Kazuyoshi 78). It can be presumed, four significant conditions to approach the practice includes an unavoidable calamity, famine, old age, an incurable disease. Other states, such as ‘death at one’s door’ are not firmly embedded.
Although it is permissible for the individual to satisfy any of the above conditions, one has to go through a certain process. The first step is to identify the intention and approach a guru to express desire to adopt this practice. He/She can do so by reciting the following words:
Please instruct me sir. I have come forward to seek Sallekhanā, (the vow of) which will remain in force as long as I live. I am free of all doubts and anxieties in this matter. I renounce, from now until the moment of my last breath, food, and drink of all kinds. (Jaini 293-305)
After the guru’s approval, the individual can decide on his own or by consulting a physician to estimate the timeframe left to live. The householder must seek permission from his family members, guru, and then renounce all possessions and relationships. Seeking forgiveness is expected in the process of the cleric as well as laity. Then, the person must follow the gradual reduction of food preceded by water. As discussed in the case above, Ācārya took Sallekhanā due to the deteriorating condition of his eyes. He wants to relieve society from any responsibility towards care or suffering. Knowing that he has limited time left, he announced his decision to the devotees. Further, he asks for forgiveness and grants the same. There was no feeling of grief, negativity, distress in his mind. Jaina wisdom considers this attitude towards death as the ideal one by accepting it happily.
One of the widely accepted definitions of Sallekhanā is “properly thinning out the passions of the body” (Jaini 2006), similar to as defined in the commentary Sarvarthasiddhi [1] explains too. “The word “Sallekhanā” means properly (=sal) thinning out (=lekhana) the body and the passions. Namely, Sallekhanā means thinning out in due order the internal desires and the external body by renouncing their cause.” (Tukol)
As in Uttaradhyanana Sutra, it is being said by Lord Mahavira.
Death against one’s will is that of ignorant men, and it happens to the same individual many times. Death with one’s will is that of wise men, and at best it happens but once. . .. Full of peace and without injury to any one is, as I have heard from my teachers, the death of the virtuous who control themselves and subdue their senses. . .. When the right time to prepare for death has arrived, a faithful monk should in the presence of his teacher suppress all emotions of fear and joy and wait for the dissolution of his body. When the time for quitting the body has come, a sage dies the death with one’s will (US 3-4).
Similarly, seventeen types of death have been sermonized by Jinas in the Bhagvati Sutras and Bhagvati Ārādhnā, stratified into two groups. Firstly, Bāla- Marana, i.e., death without self-restrained, including violent death such as suicide, death by any instrument, fire, etc. Such kinds of death do not include the desire to eliminate karmic passions—secondly, Pandita- Marana, which is attributed as wise death. Sallekhanā is a part of this category that focuses on destructing karmas by inclining spiritually. (Kusum Jain, 82)
An instance of Sri Acarya Shantisagar stated above exposes what non- Jains consider self-killing acknowledged and approved by Jain doctrine. It is an effusive celebration by the people of what is essentially called religious suicide, deliberate and intentional.
Is Sallekhanā Suicide?
Justice T.K. Tukol’s work of identifying elementary differences between Sallekhanā and Suicide officiates as the foundation of this research. According to the Encyclopedia of Suicide, Sallekhanā, referred to as “suicide by the self-denial of food, is permissible only to ascetics, according to the Jain religion.” The practice of Sallekhanā has always been intervened by modern scholarship outside of Jain faith traditions. The most potent Christian view on Santharā comes from one of the early western archivists of the Jains. Mrs. Stevenson writes, ‘Strangely, a religious system that begins with the most minute regulations against taking the lowest insect life should end by encouraging human suicide’ (Stevenson 221). Her proclamation is vigorously incisive on the ethicality of Sallekhanā:
The sadhu climbs some sacred hill such as Parasnatha, Girnar, or Satrunjaya; and there, in order to do nothing that may lead to karma, he does absolutely nothing at all, but awaits death without moving hand or foot, head or body. The influence of a negative religion is then worked out to its irresistible conclusion, and with all the sorrows and ills of the world waiting to be relieved, the soldier deserts his post in order to free his own soul from suffering. (Ibid 168)
Another European scholar, B. Lewis Rice, who led the Mysore’s archaeological Survey in Śravaṇbelagolā in the late 19th century, divulged the supremacy of Sallekhanā as the hill equated to the death of the last Acarya, Bhadrabahu. He denounces arcane recordings he discovers of both the ascetics and laity ‘who had given themselves up to fasting with the express object of quitting the body,’ validating the vow of” religious suicide.’ Sallekhanā (Rice 15.) He translated the Ratnakaranda śrāvakācāra[4] and quoted as follows (Ibid 17):
The bitterest satirist of human delusions could hardly depict a scene of sterner irony than the naked summit of this bare rock dotted with emaciated devotees, both men and women, in silent torture awaiting the hour of self-imposed death. The irony is complete when we remember that avoidance of the destruction of life inwhatever form is a fundamental doctrine of the sect (Ibid 15).
Both above viewpoints of western authors on Sallekhanā directs us towards their familiarity not only with the scriptures but also through their personal experience and encounter with the people. It poses a conundrum to the minds of colonial thinkers due to the incompatibility of the central vow of nonviolence (ahimsā) with ‘religious suicide’. (Sethi 9)
Durkheim’s sociological approach of defining suicide is most relevant to Sallekhanā here.
He defines the term suicide as follows. The term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or a negative act of the victim himself, which, he knows, will produce this result. In the case of Sallekhanā, death results from a devotee’s negative fasting. He knows the result fully. Hence Durkheim’s definition of suicide can be applied to Sallekhanā also. According to Durkheim, suicide is essentially a social phenomenon rather than an individual one. He puts all forms of religious suicide including Sallekhanā (without referring directly to it) into the category of Acute Altruistic Suicide, an act committed to benefit others. Unlike other practices like Sati, Jauhar, Harakiri, falling into other two categories of suicide (obligatory and optional altruistic suicide), Sallekhanā is considered as a kind of religious suicide different from ordinary suicide in other traditions (Tukol 48). According to Tukol, Durkheim fails to understand the metaphysics of Jainism. He calls Jainism as atheistic pantheism. He pronounces, “To be sure, Jainism as well as Buddhism, is atheistic; but pantheism is not necessarily theistic. Its essential quality is the idea that what reality there is in the individual is foreign to his nature, that the soul which animates him is not his own and that consequently he has no personal existence. Now, this dogma is fundamental to the doctrines of Hindus; it already exists in Brahmanism (Durkheim 226)”. Jain scholars refute the argument posed by Durkheim. Jainism propounds the diversity of souls who maintain their status during the stage of bondage and liberation. They don’t believe in the totality of Brahman. Sallekhanā is rather a means to liberate the soul from the influx and bondage of karmas during the process of dying.
Tukol utilizes four factors (discussed in the case study above) to highlight the difference between Sallekhanā and suicide viz, intention, situation, means, consequences or the outcome of practice I will use Cholbi’s definition to highlight the nature of suicide. He observes, “[s]uicide is intentional self-killing: a person’s act is suicidal if and only if the person believed that the act, or some causal consequence of that act, would make her death likely and (s)he engaged in the behavior to intentionally bring about her death (Cholbi 27)”. The Jain community considers the practice of Sallekhanā to be different from self-killing, unlike Euthanasia or suicide. As per the Oxford dictionary, Euthanasia is referred to as “bringing about a gentle and painless death for a person suffering from a painful, incurable disease, extreme old age, etc. (Mehta & Jain 81).” It could be suicide or one kind of Sallekhanā, however it is not the same. What makes Euthanasia different from Santharā? According to Bhagwati Aradhna, Sallekhanā is of two types: Internal Santharā that centers towards minimizing four karmic passions (kashayas: anger, greed, deceit and jealousy) whereas external Sallekhanā focuses on advancing detachment to the body progressively. However, in euthanasia, the primary focus is to terminate one’s physical suffering without considering mental or soul cleansing through the elimination of karmas. (Mehta & Jain, 83) Another distinguishing factor is intention. The intent behind Euthanasia is to surrender the suffering by having a pure desire to die, contrarily, in Sallekhanā, the individual endures suffering, eliminates karmas to attain liberation. The process of Euthanasia is aided by a doctor or physician with doses of chemicals to relieve pain whereas an individual is assisted by a spiritual guru (niryapakas) with the support to maintain peace throughout the process. Merciful killing, no matter painlessly, is violent in nature, on the other hand, the process of Sallekhanā commences from nonviolence i.e. withdrawal of food and water to avoid violence to beings. (Baya 342) It is important to note, the process of Sallekhanā, causing detachment to the body, brings awareness of the difference between soul and body. Therefore, starving is not considered as violence or torture to the self because both are disjointed. Though the practice of Sallekhanā and Euthanasia is voluntary, both are incongruent with each other.
Taking reference from the canonical text, Âcârya Amritchandra in PuruŚartha-siddhyupâya distinguishes suicide from Sallekhanā on the following ground: (Jain 115-116)
- Seeing the death forthcoming, the vow of Sallekhanā is taken by gradually shedding the body and the passions. Since the individual practicing Sallekhanā is void of all forces like attachment, anger, guilt, etc., it is not suicide.
- Putting an end to life through stopping breath or employing any weapon, fire, poison, propelled by passions, demonstrates guilt of suicide. By subjugating causes of violence (himsā) through practicing Sallekhanā, leads to ahimsâ.
In a symposium in Banaras (India), Bilimoria (342) compiled the arguments posed by Jaina scholars differentiating Sallekhanā from Euthanasia on ethical grounds. He observes, one of the distinguishing features is the circumstances under which the decision of ending life is approved. Irrational choices due to mental distress, fear, anger, etc., direct the desolated person to commit suicide. One has to ensure the well-being and proper care of the body and mind throughout life before initiating the practice. Every attempt should be made to treat the ailment, taking necessary precautions (Though on religious grounds, a Jain refutes the idea of surgery or any transfusion over natural treatment). Self- interest is essential in committing to a nonviolent, peaceful death; others’ interest should not be put at stake, and responsibilities should be duly fulfilled. One of the critical distinctions he made is that the agency of one’s death lies in his own hands. No one else could be blamed or held responsible for it. The above points discern that a contended life, without the feeling of disgrace or negative emotions, sets the path for Sallekhanā’s vow. It is not considered an escape route; unlike euthanasia or any other form of self-killing, ending life with the same pride is held during the rest of the life.
Death in other Religions
The Sanskrit terms, ātmahāna, and ātmahatyā, which means ‘self-murder’ now conceived as the western term Suicide. (Bilimoria 332) The conviction of starving self as a supreme way of dying is diversely opposed to the western bioethics, influenced by the understanding of monotheistic religions of considering the body as the temple of God.[5] In Judaism, one’s body has a relationship with God. No one has the power to withdraw their own life; one murder by proxy by participating in the act of assisting others in ending their life (Dorff 2005). While Jewish law doesn’t permit one to end life on its own, Talmud allows an individual to ask God for early death (Braun 10). Suicide or any form of voluntary death is denied in Islam. Using any means, whether assisted suicide or euthanasia, putting to end the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease is considered an act of defiance towards God (Sachedina 2005). The Qur’an (3:145) says it is not given to any soul to die, save by the leave of God, at an appointed time.
Christianity also disregards any voluntary death such as self-murder or suicide; physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are forms of self-murder and direct murder (Engelhardt and Iltis 2005). While there are religions such as Buddhism, wherein Buddha approved voluntary death under circumstances of incurable diseases and extreme forms of misery as leading to nirvana.
In Hinduism, suicide is condemned, but voluntary death is arbitrary. Various means are adopted to espouse death such as by self-sacrifice through entering in the fire, drowning in a sacred river, fasting unto death, proceeding on an irreversible last Great Journey (Mahā-Prārthanā), taking the vow of Prayopavesanā, the holy end discussed in Raghuvamsa text. (Jain &Kacchara14)
As we see, different faiths have a way or another to accept voluntary death for liberation, for justifying moral values, ethics, honor. It implies non- violent voluntary death promotes peace and tranquility of mind during the process of dying.
Law and Religion
Since independence, Sallekhanā continued to be protected by the Indian Constitution’s provisions securing freedom of religion if practices did not violate social order. Moreover, there was a gradual relief of unlawful decrees against suicide and the antiquity of Jainism and its tradition of Sallekhanā was unchallenged by any discourse. But the scenario digressed its way on September 22, 2006, when a human rights activist, Nikhil Soni, called Sallekhanā as “social evil” and filed the petition along with his lawyer Madhav Mishra to declare the practice illegal and a form of suicide in Rajasthan High Court. Having close connections with the native place, Churu[6], the world’s Santhārā capital, Soni always witnessed the procession of voluntary death reticently (Hattangadi). Under the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860, any suicide was considered a criminal act, punishable by law. (S. 309). Based on IPC, the court approves the petition and does not permit the violation of article 21 (right to take one’s own life) and article 25 (right to propagate religion freely) under the Indian Constitution. The Sallekhanā advocates argue, under article 21, the right to life is meaningless without the corresponding right to stop living — i.e., the right to die. They emphasize, the same article also cedes a person the freedom to personal liberty in such matters (Hattangadi). As a result, Sallekhanā was outlawed by the Rajasthan High Court on August 10, 2015, as an offense punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Still, the Supreme court deferred the decision for three weeks (The Hindu).
Soni develops a contrast between the practice of Sati and the ceremonial nature of Sallekhanā taking Roop Kanwar versus State of Rajasthan (Dec 9, 1987) as the basis for his arguments. The case suggests that after the death of her husband, Mal Singh, Roop Kanwar decided to undertake the practice of Sati. Dressed in bridal attire, she sat in the funeral pyre of her husband and was burnt alive with her husband. At the same time, the petitioner argues that she was compelled by her in-laws to practice Sati but framed as her own decision to the community. In 2004, the court accused 11 people for glorifying the event as sati and declared the glorification of Sati as a punishable offense (Rajalakshmi). Soni correlates the customary site of sati in Roop Kanwar’s case with the social congregation of people who come to pay tribute to the individual who adopted Santharā. A procession is carried out after the death in the entire community in order to celebrate the act. He pronounces that communal gathering resulting in ‘glorification’ should pose the same repercussions as that of in the Sati prevention Law (Writ para 5). The petitioner comprehends suicide as a means of intentional self-killing and compared voluntary fasting in Jainism as an act of self- destruction, punishable under section 309 IPC and under section 306 IPC. (writ para 3) However, Sallekhanā, different from voluntary suicide is aimlessly associated with the offense of suicide or Sati or euthanasia in the PIL. The respondents reject the research. Sallekhanā is seen as similar to migrating from rental house (body) to own house (soul), if undertaken with an objective of self- realization and healthy desire. One of the respondents, being a Jain himself, underlines evidences from the Jain canonical literature from Ratnakranda Srvakachāra, that states the conditions under which a person is permissible to take Sallekhanā. To support his point, he referred to the book of Justice Tukol “which provides the procedure, stage, situation for the person, who wants to adopt or follow the religious path known as “Sallekhanā” in Jainism.” (writ para 10). Adhering to the vow of nonviolence to reduce the karmic debt of the soul does not provoke any violence towards the soul or the body. It was assumed that the writ petition brings forth disgrace to Jain religious practice and the right of Jain to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion as guaranteed by Article 25, 26(b) and 29 of the Constitution (Para 12, Judgement).
The question of “to die or not to die” raises several dilemmas regarding ethical and legal issues of dying. There have been circumstances where religion confronted the state in India. The two cases of State of Punjab v Gian Kaur (March 21, 1996) and P. Rathinam v Union of India (April 26, 1944) highlights the ethicality of “Right to die” by the Indian Constitution. In the State of Punjab vs Gian Kaur, the couple (Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh) was sentenced for 6 years R.I. with a penalty of Rs 6000 (Judgement Para1) Their primary argument was to radicalize the constitutional validity of Article 306 [7] in Indian Penal Code. The court declared that Section 309 and Section 306 of IPC is not violative of either Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution is approved for the reasons given here. The latter case alleges the central question of “Whether, the scope of Article 21 also includes the ‘right to die’ “ (Judgement Para 2)? The case was settled with the response of not including ‘Right to die’ in Article 21 . P. Rathinam averred that Article 21 has also a “positive content and is not merely negative in its reach. Reliance was placed on certain decisions to indicate the wide ambit of Article 21 wherein the term life’ does not mean ‘mere animal existence’ but right to live with human dignity’ embracing quality of life.” (Judgement Gian Kaur).
Summing up all the cases, it is evident that several times in the past, religion has intersected with the law on the issue of suicide and voluntary death. Under Section 309 of IPC, the term ‘any act’ does not fit into the vow of Sallekhanā. Abstaining from food and water is not considered as ‘any act ‘of violence to self or to others, rather it is done in lieu to avoid violence to the beings. The Jaina view in comparison to Sati seems to be complicated due to the absence of desires and autonomy. The teacher assisting in the initiation is responsible for helping in the elimination of desires and attachment with the passage of time to result in removal of karmic passions from the soul. Contrarily, the death of a Sati will be seen as a ‘fool’s death’ or suicide from Jain point of view as there is still some attachment with the husband. Therefore, Samadhi maran is considered as one of the profane ways by ignoring redundant aspects of self and worldly desires (Laidlaw 193). The Jain tradition provides much more compelling evidence that death is a free-will decision for the individual and a product of his own actions.
Conclusion
Jainism has a valid and intricate ethical framework to interpret the practice of voluntary death, Sallekhanā, and distinguishing it from self-killing. It is essential to understand the nuances of the Jain moral system in its own right. Jains promoting worldview do not restrict their relationship of self to a person, family, community, or nation. Instead, they establish the agency of self to all the living beings, and their central focus is to adhere to the value of non-violence. Jains distinguish the body’s relationship with the soul, therefore detach themselves from the body by performing these austerities. But where does the question of self-killing or violence come into play when the body is not your own?
References
Ashish Mehta / TNN /, et al. “Documentary on Santhara to Highlight Law-Religion Conflict |Jaipur NewsTimes of India.” TheTimesofIndia,5Jan.2016.
Baya, D S. Samādhimaraṇa: Death with Equanimity – The Pursuit of Immortality. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharatii Academy, 2007.
Bilimoria, Purushottama. “The Jaina Ethic of Voluntary Death: A Report from India.” Bioethics, vol. 6, no. 4, Oct. 1992, pp. 331–355.
Whitny. “Sallekhanā: The Ethicality and Legality of Religious Suicide by Starvation in the Jain Religious Community.” Medicine and Law, vol. 27, no. 4, 2008, pp. 913–924.
Caillat, C. “Fasting unto Death according to the Jaina Tradition. Acta Orientalia 38, 1977, pp. 43–66.
Chapple, Christopher K. “Eternal Life, Death and Dying in Jainism.” Sallekhanā – The Jain Approach to Dignified Death, D.K. Printworld, Delhi, 2020, pp. 213–240.
Cholbi, M. Suicide: The Philosophical Dimensions. Peterborough & Buffalo: Broadview,2011
Press.
Cort, J. (2001). Jains in the world: Religious values and ideology in India. New York: Oxford U Press.
Dundas, Paul. “A Digambara Jain Saṃskāra in the Early Seventeenth Century: Lay Funerary Ritual According to Somasenabhaṭṭāraka’s ‘Traivarṇikācāra.’” Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 54, no. 2, 2011, pp. 99–147.
Eplett, Layla. “Rite to Die: Sallekhanā and End of Life.” Scientifc American, 29 Sept. 2015, blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/rite-to-die-Sallekhanā-and-end-of-life/.
Hattangadi, Shekhar. “Freedom to Die.” Little India, 31 Dec. 2010.
Hotta, Kazuyoshi. “Under Which Conditions Is Sallekhanā Permitted for Jain Laity?” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, vol. 64, no. 3, 2016, pp. 1119–1124. EBSCOhost, doi:10.4259/ibk.64.3_1119.
“India Top Court Lifts Ban on Jains’ Santhara Death Fast.” BBC News, 31 Aug. 2015, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34105602. Accessed 27 Sept. 2020.
Jain, Vijay K. (Ed.), “Shri Amritchandra Suri’s Puru artha-siddhyupâya – with Hindi and English Translation”, Vikalp Printers, 2012, p. 115-116
Jerryson, Michael. “Religious Violence Today [2 Volumes]: Faith and Conflict in the Modern World: Hardcover.” Barnes & Noble, ABC-CLIO, Incorporated, 15 July 2020.
Laidlaw, James. A life worth leaving fasting to death as telos of a Jain religious life, Economy and Society. 2005. 34:2, 178-199.
Mehta, D. R., and Kusum Jain. “Legality of End of Life.” Sallekhanā – The Jain Approach to Dignified Death, D.K. Printworld, 2020, pp. 79–93.
Mehta, Pratap Bhanu. “Death and the Sovereign.” The Indian Express, 19 Aug. 2015, indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/death-and-the-sovereign/.
Mody, U. (2007) ‘Samlekhana is a Step Towards Self-Realization’, National Seminar on Bio- Ethics, Jan. 24–25, Joshi-Bedekar College, Thane, Mumbai , p.33
Muller, F. Max(ed.), Jaina Sutras, Part-I, tr. Herman Jacobi, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1884
Parasher-Sen, A., Bearing History—Women, Death and the Jaina Ritual of Sallekhanā, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 34:2, 2011, 151-174
Rajagopal, Krishnadas. “Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Santhara Ritual of Jains.” The Hindu, 1 Sept. 2015, www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-lifts-stay-on-santhara-ritual-of-jains/article7600851.ece.
Rajalakshmi, T. K. “`Sati’ and the Verdict.” Frontline, 12 Mar. 2004, frontline.thehindu.com/other/article30221385.ece.
Rice, B. Lewis, Inscriptions at Sravana Belgola a Chief Seat of the Jains. Book on demand ltd, 2014.
Ronikonmäki, Hanna. “License to Die? The Meaning and Moral Permissibility of Voluntary Death.” Collegium, vol. 19, Oct. 2015, pp. 138–154.
“Sallekhanā is the highest form of piety, say Jains.” Times of India, 29 Aug. 2015. Gale General OneFile.
Sethi, Manisha. “Ritual Death in a Secular State: The Jain Practice of Sallekhanā.” South Asian History & Culture, vol. 10, no. 2, Apr. 2019, pp. 136–151.
Singh, Subhash Chandra. “Euthanasia and assisted Suicide: Revisiting the sanctity of Life Principle.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 54, no. 2, 2012, pp. 196–231.
Somasundaram, Ottilingam, et al. “Jainism – Its Relevance to Psychiatric Practice; with Special Reference to the Practice of Sallekhanā.” Indian Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 58, no. 4, Oct. 2016, pp. 471–474.
Stevenson, Margaret. The Heart of Jainism: by Mrs. Sinclair Stevenson. With an Introduction by the Rev. G.P. Taylor. H. Milford, 1915.
Tukol, T K. Sallekhanā Is Not Suicide. Ahmedabad, L.D. Institute of Indology, 1976.
“World Famous Jain Sage Dr. Sagarmal, with Santhara, Tyagi Body, Crowd Gathered in Nirvana Yatra.” Daily Hunt, 4 Dec. 2020.
Court Cases
High Court of Rajasthan. Nikhil Soni vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 August, 2015. indiankanoon.org/doc/173301527/.
Jaipur’s special court. Madan Singh S/O Sumer Singh And … vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1987. indiankanoon.org/doc/647907/.
Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 21 March, 1996. indiankanoon.org/doc/217501/.
[1] The title of this research paper is both inspired an a response to this classic work of literature titled, “Sallekhanā is not a suicide”, written by a Jain judge of Mysore- Justice T.K. Tukol in 1976.
[2] He is a professor of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine in Loma Linda University and Chief of Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Long Beach Veterans Administration Healthcare System
[3] Six essential duties include: Worship of five supreme beings, following the teaching of ascetics/monks, Knowledge of Jain scriptures, periodic concentration, practicing discipline in daily routine, Charity.
[4] One of the earliest Jain scriptures, written by Aacharya Samantbhadra Swamy which discusses conduct of Jain laity.
[5] The Bible in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 reads, 16Don’t you know that you yourselves are
God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?
[6] District in North western state of India, Rajasthan. The place has the highest per capita incidences of the Sallekhanā in recent history.
[7] Section 306 of Indian Penal Code states that If any person commits suicide or whoever assist in the act, shall be punished with imprisonment, that can be extended up to 10 years and liable for fine.
Feature Image Credit: wikipedia.org
Tirtha Yatra & Conference On Jain Traditions
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
