WOMAN PREPARING TO DIE UNDER 'SANTHARA' A JAIN RITUAL, SPARKS DEBATE - JAIPUR: A 60-year-old woman suffering from brain tumor here has embarked on an age-old Jain ritual of 'Santhara', under which she has stopped taking food or water with an intention to die. The move has sparked a debate, with a local advocate filing a PIL, equating the practice with suicide and mercy killing. After Vimla Devi Bhansali was told by doctors that her brain tumor was incurable, she decided to stop taking food or water in order to die instead of waiting for the disease to consume her. A large number of her relatives and members of the Shwetambar Jain community visited her home at  Chhatrsal Colony.

Followers of this Jain sect also came from nearby towns, loaded in cars and buses, to visit Bhansali. Santhara is practised among the Shwetambar as well as Digambar Jain community in old age. Those observing Santhara do not want to live any more and would prepare to die by lying down in a wooden cot and refusing drink or food. Jain monks and nuns preach Santhara as the best way to purify ones soul and it is said to be a great sacrifice to attain salvation. Santhara is considered a supreme sacrifice and often monks and nuns in old age observe the ritual. Bhansali's family members said they tried to dissuade her, but to no avail. However, Rajasthan HC had asked police to take action against Bhansali after a PIL was filed by advocate Nikhil Soni, who said the practice was like Sati.

Police said no action had been initiated as the court orders were yet to reach them. A debate has been sparked off on the religious practice. A double bench comprising Chief Justice S N Jha and Justice Ajay Rastogi has sent notices to the Centre and state government, fixing the hearing for October 5. Large number of members of the Jain Shwetambar community were of the opinion that observing Santhara was a ritual, which made it different from suicide and Sati as it has been in practice for 1,000 years now. The community leaders were of the opinion that it was a Jain religious practice and was not punishable under law.

JAINS PROTEST AGAINST FREEDOM OF RELIGION ACT IN GUJARAT
AHMEDABAD - The Jain community in Gujarat has protested an amendment that the state government has made to the anti-conversion law that considers Jainism to be a branch of Hinduism and allows conversion between different sects of the same faith and between Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. The Gujarat State Assembly passed the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2006 to amend the anti-conversion act.

Jain monk Mitranandsagarji, a prominent religious leader of the Jain community, said ignorant politicians have no right to issue a fatwa that Jainism is a branch of Hinduism.

Jainism is an independent religion and the bill passed by the Gujarat government is against the constitution of the country. Jainism has been accorded the status of an independent religion by the Constitution. The Jain religion has no relation with Hinduism. Jainism existed even before the term Hinduism was coined in the history of Aryavrat. The saint said, he will challenge some provisions of the bill in court. He also suggested that community should also submit a representation to the government to change the flaws. If the government fails to respond, then the courts will be approached. The new law clearly stated that Jainism and Buddhism shall be construed as denominations of the Hindu religion. It also allows conversion between different sects of the same faith as well as conversions between Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

Noted activist and Movement of Secular Democracy convener Prakash Shah, said he doubted the credentials of state government as it is run by people who follow hardcore Hindutva ideology. Jainism is an independent religion and it is wrong to say that it is a branch of Hinduism. The amendment is made to the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act of 2003, which awards three years' imprisonment and a fine of up to 100,000 rupees for anyone converting a person by use of force or any fraudulent means. The law also says that if the converted person is a minor, a woman, a dalit or a tribal, the jail term can be up to four years. But the amendment that the legislators passed re-interpreted the meaning of conversion in the law. It said conversion means to make one person renounce one religion and adopt another. But does not include one who renounces one denomination and adopts another denomination of the same religion. It would mean the law would not object conversion from Shia to Sunni or from Protestant to Catholic. It also thus allows conversions between Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism as the government considers these religions part of the same religious system.

The amendment will come into effect only after Governor Nawal Kishore Sharma gives his assent to the bill. The governor has four options before him: give his assent, withhold his assent, reserve the bill for the consideration of the president or return the bill to the assembly with a message for its reconsideration. In 2003, the Gujarat assembly had passed the anti-conversion law but it could not be implemented even after it got the assent of the then governor Sunder Singh Bhandari. The reason was that the law lacked clarity on what 'forced conversion' meant and to whom it applied.

NARENDRA MODI’S ANTI-CONVERSION PLOY MIS-FIRES IN GUJARAT - If Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi presumed that an anti-conversion law was the right card to play to consolidate his position in a state that is yet to recover fully from the after-effects of the 2002 riots, then he seems to have miscalculated. The Hindutva lobby has routinely used laws of this nature to target the Christian missionaries and propagate the fear that the conversion of Hindus, along with the faster growth rate of the Muslims, would gradually reduce the Hindus to a minority in India. Although the law only rules out conversion through coercion or allurement, the objective is to create the impression that the Christian missionaries are up to no good. The fallout has been to intimidate them and keep the entire community under pressure. An occasional attack on churches and on individual Christians, including nuns, has been the result of these tactics of the saffron brotherhood. However, the problem with the latest law is that it has clubbed the Jain and Buddhist communities too along with the Hindus. The explanation behind the move is that Article 25 of the constitution does put the Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs on the same category as Hindus in the matter of laws regulating or restricting economic, political and secular activities associated with religious practices.

However, members of these communities have generally been against this categorization although it remains in the statute book. Significantly, the Sikhs haven’t been included in the Gujarat legislation presumably to avoid offending them and thereby jeopardizing the ties between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Sikh-dominated Akali Dal in Punjab, where an election is due early next year. As may be expected, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) has noted the exclusion and called for including Sikhs in the new law since it is less concerned with political sensitivities than with expanding the Hindu sphere of influence. But it is unlikely that Modi will heed its request if only because he now has to contend with the protests from the Jains and Buddhists. Since both constitute small and peaceable communities, it is unlikely that there will be any serious law and order problems. But the impression will persist that Modi’s chief motivation is to derive political mileage through what he considers a safe route, especially because he has chosen to leave out the Sikhs.

But there is another aspect of which Modi may be aware. The Buddhists may be small in numbers but there is a connection between them and Dalits ever since B.R. Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism in 1956 when the iconic Dalit leader said: ‘By discarding my ancient religion which stood for inequality and oppression, today I am reborn.’ This is the central point of difference between Hinduism and the other religions, which even Ambedkar admitted were ‘a part and parcel of Bharatiya culture’, because there is no caste system in the latter.

It is possible, therefore, that the Dalits in Gujarat, as also elsewhere in India, will not be too pleased with this blatant decision by Modi to play cynical games with religion. As a party, therefore, the BJP will have to contend with the resentment of Dalits in states like Uttar Pradesh where they have considerable electoral clout. Modi’s latest decision may not be unrelated to the widespread criticism of his government by his own party men over the recent floods in the state. Moreover, the Congress has been trying to exploit the recent reopening under orders of the Supreme Court of more than 2,000 riot cases, which had been closed by the state police on flimsy grounds.

The Congress has been claiming that the Supreme Court intervention, which also led to the transfer of several important cases to Mumbai for a fair trial, has tarnished Gujarat’s reputation. The criticism carries weight because it targets not only the state’s politicians and policemen for shielding the members of the saffron fraternity for their involvement in the riots but also the lower judiciary, which could not ensure that justice was done to the victims. Since the BJP is already sharply divided in Gujarat with no love lost between Modi and the influential group led by former chief minister Keshubhai Patel, the former evidently had to initiate a step which would boost his position before the next elections. Given the speculation that Modi has to ensure a second successive victory for his party in the state before he can move to the centre in search of a larger role, the anti-conversion measure was an obvious choice for him.  Given Modi’s continuing unpopularity except among his supporters in Gujarat, he seems to have unnecessarily courted further controversy by alienating the Jains and Buddhists. Courtesy: Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. He can be reached E-Mail : aganguli@mail.com)

UNNECESSARY avowal ON POPE'S OBSERVATIONS
Pope Benedict XVI's Remarks - From: William F. Vendley (Secretary General) E-Mail : wvendley@WCRP.org - The recent exchange profiled in the news regarding Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam-and the outrage and injury felt by the Islamic community-are but one example of how religious differences can divide. At worse, such misstatements, misunderstandings, and counter-reactions can inflame centuries-old conflicts and lead to violence. And yet, it doesn't have to happen.

Already, the Vatican and members of the Islamic community are on the front lines of a multi-religious effort to build peace with justice. Just weeks ago, representatives from both the Vatican and the Islamic community were among the 2,000 people representing the world's diverse faiths who gathered together at the Religions for Peace Eighth World Assembly in Kyoto, Japan. Coming from a hundred countries, they pledged to confront violence and build "shared security," acknowledging that
each religious tradition had its variation on the Golden Rule: to treat another as oneself, surely a most sensible approach to human relations.

The Kyoto Declaration, ratified by the delegates, acknowledged, "We must regretfully accept that some groups within our religious communities have indeed sought to employ violence. We must reject this and recommit religions to the way of peace."
While it is regrettable that the Pope's remarks deeply offended so many Muslims, it is positive that an apology has been issued. The recent exchange highlights the need for sustained efforts among all religious communities to respect difference and work together based on deeply held and widely shared moral concerns. For thirty-six years, Religions for Peace has built a global alliance of the world's religious communities for peace.

ANGRY REACTIONS ON POPE'S REMARKS IN INDIA
The anger sweeping the Muslim world against remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI on Islam spilled on the street in India. In Delhi, the protests turned violent as the mob clashed in the evening outside the Jama Masjid. Trouble began in the afternoon when a big group assembled outside the mosque to protest against the pontiff's comments. Inside the mosque, Bulkhari called on the Pope to apologise for the remark. Tempers began to fray when some members shouted slogans against each other over the public address system. Soon, bottles and stones were being hurled. The violence stopped only after the Rapid Action Force and a heavy posse of Police personnel were called in. Police said they had videotapes of the incident. All person indulging in violence can be identified and cases will be registered. Security was also stepped up outside the Vatican Embassy in Delhi.

From mosques across the country,  leaders of the community condemned the Pope's remarks and demanded an apology. There were also demonstrations in Srinagar, Lucknow and Varanasi, where Muslims took out protest marches. In Srinagar, police used batons to disperse protestors and took nearly a dozen activities of the hardline faction of the Hurriyat Conference into preventive custody.

Congress and Bhartiya Janta Party expressed disapproval of the remarks made by Pope Bendict XVI. The Congress party spokesman Satyavrat Chaturvedi said the pontiff should have been more careful in making statements that hurt the sentiments of people. The Pope is not just a leader of a religion but also the head of a government and a state. Therefore, we feel he should have been more careful. He sidestepped the question whether the religious head should apologies for his remarks.

The BJP condemned the criticism of Islam and sought an apology from the religious leader. The Pope should immediately clarify his position and if his reported statement is true he should apologise. The BJP said the Pope should rather have told the Bush administration to put checks on US terrorism. The RSS said the Pope comment was a matter that concerned Muslims and it have nothing to say about what the Pope has said. It is up to the Muslims to react to his comments.

CONTRIBUTION OF JAINISM TO TAMIL LAUDED
Tiruvannamalai: Food Minister E V Velu lauded Jainism’s contribution to Tamil in many spheres of knowledge, including literature, spirituality, grammar, etc, on Sunday. Inaugurating a seminar on Jain contribution to Tamil literature and culture organised at Ponnur Hills, near Vandavasi, by Akhil Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Mahasabha, he said that the basic philosophy of Jainism was egalitarianism, which ancient Jain saints carried over to the masses through their works. Jainism nurtured a habit of writing what it wanted to spread. Jainism’s flag was held aloft during Kalappirar’s rule of Tamil Nadu. They did a lot of service to Tamil after getting a foothold in the areas like Vandavasi, Arcot, Arni, Gingee, etc.

There might be conflicting opinions about the place where Thiruvalluvar, the author of Thirukkural resided, but certainly Jainism could have the pride for he belonged to this path of knowledge.  All the main literatures of Tamil right from Tholkappiyam, Nannool, Yapparunkalakkarigai, Naladiyar, Silappathigaram, Seevaka Chinthamani, Thirikadukam were Jainism’s gift to Tamil, the Minister observed. Arun Jain, Chairman, Polaris Software, insisted that Jainism’s literature should be simplified. Former MLA Rajendran called upon the state government to declare Jains as minorities in the state. Earlier, Perot Systems MD M K Jain in his welcome address made a controversial claim that Thirukkural was authored by Jaina saint Acharya Kund Kund. Peranamallur MLA Ethiroli Maniyan advised the programme organisers not to present shawls in functionsof this kind. He suggested presenting of books to the dignitaries. Param Poojya Acharya 108 Shri Vardhaman Sagarji Maharaj, Param Poojya Acharya 108 Shri Gunanandiji Maharaj and many other Dhigambar Jain saints offered blessings to the devotees.