Acharya Tulsi
We are nearing the advent of the 21st century. To go back to or repeat the history of centuries long past is to betray a conservative mentality. Take for instance as to what recently happened in Village Divrala of Seekar district on 8th December. 1987. It created headlines in the newspapers. The political and social organisations have viewed it in the light of their own beliefs and policies. The burning question in this context is: what would you call the self—immolation' of an 18-year old maiden on the funeral pyre of her husband? ls it a case of suicide? Of mental slavishness? Of social pressure or age-old custom? Or is it a symbol of heroism?
All people's beliefs and interests are not formed in the same mould. Likewise, their reactions to a particular occurrence are never the same. Some people are very positive in their support of sati; others are vehemently opposed to it. In the opinion of some people, the woman who commits sati experiences an accession of strength. When she sits on the pyre with the head of her husband in her lap. The pyre gets lighted of itself. Of course, no evidence whatsoever is available to establish the truth of this belief which has been handed down from generation to generation in the form of a tradition, misleading a number of people.
Only authentic research could establish as to when the of sati started and under what circumstances. But a time arrived when powerful voices were raised in protest against it. Raja Flam Mohan Roy was among the pioneers who were determined to end this custom. Some other reformers, too, spoke loudly against it. And what they said appealed to the public at large. As a result of their efforts, and when the time was ripe for it, the custom of sati became more or less extinct. But some people have the habit of casting dead bodies out of their graves. With the support of such corpse—mongers, this dead custom was revived. And the latest example of it is the Divrala incident, which stunned, not only Rajasthan out the entire country. First the happening then the deluge! Lt is one of the burning topics of the day.
Laxmi Kumari Chundawat, a noted scholar of Rajasthan, came to me to discuss the propriety of the custom of sati. I said, "The propriety of whatever is done in a state of frenzy is debatable. And a ritual like that of sati can be performed today without producing frenzy, is highly improbable."
Other questions arose in this context. When a woman commits sati, she is glorified. But how is it that no man has ever immolated himself. The man and wife relationship works both ways. For a woman to be faithful to her husband and to immolate herself along with her husband at the latter's death, is a matter of pride. Why not the other way round, too? ls the ideal of perfect devotion and fidelity to one’s spouse not applicable to man? Why should he not immolate himself with his wife at the latter's death? On the death of her husband, a woman becomes a widow. But does not a man also become a widower on his wife’s death. lf her husband is God for woman, why cannot the husband treat his wife as God, too? An objective consideration of this question would make it clear that the custom of sati is highly unjust, not only from the standpoint of religion, but also from the point-of-view of humane values. It betrays a slavish mentality—an unhealthy tradition. It amounts to suicide and the exploitation of women.
After hearing me, Laxmi Kumariji said, "Acharya Shri! You term the custom of sati as suicide. ln that case, samadhi, going into eternal trance, the custom of harakiri in Japan, and the santhara (total abstention from food) observed among the Jains, are also forms of suicide, aren’t they '2“. I knew beforehand that such a question would naturally arise. l-said, "Whether it is the eternal trance of samadhi, or harakiri, or santhara, anything undertaken in a state of intense emotion is unquestionably suicide. The resolve to end life is inevitably inspired by frenzy, or frustration, or helplessness, or failure, or fear. Any santhara actuated by these feelings, has no validity in the Jain religion.
It is correct, though, that the santhara is an important spiritual act performed among the Jains. But there is an established procedure for undertaking it. ln the Jain scriptures it is laid down:
As long as the body has some utility, as long as it affords some benefit, is capable of achieving new experiences, life must be nourished. However, if a situation arises when the body is incapable of doing any meditation, study, spiritual exercises, or service to others, or any kind of work, it may be surrendered with full consciousness.
After undertaking santhara, the body gets no nourishment, but then the desire for death must be wholly renounced. One has to rise above both the love of life and the fear of death in order to reach a state of total self-awareness. Looked at in this way, santhara is not suicide.
It may be said that the santhara may not be undertaken in a state of frenzy, yet with it may be linked the ritual of worship and the desire for fame. However, the process of santhara as described in the Jain scriptures, leaves the rituals far behind. Ln an action which transcends all desires, whether for life or death, there is no room for any form of worship or rituals. Also in the case of sati, a temple is created in honour of the immolating woman; a fair is initiated in her memory, and things of that kind. Nothing like that happens after the santhara.
Some people argue that the custom of sati enjoys public approval. But then the public would blindly follow any custom, without going into the rights and wrongs of it; the public is generally swayed by the prevailing prejudices. Only recently on the sun—eclipse lakhs of people bathed in the tank at Kurukshetra. If asked why they did it, they would say, “For the purification of the soul." Now, imagine lakhs of people washing off all the dirt and stink of their bodies into a pool of standing water, polluting it to the point of saturation! How can such water purify the soul? The question demands to be carefully examined. We are averse to hurting the sentiments of the people for any reason whatsoever, but certainly the public can be educated, and the general feeling of the masses given a new direction. The Government of Rajasthan is thinking of passing a special bill prohibiting the observance of sati. The bill may be in order, but the main objective is to bring about a real change- of-heart among the people. What is required is a well-organised campaignto transform people’s ways of thinking and feeling.
In conclusion, l would re—emphasize that if an individual undertakes santhara in a sentimental way, his abstention from food is no santhara in the real sense of the word; it is nothing but suicide. To commit sati is the culmination of immoderate passion: a kind of frenzy takes hold of the victim, rendering her incapable of determining what is right or wrong. In the circumstances, the custom of sati cannot be said to be anything other than suicide. The whole point is that this custom is not at all desirable from any point-of-view, sociological, political, or religious. Efforts should be made to bring about an awakening in women's minds and the challenge of out-dated conventions fully met through self-awareness and non-violence.
