Jaher Nivedan

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Jaher Nivedan" by Unknown Moholalbhai, based on the provided pages:

Title: Jaher Nivedan (Public Statement) Author: Unknown Moholalbhai Publisher: Unknown Moholalbhai Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/034516/1

Overview: This document is a public statement by Moholalbhai, originally published in the "Mumbai Samachar" newspaper on June 16, 1937. It is reprinted for the wider knowledge of the Jain community. The statement addresses a dispute and attempted resolution regarding the calculation of the Samvatsari (a significant Jain festival day). The core issue revolves around differing opinions on when to observe this day, leading to attempts at a scholarly debate (Shastrarth) to reach a consensus. The document details a series of negotiations, proposals, and ultimately, a failure to resolve the dispute, highlighting the complexities and disagreements within the community.

Key Points and Narrative Flow:

1. Purpose of the Statement (Page 2): The author states that this document is being published to clarify the facts for the Jain public, as certain information presented by "Mr. Sakarchand Manekchand Ghadiyali" (known as "Jain") in the "Mumbai Samachar" on May 29, 1937, under the heading "Jain Charcha," was presented in a misleading way, potentially misleading both Jain and non-Jain audiences.

2. Initiation of Discussions (Pages 3-4): The narrative begins with conversations between prominent Jains (Seth Nagananddas Karanchand and Seth Jivatalal Pratapsing) from Mumbai and esteemed Jain Acharyas (Pujya Acharya Shri Sagarānand Surishwarji and Pujya Acharya Shri Vijaynemisurishwarji) in Jamnagar.

   • Seth Nagananddas first requested Acharya Sagarānand Surishwarji to help resolve the Samvatsari differences. Acharya Sagarānand agreed.
   • Seth Jivatalal later met with Acharya Sagarānand, who reiterated his willingness to discuss and arrive at a true decision.
   • Acharya Sagarānand expressed concern about Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji's advanced age and health, suggesting that while he wouldn't insist on Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji undertaking a long journey, he should ensure his companions (Udaysuri or Nandanashuri) accompanied him for the discussion.

3. Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji's Conditions (Pages 4-5):

   • Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji confirmed the desirability of resolving the dispute and establishing peace.
   • He stressed that written arguments in newspapers would not solve the problem. A personal debate (Shastrarth) was necessary, requiring Acharya Sagarānand to travel to an appropriate location.
   • He explicitly stated he would be unable to travel due to his health but would abide by the outcome of Acharya Sagarānand's discussion.
   • Venue: Khambhat was proposed as a suitable meeting place, as it was more convenient than Ahmedabad for Acharya Vijayaramchandra Surishwarji.
   • Panel and Arbitrator: If the monks couldn't agree, a panel of 15 scholars (selected from both factions of lay followers) would choose two learned pundits. Their decision, if unanimous, would be final. If the pundits couldn't agree, a single arbitrator (Sarpanch) would be appointed by the 15 selected lay followers. The opposing parties in the debate would be Acharya Sagarānand on one side and Acharya Ramachandra Surishwarji on the other.
   • Agreement: A written undertaking with signatures from several other prominent Acharyas (Siddhisurishwarji, Premasurishwarji, Labdhisurishwarji, Ramachandrasurishwarji, and Muni Kalyanvijayji) would be required. Both sides agreeing to accept the panel's or arbitrator's decision was crucial.

4. Seth Popatalal Dharshibhai's Support (Page 5): Seth Popatalal Dharshibhai, despite having undertaken a vow for a pilgrimage, offered his support for the peace efforts, stating he would not hinder Acharya Sagarānand's travel if the other party agreed to the proposed terms.

5. Discussions Breakdown and Misunderstandings (Pages 5-10):

   • Urgency: Acharya Sagarānand and Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji emphasized the need for a swift resolution due to the approaching Samvatsari. They instructed Seth Nagananddas and Jivatalal to go to Mumbai and Pune to explain the situation and await a response via telegram.
   • Lack of Commitment: Despite the detailed discussions, when Seth Nagananddas followed up, Seth Jivatalal expressed reluctance to convey the information. The discussions were effectively halted at that point.
   • Continued Efforts and Telegrams: Despite the apparent halt, Seth Nagananddas and Jivatalal sent a telegram to Seth Popatalal Dharshibhai from Mumbai on May 17, 1937, stating that the monks on their side were accepting the proposal for a face-to-face debate and requesting arrangements for travel to Khambhat.
   • Acharya Sagarānand's Departure: Based on this, Acharya Sagarānand, along with 47 monks, began their journey to Khambhat, even though Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji was not keen.
   • Conflicting Communication: A telegram from Seth Popatalal Dharshibhai to Seth Nagananddas and Jivatalal (dated May 18, 1937) indicated that the agreed-upon written undertaking with signatures should have been obtained before they were informed. A letter from Seth Nagananddas and Jivatalal (dated May 17, 1937) arrived, stating their agreement to the travel arrangements, but this letter conveyed different terms than initially agreed upon.
   • New Conditions: The letter from Mumbai introduced new conditions: Acharya Ramachandra Surishwarji's health had deteriorated, so Muni Kalyanvijayji, Jambuvijayji, and Acharya Labdhisurishwarji would be present in Khambhat. Regarding the pundits, two names would be suggested by Madan Mohan Malaviya, and their decision would be final. If they couldn't agree, Malaviya himself would be the arbitrator.
   • Disagreement on Terms: Moholalbhai (the author) points out that these new terms contradicted the earlier discussions. Specifically, the venue was chosen for Acharya Ramachandra's convenience, but now his inability to travel was cited. The principle of party neutrality in appointing pundits and arbitrators was violated.
   • Attempts to Clarify: Seth Popatalal Dharshibhai sent telegrams to Seth Nagananddas requesting him to come to Jamvanthali for clarification and to bring any signed documents.
   • Unfulfilled Promises: Despite efforts to meet and clarify, the Mumbai gentlemen were delayed. Meanwhile, some monks on Acharya Sagarānand's side fell ill due to the summer heat.
   • Signatures and Excuses: Efforts to obtain signatures from other Acharyas proved difficult. Acharya Siddhisurishwarji and Muni Kalyanvijayji stated they couldn't leave Ahmedabad. Although they eventually signed, Acharya Labdhisurishwarji went to Dholera.
   • Further Delays and Cancellation: The Mumbai representatives arrived late, and no agreement was reached on the proposed new terms. Seth Popatalal Dharshibhai, after waiting, instructed the monks to return to Jamnagar. Acharya Sagarānand also sent a telegram stating that if the other side was not ready for the debate, he had stopped their journey.

6. Proposed Written Debate and Continued Obstacles (Pages 10-13):

   • Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji proposed a committee of nine respected individuals to appoint the pundits and arbitrator.
   • Proposed participants for the debate were named: Acharya Sagarānand, Nandanashuri, and Lavanyasuri on one side; Acharya Labdhisurishwarji, Jambuvijayji, and Kalyanvijayji on the other.
   • However, Acharya Ramachandra Surishwarji was identified as the main participant for his side, but Kalyanvijayji refused to leave Ahmedabad. Acharya Labdhisurishwarji had decided to stay in Khambhat for the monsoon.
   • The Mumbai representatives deemed the agreement impossible by Monday.
   • Reconsideration and Stalemate: The author Moholalbhai requested Acharya Sagarānand to wait for four more days to attempt a meeting at a midway point. Acharya Siddhisurishwarji reiterated his inability to travel from Ahmedabad and stated his signing was only to prevent the negotiations from collapsing. He suggested a written submission to pundits, including Malaviya, for arbitration.
   • Further Travel and Setbacks: Meetings with Acharya Premasurishwarji and Acharya Ramachandra Surishwarji in Pune revealed Acharya Ramachandra's inability to travel and his insistence on Kalyanvijayji's presence.
   • Written Debate Proposal: Acharya Ramachandra agreed to the idea of written submissions to pundits like Malaviya, provided all monks were invited to contribute.

7. Telegram Exchange and Questionable Preparedness (Pages 13-14):

   • A significant telegram exchange occurred between Acharya Sagarānand and Acharya Ramachandra. A reply from Acharya Ramachandra's side (from Keshavlal) insisted that Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji must travel to the debate venue. The author points out that this was a known impossibility given Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji's age and health, questioning the sincerity of the other side's preparedness.
   • Acharya Sagarānand's response, indicating his willingness to travel to Ahmedabad to debate Kalyanvijayji (representing the entire community), was seen by the author as an attempt to evade the debate rather than a genuine desire.

8. Critique of "Mr. Jain" and One-Sided Reporting (Pages 14-16):

   • The author strongly criticizes "Mr. Jain" (Sakarchand Ghadiyali) for his biased reporting in the "Mumbai Samachar."
   • He disputes Mr. Jain's claim of thorough investigation, asserting that Mr. Jain likely obtained his information from the Mumbai gentlemen involved in the negotiations, leading to a one-sided and distorted account.
   • The author accuses Mr. Jain of trying to create animosity between different monastic lineages and of raising irrelevant issues to distract from the main point.
   • He challenges Mr. Jain's timeline of the dispute, questioning why Acharya Ramachandra would travel south if the issue had been actively discussed for nine months.
   • The author defends his own statement as a direct response to Mr. Jain's misleading article.
   • He points out Mr. Jain's advice for direct signatures while noting that Acharya Ramachandra himself did not sign directly and his responses were often through others.
   • The author refutes Mr. Jain's mention of a "Popatalal Kalidas Shah" in Jamnagar as non-existent and baseless.
   • He corrects a mileage calculation mentioned by another writer.

9. Author's Commitment to Proof and Call for Mediation (Pages 16-18):

   • The author confidently states that his account is truthful and is prepared to prove it with witness testimonies and documents. He offers to publicly apologize if proven wrong.
   • He reiterates that Acharya Ramachandra Surishwarji was never willing to engage in a verbal debate, citing his excuses of health and weather. He highlights that Acharya Ramachandra's actions, such as traveling south and later showing readiness to travel when Acharya Sagarānand was already on the move, were inconsistent.
   • The author believes Acharya Ramachandra's insistence on Kalyanvijayji's presence was a further attempt to avoid the debate.

10. Seth Jivatalal Pratapsing's Statement and Counter-Arguments (Pages 18-19):

    • The author addresses a statement by Seth Jivatalal Pratapsing published in the "Mumbai Samachar" on June 9, 1937.
    • He clarifies that the initial discussions in Jamnagar did not involve the specific conditions about Acharya Ramachandra's inability to travel or Malaviya acting as an arbitrator, which were introduced later.
    • He argues that Seth Jivatalal's account of Acharya Ramachandra authorizing others to decide was fabricated, as earlier communications indicated Acharya Ramachandra himself was to participate.
    • He criticizes the attempt to downplay the importance of the four-hour discussion with Acharya Vijaynemisurishwarji.
    • The author questions why Seth Jivatalal omitted a crucial telegram from Seth Popatalal to Seth Nagananddas in his published statement.

11. Conclusion and Plea for Peace (Pages 19-20):

    • The author concludes by stating that his intention is to present the truth and for the public to understand who was genuinely prepared for the Shastrarth.
    • He expresses hope for a resolution and humbly requests all monks and lay leaders to work towards reconciliation and avoid spreading negativity.
    • He urges for the celebration of the Parva (festival) according to each faction's beliefs without animosity.
    • Finally, he makes a plea to Mr. Jain to use his pen to foster unity and peace within the community rather than writing articles that increase animosity between sects and lineages.

In essence, the document is a detailed account of failed attempts to resolve a Samvatsari date dispute through a scholarly debate, highlighting the author's perspective on the reasons for the failure, which he attributes largely to the lack of genuine preparedness and conflicting proposals from the opposing side, along with biased media reporting.