Jain Samaj Ane Hindu Samaj

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Gujarati text, "Jain Samaj ane Hindu Samaj" by Sukhlal Sanghavi:

The author, Sukhlal Sanghavi, in a letter to Panditji, discusses the relationship between Jain and Hindu societies. He argues that the Hindu society is far broader than just the Vedic society. It encompasses all those whose scriptures originated, whose founding figures appeared, and whose pilgrimage sites are located in India. Therefore, he contends that Jain society, being an ancient resident community of India, is inherently part of the Hindu society. Sanghavi emphasizes that the Jain community is not a recent addition to the Indian landscape; its roots may even predate Vedic civilization.

He asserts that to consider Jain society separate from Hindu society is to adopt a narrow definition of Hindu society as solely Vedic society. While acknowledging that many people colloquially equate "Hindu" with "Vedic," Sanghavi stresses that this shouldn't obscure the broader, original meaning. He draws a parallel to how some orthodox individuals mistakenly use "Jain" to refer only to the Digambara tradition, when it encompasses Śvetāmbaras as well.

The author identifies fear as a primary driver behind the belief that Jain society is separate from Hindu society. This fear often arises when laws are enacted that affect Hindu society, and orthodox Jains feel their religious practices might be infringed upon. They then advocate for separation to shield themselves from these new legal frameworks. Sanghavi believes that if Jains proactively adopted a more liberal outlook on issues like religious endowments and temple entry for Harijans, such fears and the resultant push for separation would be mitigated. He poses a hypothetical: if laws granted specific rights to Hindus in countries like Africa or America, would Jains not then seek similar rights for themselves, thus demonstrating a shared identity?

Sanghavi critiques the tendency of some Jains to adopt the social issues of the past, such as untouchability (which was a problem propagated by Brahmins and others), and then use them as a justification for maintaining their distinctiveness. He argues that Jains can identify as "Jain Hindus" or "Jain-influenced Hindus," but to claim they are not Hindu is incorrect.

When discussing Hindu Dharma and Jain Dharma, Sanghavi reiterates that while Vedic religion is often used interchangeably with Hindu Dharma due to its majority status, Hindu Dharma in its true sense is not solely Vedic; it encompasses numerous Vedic and non-Vedic religions, including Jainism. He dismisses the idea of equating Jain Dharma with Vedic practices as illogical and ahistorical. He acknowledges the historical and ongoing religious differences between the Vedic (Brahmanical) and non-Vedic (non-Brahmanical) traditions. Sanghavi believes that a truly evolved society, where religious barriers are overcome, will bridge this divide. Until then, he maintains that he will consider Vedic and Jain Dharmas distinct in their religious outlook.

A core tenet of Jainism, according to Sanghavi, is to remain independent of the influence of Brahmins and the Vedic tradition. He advocates for true Jains to actively oppose any narrow or erroneous Brahmanical interpretations of Dharma, just as Mahatma Gandhi did. He encourages Jains to resist Brahmanical influence and to maintain the strength to stand against the majority, even as a minority.

He discusses the Brahman-non-Brahman conflict in South India and elsewhere, acknowledging the injustices faced by non-Brahmins (including Jains) at the hands of Brahmins. However, he argues that when seeking to unite under a common umbrella, there should be no hesitation or fear in associating with those who have previously oppressed, especially if there is the strength to fight for one's rights. He believes that if Jains, as part of Hindu society, remain true to their core principles, they can reform the Vedic tradition and reveal their own authentic identity. Sanghavi questions how claiming separation from the Vedic tradition will truly protect Jains from its influence, pointing out that historically, Brahmins themselves have recognized Jainism as non-Vedic, yet the influence persists. He urges Jains to critically examine their practices and beliefs to understand the extent of Brahmanical influence.

Sanghavi strongly condemns the hypocrisy of those orthodox Jains who both follow Brahmanical practices and profess to be a separate religion from Hinduism. He labels this as hypocrisy, fear, and foolishness. He argues that such individuals fail to internalize the good aspects of their perceived "gurus" while embracing their negative ones.

He encourages Jains to proudly declare themselves distinct from Vedic and Brahmanical traditions, as this is inherent to their very structure. However, he cautions against embracing the popular misconception that "Hindu" solely means "Vedic" and then aligning oneself with that ignorance. Instead, he advocates for respecting the good in Brahmins and then confronting their flaws. He emphasizes the Jain principle of self-reflection and correction before criticizing others, a practice exemplified by Mahavir. His ultimate goal is for Jains to become internally strong and influential enough to inspire others to emulate them. He questions the lack of intellectual and practical engagement with Brahmanical traditions among many Jain leaders and the blind adoption of Brahmanical social norms, such as the caste system.

Sanghavi also points out the appropriation of the term "Aryan" and related concepts by Jain and Buddhist scholars, suggesting it was a way to align themselves with the dominant Vedic narrative. He criticizes the creation of barriers between "Mlecchas" (foreigners) and themselves by religions that were meant to spread to all.

Furthermore, Sanghavi advises against Jains joining organizations like the Hindu Mahasabha, which he believes are ultimately driven and controlled by Brahmins for Brahmanical interests. He states that such organizations often rely on the support of the ignorant and the mercantile class, and the benefits primarily accrue to the priestly class. He suggests that Jains, while being part of the broader Hindu society, should resist the casteist policies of such organizations and actively oppose them. He criticizes institutions like Hindu University, where benefits are disproportionately directed towards the Brahmanical class and tradition.

Sanghavi concludes by asserting that while Jains are part of Hindu society, they must maintain their unique identity. He observes that many orthodox Jains champion practices that are essentially Brahmanical and Vedic, viewing any reform as anti-Jain. He cites the opposition to Harijan temple entry as an example of this conservative stance.

He introduces a new point: that proponents of Hindu culture have often propagated certain ideas under the umbrella of Hindu Dharma and society that are not accepted by the majority of Hindu culture or supported by historical evidence. These Brahmanical priorities include the supremacy of the Vedas, the superiority of Sanskrit, their own priestly status, and the caste-based social order. Sanghavi highlights that opposition to these Brahmanical tenets has existed for millennia, not just from Jains but also from Dravidians, Vaishnavas, Shaaktas, Shaivas, Avadhutas, Vedantins, and many other groups. Despite the numerous opposing traditions, the intellectual prowess and unwavering loyalty of Brahmins have allowed them to influence and even "Brahmanize" many of these dissenting groups. He notes that it is now difficult to ascertain whether many traditions, like the Āgama-based Vaishnavas and Shaivas, were originally Vedic.

Sanghavi then points to the success of certain fundamental Jain principles without any specific effort on their part, such as the principle of vernacular languages, human equality, non-violence (Ahimsa), and non-possession (Aparigraha). He sees the eventual acceptance of Hindi as the national language, despite the initial concessions made by Prakrit (a vernacular language) to Sanskrit, as a victory for the Buddha-Mahavir principle of using people's languages. Similarly, he highlights the success of efforts to eradicate untouchability and the victory of the principle of human equality. The acceptance of secular governance is seen as a triumph of the principle of human equality. He concludes this section by stating that the principle of Anekantavada (multiplicity of viewpoints) has found a new expression in the modern era. He believes that what is fundamentally true will eventually prevail.

Finally, Sanghavi urges Jains to understand these points and to join forces with other traditions like Vaishnavism and others who can stand with them to actively oppose Brahmanical movements that operate under the guise of Hindu Dharma and society. He advocates for organized resistance against any Vedic or Brahmanical movements that are fundamentally false or harmful to humanity. He believes that wise Jains, armed with knowledge and a strong sense of identity, backed by historical understanding and discernment, can build alliances with traditions like Dravidian, Vaishnava, Shiva, and Tantric paths to counter Brahmanical influence. He warns that if Jains isolate themselves, they will fragment into sects, and ultimately, nothing substantial will remain, as has been the case historically. Therefore, from the perspective of preventing fraudulent practices in the name of Hindu culture, Sanghavi sees no benefit in Jains considering themselves separate from the broader Hindu identity.

The letter concludes with a note about the potential use of the letter and a request for any distortions or religiously or caste-specific statements to be corrected. The letter is dated September 18, 1949, and addressed to Pandit Shri Mahendrakumar Nyayacharya.