Sannyas Diksha Pratibandhak Nibandhna Musadda Uper Vichar Karva Nimayeli Samitinu Nivedan

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Sannyas Diksha Pratibandhak Nibandhna Musadda Uper Vichar Karva Nimayeli Samitinu Nivedan" (Report of the Committee Appointed to Consider the Draft Bill Prohibiting Sannyas Diksha), in English:

Book Title: Sannyas Diksha Pratibandhak Nibandhna Musadda Uper Vichar Karva Nimayeli Samitinu Nivedan (Report of the Committee Appointed to Consider the Draft Bill Prohibiting Sannyas Diksha) Author(s): Sanyas Diksha Pratibandhak Samiti (Committee for Prohibiting Sannyas Diksha) Publisher: Sanyas Diksha Pratibandhak Samiti Publication Year: 1932 Location: Vadodara (Baroda) Government Press

Overview:

This document is a report submitted by a committee appointed by the government of Baroda State in 1931. The committee was formed to investigate and provide recommendations regarding a draft bill aimed at regulating or prohibiting "Sannyas Diksha" (initiation into renunciation/asceticism), particularly within the Jain community. The impetus for this bill stemmed from concerns about minors being initiated into religious life without proper consent and understanding, leading to societal and familial issues.

Key Issues and Discussions:

The report is structured into five chapters, detailing the committee's findings and recommendations:

Chapter 1: Preliminary Information

• Background: The discussion began when a resolution was introduced in the Baroda State Legislative Assembly on December 19, 1929, by Mr. Lallubhai Kishorebhai Patel. This resolution proposed that individuals under 21 years of age should not be eligible for renunciation initiation, and those between 21 and 30 should require permission from the District Magistrate.
• Resolution Withdrawn: Due to various representations and a promise of investigation by the government, the resolution was withdrawn.
• Draft Bill Prepared: Following widespread discussion and further information, the government, under the directive of Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad, prepared a draft bill (Appendix 1) in July 1931 to prohibit such initiations and invited suggestions.
• Committee Formation: A committee was appointed on August 15, 1931, comprising prominent individuals from the legal and administrative fields, with the Naib Nyayamantri as the Secretary, to examine the draft bill and related representations.
• Received Suggestions: The committee received numerous suggestions, some advocating for the bill and others opposing it. Opponents argued that such initiations do not cause harm, that the claims of minors being lured away are false, and that prohibiting diksha would destroy the ascetic order and harm religion. Proponents argued that initiating minors without parental or spousal consent causes great harm and needs to be regulated by law.
• Cross-Religious Comparison: The committee noted that the opposition and support for the bill came primarily from the Jain community. Other religious communities (Hindu, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Christian) did not submit any suggestions, indicating no objection to regulating religious initiations from their side.
• Further Clarifications: The committee interviewed 25 individuals and consulted with Sanskrit and Oriental Studies experts regarding scriptural references on renunciation in Hinduism and Jainism.
• Conclusion of Chapter 1: Based on the collected evidence, the committee prepared its recommendations for the report.

Chapter 2: Sannyas (Renunciation)

• Purpose of Renunciation: The chapter explains the philosophical basis of renunciation in Hinduism and Jainism, which is to overcome karma and attain moksha (liberation). It briefly touches upon the concept of renunciation in Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism, noting that these religions generally do not have a formal concept of sannyas as understood in Indian traditions.
• Hinduism: It details the historical context of sannyas in Hinduism, its association with the ashrama system, and the varying scriptural opinions on when it can be taken. It also discusses the prevalence of various types of ascetics and the issue of fraudulent sadhus.
• Jainism: It outlines the concept of diksha in Jainism, the differences between Shwetambar and Digambar sects, and the sub-sects like Sthanakvasi and Terapanthi. It elaborates on the five great vows (Mahavratas) that Jain monks and nuns must observe and who is eligible or ineligible for diksha according to Jain scriptures. It highlights the sincerity of renunciation among Jains and the qualifications of the gurus who grant diksha. It also compares the structure of Hindu and Jain monastic orders and the influence of lay followers (shravaks) on ascetics.
• Need for Reform: The chapter concludes by stating the need for reforms in society and ascetic institutions.

Chapter 3: Is Improper Diksha Being Given?

• The Issue of Improper Diksha: This chapter delves into allegations of improper diksha being administered.
• Points for Determination: The committee outlines the key issues to be decided, including:
  • Allegations of luring minors.
  • Whether minors are being taken away by sadhus for diksha.
  • Whether diksha is being given to those who don't understand its significance.
  • The necessity of parental consent for individuals over 16 seeking diksha.
  • The necessity of parental consent.
  • The requirement for parental consent for those aged 16 and above.
  • The necessity of Sangha (community/monastic order) consent.
  • Resolutions passed at Jain Conferences on this matter.
  • Whether Sangha consent is indeed necessary.
• Specific Allegations: The chapter addresses specific claims, such as sadhus luring minors, taking them away, and administering diksha secretly. It also raises questions about the financial responsibilities of monks towards their families and the practice of leaving dependents destitute.

Chapter 4: How to Prevent Improper Diksha

• Distinguishing True Ascetics: The chapter distinguishes between true ascetics and those who are mere pretenders, including fraudulent sadhus and fakirs from other religions. It emphasizes the responsibility of followers of every religion.
• Laala Sukhbir Singh's Draft: It mentions a draft bill by Laala Sukhbir Singh concerning the issue.
• Beyond Luring: The discussion extends beyond mere luring to the fundamental question of diksha.
• State's Responsibility: It argues that if society cannot prevent actions detrimental to it, it becomes the state's duty to intervene.
• Arguments of Opponents: It reiterates the arguments of those opposing restrictions, stating that reforms are happening within religious communities and that child diksha was an exception.
• Age Recommendations: It suggests that initiating individuals below 16 years of age is not appropriate and that changing the age of diksha does not alter core religious principles.
• Scriptural Basis: It refers to scriptural bases for diksha at older ages.
• Intellectual Capacity: It notes that being initiated at a young age does not preclude becoming knowledgeable.

Chapter 5: Provisions for Legislation

• Necessity of Legislation: The chapter stresses the need for legislation to regulate diksha.
• Enforcement of Law: It discusses how the proposed law would be implemented.
• Proposed Amendments: It outlines suggested changes to the existing draft bill.
• Specific Provisions:
  • Prohibition of diksha for those under 16 years of age.
  • No exception for gifted children under 16.
  • Requirement of consent from spouse or guardian for individuals aged 16 and above.
  • Regarding the non-necessity of Sangha consent.
  • Evidence required for consent.
  • Rights of those who renounce diksha over their property.
  • Provisions for complaints and penalties.
  • The revised draft of the bill.
• Conclusion: The committee expresses hope that their recommendations will lead to positive reforms.

Key Recommendations and Observations by the Committee:

• Age Limit: The committee strongly recommended a minimum age limit of 16 years for receiving diksha. They argued that younger individuals lack the maturity and understanding to comprehend the significance of renunciation and its lifelong commitment.
• Parental/Guardian Consent: For minors (under 16), parental or guardian consent was deemed essential. Even for those between 16 and 18, while legally capable of consenting to some matters, moral and ethical considerations favored obtaining the consent of parents or guardians, or at least their informed agreement, to avoid familial discord and legal complications.
• Spousal Consent: For individuals who are married, the committee recommended obtaining the consent of their spouse, especially if they have dependents, considering the marital vows and responsibilities.
• Understanding of Diksha: The committee emphasized that diksha should only be given to individuals who truly understand its meaning, purpose, and implications. They highlighted that simply being young and having momentary renunciation is insufficient.
• Secret Initiations: The committee found evidence of secret initiations, often involving minors, to bypass parental or community consent. This practice was strongly condemned.
• Role of Gurus: The report pointed out that some gurus, driven by a desire to increase their following, were deviating from scriptural norms and administering diksha inappropriately.
• Sangha Consent: While acknowledging that some Jain conferences and resolutions supported Sangha consent, the committee concluded that it was not strictly mandatory according to all scriptural interpretations and that the existing legal framework should focus on the age of consent and parental/spousal agreement.
• State Intervention: The committee justified state intervention, drawing parallels with legislation on child marriage, arguing that when societal and religious institutions fail to self-regulate effectively, the state has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizens, particularly minors.
• Revised Bill: The committee proposed modifying the title of the draft bill from "Prohibiting Sannyas Diksha Bill" to "Regulating Sannyas Diksha Bill" to clarify that the intention was regulation, not outright prohibition. They also suggested amendments to the draft bill to reflect their recommendations, particularly regarding age limits and consent requirements.

Overall Tone and Purpose:

The report reflects a conscientious effort to address a societal issue with religious undertones. The committee aimed to balance the spiritual aspirations of individuals with the need to protect vulnerable minors and maintain social harmony, based on a review of religious scriptures, legal precedents, and societal concerns. The document highlights the internal debates within the Jain community on this issue and the government's role in mediating and legislating for the public good.