Jainism has a positive influence over Indian culture, be it literature, art and architecture. Another important contribution it has made is to popularise the idea of non-violence or ahimsa , also reflected in the practice of Santhara. Though the legal stand on Santhara has now been made clear, I feel it is out of line (“The right to die… and not to die”, Sept.1). Just because the practice is based on the principle of non-violence is it appropriate to let a person die? If this is the case, then why is Irom Sharmila, who is seeking justice for a cause she believes in, repeatedly arrested in order to save her life? This verdict appears to have created a grey area.
Pankaj Sharma,Chandigarh
On the face of it, the religious practice does not sound to be like suicide. However, the verdict raises deep questions about our judicial stand on issues such as euthanasia. If the Supreme Court can stay the Rajasthan High Court order, one would like to know what its stand on euthanasia is.
Andrea Aruna Anthony,Bengaluru
We abolished Sati, a practice by a married woman to sacrifice herself out of love for her husband. The practice had no social reasoning and so we banned it. But don’t those who live in vegetative state have a right to end their life in dignity? If in Santhara, one eschews food and water to die with dignity, then why not let those in a pitiable physical and mental state discard medicine and external care in order to fade away with dignity? The time has come to examine practices that have no grounds in the test of social reasoning and which must be banned irrespective of religious basis.
Bibha Sinha,Ranchi, Jharkhand
Santhara is a religious practice and no religion teaches a person to die. So, there must be a flaw in its interpretation. According to Jain Agamas, Santhara can only be practised when death is very near and cannot be dodged. It is interesting that a similar Hindu ritual of Sanjeevan Samadhi has not faced any legal hurdles.
Kulish Dhanju,Vellore, Tamil Nadu
