Presenter
Maes Claire - Department of Indology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, GermanyPanel
02 – Are Religion and Human Rights (In)Compatible Value Systems? Buddhist and Hindu Religious and Cultural Perspectives from South and Southeast AsiaAbstract
In 2006, the human rights activist Nikhil Soni filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Rajasthan High Court (RHC) to outlaw the Jain religious practice of fasting to death (sallekhanā). According to a common contemporary Jain view, the fast is a religious vow that involves the gradual renunciation of food, water, and nourishment, serving as an act of self-purification to ensure a better rebirth. Nikhil Soni presented multiple arguments for criminalizing sallekhanā, citing social, bioethical, as well as human rights concerns. To the great dismay of the Jain community, the RHC ruled in favor of his PIL and on 10 August 2015 it outlawed both the practice of sallekhanā and its abetment. In protest, Jains filed special leave petitions in the Supreme Court, which stayed the RHC’s order on 31 August 2015, restoring the Jain community’s right to practice sallekhanā until the case is heard.
For better or worse, Nikhil Soni’s PIL against sallekhanā has forced Jains to defend their religious practice within the language of human rights. The irony is that the same human rights arguments Nikhil Soni used to challenge the practice are now being invoked by the Jain community to protect it. In this paper, I analyze the complex ways in which human rights discourse is mobilized by both sides to either defend or challenge the Jain vow of fasting to death. I show how many Jains, seeking to stress the compatibility of their religion with human rights, now frame sallekhanā as an end-of-life option, using modern bio-ethical rhetoric to frame their right to practice sallekhanā as a fundamental human right.
