 |
|
The death of three-year-old Viyana Jain in Indore after her parents allegedly initiated her into the Jain ritual of 'Santhara,' or Sallekhana, has ignited a fierce debate surrounding religious freedom, child rights, and the ethical implications of such practices. Santhara, a centuries-old Jain tradition, is considered a sacred vow of voluntary fasting until death, undertaken when an individual believes their body is no longer capable of supporting spiritual pursuit. While adherents view it as an act of ultimate renunciation and spiritual liberation, critics equate it with suicide and question its compatibility with modern legal and ethical standards, especially when applied to vulnerable individuals such as children. The case has prompted legal experts, child rights activists, and religious scholars to re-examine the delicate balance between constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and the state's obligation to protect the well-being of its citizens, particularly those who lack the capacity to make informed decisions about their own lives. The tragic circumstances surrounding Viyana's death underscore the complexities inherent in navigating these competing interests, forcing society to confront uncomfortable questions about the limits of parental authority, the role of religious beliefs in end-of-life decisions, and the legal safeguards necessary to prevent potential abuse and exploitation.
Viyana Jain's ordeal began with a diagnosis of a terminal brain tumor in December 2024. Following surgery and treatment in Mumbai, her condition deteriorated rapidly. Seeking solace, her parents, both IT professionals, consulted Jain monk Rajesh Muni Maharaj in Indore in March 2025. According to the parents' account, the monk advised that Viyana's end was near and suggested the Santhara vow. The parents claim that the entire family consented, and the ritual was performed. Viyana passed away ten minutes later. The incident gained notoriety when the Golden Book of World Records certified Viyana as the "youngest person in the world" to undertake Santhara. This recognition, rather than celebrating a spiritual achievement, amplified public outrage and drew scrutiny from legal and ethical perspectives. The parents' motivations, while ostensibly driven by a desire to alleviate their daughter's suffering and adhere to their religious beliefs, have been called into question. Critics argue that the parents' decision, regardless of their intentions, deprived Viyana of her right to life and subjected her to a potentially agonizing and unnecessary ordeal. The fact that Viyana, at the tender age of three, was incapable of understanding the implications of Santhara further fuels the controversy, raising concerns about the voluntariness and informed consent that are considered essential prerequisites for such practices.
The legal ramifications of Viyana's death are significant and complex. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. However, this right is subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, which enshrines fundamental rights. Legal experts argue that religious freedom cannot be invoked to justify actions that violate other fundamental rights, particularly the right to life, which is considered the most basic and inalienable of all rights. In the case of a minor, the capacity to comprehend the consequences of death and to make a truly voluntary decision is absent. Therefore, even parental consent cannot legitimize a practice that effectively ends a child's life. Supreme Court advocate Ritesh Agarwal asserts that religious freedom does not override a child's fundamental right to life, highlighting the inherent conflict between the parents' religious beliefs and the state's duty to protect vulnerable children. The absence of informed consent is a crucial factor. While adults can make informed decisions about their bodies and lives, a three-year-old is incapable of understanding the permanence and consequences of ending their life through fasting.
The debate surrounding Santhara is not new in India. In 2015, the Rajasthan High Court declared the practice illegal, categorizing it as abetment to suicide. This decision was based on the argument that Santhara, despite its spiritual connotations, ultimately involves the intentional termination of one's own life. The High Court emphasized that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and that deliberately hastening death, even for religious reasons, constitutes a violation of this right. However, the Supreme Court later stayed the Rajasthan High Court's ruling, pending further consideration. This stay reflects the complexity of the issue and the need for a nuanced understanding of the religious beliefs and practices involved. The Supreme Court's decision acknowledged the potential for misinterpretation and the need to carefully balance religious freedom with the protection of individual rights. However, the Supreme Court ruling did not specifically address cases involving minors, leaving a legal ambiguity that Viyana's case has now brought to the forefront. This legal lacuna necessitates a re-evaluation of the existing laws and regulations to ensure that children are adequately protected from potentially harmful religious practices.
The failure of the Indore Police to investigate the incident further complicates the matter. The fact that the police were unaware of Viyana's death until it was publicized by the Golden Book of World Records raises serious questions about the oversight and monitoring of religious practices. The lack of awareness suggests a potential failure on the part of local authorities to adequately protect vulnerable individuals and to enforce existing laws relating to child welfare. The absence of an investigation also hinders the ability to gather crucial evidence and to determine whether any criminal offenses were committed. The police's inaction underscores the need for improved communication and coordination between law enforcement agencies, child protection services, and religious communities. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of raising public awareness about the legal rights of children and the mechanisms for reporting suspected cases of abuse or neglect. The involvement of a religious leader, Rajesh Muni Maharaj, in advising the family further complicates the legal and ethical landscape. While religious leaders are often seen as sources of guidance and comfort, their influence can also be problematic, particularly when it comes to making decisions about the lives of vulnerable individuals. In Viyana's case, the monk's recommendation to undertake Santhara raises questions about the extent of his responsibility and whether he exercised appropriate caution in advising the parents.
The ethical dimensions of Viyana's death are equally profound. Ethicists grapple with the tension between respecting individual autonomy and protecting vulnerable populations. While adults have the right to make their own decisions, even if those decisions involve risk or potential harm, children lack the maturity and cognitive capacity to exercise such autonomy. The principle of beneficence, which requires healthcare professionals and others to act in the best interests of their patients or clients, is also relevant in this context. In Viyana's case, it is questionable whether Santhara truly served her best interests. Critics argue that the practice prolonged her suffering and deprived her of the opportunity to receive palliative care that could have alleviated her pain and discomfort. The principle of non-maleficence, which requires healthcare professionals and others to avoid causing harm, is also implicated. By initiating Viyana into Santhara, her parents arguably subjected her to unnecessary pain and suffering, violating this fundamental ethical principle. Furthermore, the ethical considerations extend to the role of the religious community in promoting and supporting Santhara. While Jainism emphasizes non-violence and compassion, the practice of Santhara raises questions about whether it aligns with these core values. Critics argue that Santhara, particularly when applied to children, can be seen as a form of indirect violence, as it involves the deliberate withholding of food and water, leading to death.
Viyana Jain's tragic death serves as a stark reminder of the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to balancing religious freedom and child rights. The case highlights the importance of strengthening legal safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals from potentially harmful religious practices. This includes clarifying the legal status of Santhara, particularly in cases involving minors, and ensuring that existing laws are effectively enforced. It also requires improving communication and coordination between law enforcement agencies, child protection services, and religious communities. Furthermore, Viyana's death underscores the need for greater public awareness about the legal rights of children and the mechanisms for reporting suspected cases of abuse or neglect. Education and awareness campaigns should be directed towards both religious communities and the general public, promoting a better understanding of the ethical and legal considerations involved in end-of-life decisions. Ultimately, the goal should be to create a society where religious freedom is respected but not at the expense of the well-being and safety of its most vulnerable members. The case also calls for a deeper societal conversation about death and dying, especially in the context of serious illness. Families facing terminal illnesses need access to comprehensive palliative care and psychological support, ensuring that end-of-life decisions are made in a compassionate and informed manner. Open and honest discussions about death can help to alleviate the fear and anxiety associated with mortality, promoting a more humane and dignified approach to end-of-life care. Finally, it is crucial to recognize that religious beliefs and practices are constantly evolving and adapting to changing social norms and values. While traditions may hold deep significance for certain communities, they should not be immune from scrutiny and critique, particularly when they potentially infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals. A healthy society is one that is willing to engage in critical self-reflection and to challenge outdated or harmful practices, ensuring that all members are treated with dignity and respect.