International Journal Of Jaina Studies Vol 01 To 03 2005 To 2007

SR No.: 022773
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Peter Flugel
Publisher: Hindi Granth Karyalay
Publication Year: 2008
Total Pages: 202
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 14

religion), though Letter 3 classified them as a sub-division of the 'Hindoos'. With Colebrooke's (1807) influential article on the 'Hindu sect' of 'the Jains' the use of the word Jains in the plural became widespread both as an euc and an emic category.
Officially, the category 'Jain' was used for the first time in the Census of India of 1881." The Census still remains the only government institution which classifies the Jains as a separate religious group. Despite the legal recognition of the doctrinal differences between 'Hinduism' and 'Jainism' in the landmark judgement Gateppa v. Eramma AIR 1927 Madras 228, 'Jaina law' remains incorporated within 'Hindu law', and for all practical purposes Jains are treated as 'Hindus' by the Indian (UK and US) Government, and were not even granted religious 'minority' status after the introduction of the National Commission of Minorities Act of 1992. The artificial political issue whether Jains are Hindus or not is largely based on (deliberately) ambiguous legal definitions.25
To raise the communal self-awareness amongst Jains, British educated Jain reformers campaigned from the mid 19th century onwards for the public self-identification of the Jains as 'Jains', particularly at the time of the Census when many Jains, for one
16 These passages in Letter 41 of the Hallische Berichte VII 1714: 484 have not been included in Liebau's edition of Gruudler and Ziegenbalg 1998 but are cited by Swectman 2003: 120, n. 713; 123, n. 83, who identifies the Schămmaner or camanar (? śramana) as Jains.
Earlier court cases such as Maharaja Govind Nath Roy v. Gulab Chund 1833 treated 'the Jains' as 'Heterodox Hindus'. See Sunderland 1843: 280.
1* Baines 1893: 186f.
19 The Privy Council decision on the leading case Bhagawandas Tejmal v. Rajmal 1873 10 Bombay HC 241 is still accepted.
21 'If a Hindu be defined as one born in India, or at the best one born in India and who was not a Mahomedan or Christian by birth then certainly every Jaina is a Hindu. - Some say Hindu is one from whom injury (Him-su) is removed (Du-r). If this is so, only Jainas are the first and best Hindus; whereas meat eating, hunting Hindus will not be Hindus at all. Others say, - a Hindu is one who owes allegiance to the Vedas or the Brahman. There again Jainas are not Hindus. Really it is an idle and futile problem. It all depends on what you mean by a Hindu. Let the Hindus agree upon one universal definition of a Hindu, and then it would be easy to answer the question whether a Jaina is a Hindu' (Jaini 1921: 7f.).