Talk:Legal status of Jainism as a distinct religion in India

Legalese 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Please contribute fellow wikians. This is an article that was complied from various quotes of Supreme Court of India judgments and some opinions gathered through Interviews. The discussion on the Personal laws is partly based on an unreported judgment of the Rajasthan High Court on file with author.

Untitled

There are so many people interested in theology, also in Hindu and Jain beliefs respectively. Why is there such an inaction on part of any... This is an important article due to the significant debate across India on such questions, e.g. in the recent Gujarat Anti-Conversion Bill, even buddhists were included under "Hindu" with Jains, which was severaly objected. Another major dispute is about the proposed reservation in the Educational Institutions in India....which has a lot to do with the establishment of identity of any religion.

Please contribute...

Legal Status of Jainism-Proposed Deletion

Legalese 07:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)It needs proper formatting. State which parts are "copied from other websites". Most of it are original quotes from the Supreme Court of India's two judgments, which otherwise are not so easily accessible for the lay public. Supreme Court's judgment are freely quotable, no copyright is violated in them. Most of the comments are "analytical". I am not too well versed a user of Wiki. Thus, I request you to kindly consider my problems regarding formatting. Please assist me appropriately. Thanks...

Legalese 15:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I am aghast. The claim that there could be a "blatant violation of copyright in this article" is completely unfounded.

I explain the constitution of the whole article as below. The article presently has four sub-headings.

   * 1 The Recent Legal Debate on Jainism
   * 2 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
   * 3 Criticism of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bal Patil's Case
   * 4 Jainism and Other Religions: Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India

I'll deal with each one in detail.

   * 1 The Recent Legal Debate on Jainism

This sub-heading covers the following: >>The Bal Patil Judgment It quotes from the Supreme Court's judgment. Quoting from a Supreme Court jugdment cannot be a violation of copyright.

The rest of the comments have been written by me. Check, by googling, if you can find any websites from which it has been claimed that

>>U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Judgment This para has been written by me. Check by googling if its been copied even a least bit.

   * 2 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The first para merely quotes the Article 25 of the Constitution of India in original. It is a provision of law, and there is no violation of any copyright in reproducing it.

The second para has been written by me. You can check, by googling it, if it appears anywhere else, it would have name "rishabh sancheti" or the link "legalese" [my wiki name].

   * 3 Criticism of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bal Patil's Case

This has been authored completely by me, with the help of certain legal provisions. Again, citing the legal provisions cannot entail any violation of a copyright. The veracity of such legal provisions may be checked at <indiacode.nic.in>, Government of India's official law database, by feeding the name of the Act.

The explanations appearing below each of the Acts have been authored by me. One can verify by googling.

   * 4 Jainism and Other Religions: Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India

This fourth part may give an impression on a superficial reading that it is made up of several parts which might be claimed to have been copied. However, I submit with deference that such claim is baseless, and would prove to be so, if any one may be diligent enough to verify. Infact this part is a summary of the illustrations noted by the Supreme Court of India in the UP Shiksha Parishad Judgment, the original link of which has already been given. Click on the link, and it would open a page on the Judis Database of the Government of India, having this judgment. Do a simple CTRL+F to locate these paragraphs there.

As I'v stated above, there could be no copyright violation in quoting from a Court's judgment along with its proper reference. I have not claimed that I have authored this part, the heading itself clearly reads "Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India". The para numbers in this part are the original para numbers of the Judgment, which has already been mentioned in the beginning of this part.

Now.........how is there any copyright violation?

Cleanup tag

This will probably sound a bit harsh, but this article basically needs a complete rewrite because (and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh) it is a complete mismash of quotes without any cohesiveness or clear sourcing. Much of the problem is formatting, but some is content. The problems are almost too numerous to go into in one sitting, so let me just start with the low-hanging fruit:

1. Article has no clear intro, it just starts out with the section "The Recent Legal Debate on Jainism". Is this just a recent debate? Has the legal status of Jainism as a religion separate from Hinduism always been legally debated? There needs to be a clear intro here giving a bit of context into why this article and topic are in any way relevant.
2. Sources are not formatted correctly - This is an easy fix once everything else is done. It's just wiki formatting (and I'd be happy to help the creator with this if the article is kept as they are a fairly new editor and wikification isn't always intuitive).
3. Flow - sections are seemingly randomly distributed. For example the Criticism of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bal Patil's Case is seperated from the judgement by a section on the Indian Constitution. It makes for a much more difficult reading experience than this needs to be.
4. Sections outside the margins - Formatting issue, easily fixed... but makes the article hard to read (again if kept I can fix this or I can show the creator how if he/she wishes).
5. Sources and Reference sections need to be added.
6. Original Research - Some sections appear to violate the No original research policy. For example:

"The Sections of the various Hindu personal codes are quoted above for reader's own perusal and analysis. An explanation is put into the end to elucidate how the Hon'ble Court might have been erroneous."
(followed by quoted sections from various acts with explanations)
These sections are not clearly sourced to any external source and it appears these explainations are analysis by the author making this original research. All of these sections need to be removed from the article.
Well that is a start on the cleanup that needs to be done to get this article up to snuff.--Isotope23 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Legalese 20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Thanks for your comments @ Isotope, harsh is good as long as it is on the content and not against the person, which thankfully is the case here. I am in appreciation of your approach. I understand that the section on Hindu debate is apparears to be in conflict with the WP:OR policy. However, as I have mentioned on the "deletion debate" page, it is based on a judgment of Rajasthan High Court, which unfortunately is not available on net. If required, and it seems it is pertinent now, I will try my best to give a para-wise reference so as to make it clear that this article is not wholly in defiance of WP:OR. However, I do admit that a bit of it needs to be "cleaned up" by me, so that it strictly conforms to the aforesaid policy. Regarding the other things you pointed out, yes, the debate is recent and if I may say, unfortunate. The debate has actually been generated as a result of a strife between some fundamentalists of either religions. The matter went to the Courts and has been resolved largely. Thus, it gains importance and I felt it important to bring it on wikipedia if any researcher is looking for a point to begin with on the debate. Also, there are several other sources available on the internet which substantiate this article, however I admit that the fault lies on my part not to have referenced in detail. I must also state at the same time that I am only a beginner and am yet to be too well versed with WIKI, I hope thus the formatting errors could be done away with by more experienced users, or else I'll need to put some extra hours on few weekends and understand the whole deal, to do it myself.

I always hope my criticism is constructive in nature because I'm not trying to destroy the article, just get it in line with standards here if it survives the current Articles for Deletion debate (and I'm not trying to WP:BITE you as a new editor; it took me quite a while to get the formatting of the wiki down). If this survives the AfD I will fix the formatting problems myself (if you are interesting in what I did you can always look at the diffs and see the changes I made). As for the Hindu debate section, if this is based on a judgement of the Rajasthan High Court (i.e. this is a summary of judgments and opinions published by that court) it can be referenced even if it is not online (it just needs to be cited in a similar manner as any offline source would be. The problem though is that rather than just reprint their opinions wholesale, this should be rewritten into more of an article format with citations referencing the published opinions so it isn't WP:OR or just a reprinting of already existing material. Like I said though I can help you with that. If you need a "style guide" of sorts in reference to what I'm looking for Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill is a good example of how this should be laid out (from a formatting standpoint... content-wise that article needs a bit of work too).--Isotope23 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Legalese 12:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Thanks to "Utcursch " for the effort to wikify the article. It really looks so much better now. I'll obtain the scan of the Rajasthan High Court Judgment and reference the article in more detail to remove any apparent violations of WP:OR.

I have to second that... nice work Utcursch.--Isotope23 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Experts'" Opinion

Legalese 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC) For the skeptic, these quotes could be a useful read. I wish to put them in the main article, but only if time permits. Perhaps by mid april, I'd be able to do, but if someone please may do it in the meantime, it would be great.

I personally corresponded on this subject with a few "Professors" of Religion, Theology, etc. I had made these queries, right after the Bal Patil judgment came sending these professors, the text of the judgment and seeking their response. Any comments are welcome- Rishabh Sancheti (LL.M. Erasmus, European Master in Law and Economics) rsanchetiATgmailDOTcom

John A. Grim, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Center for Bioethics, Yale University Dear Rishabh Sancheti, My own view would be that Jainism is a religion with its own standing in its history, institutions, scriptures, and rituals. I imagine this is a political move by Hindutva organizations. If Jainism is artifically reduced to a reform movement, then, Christianity can be erased as simply a reform movement within Judaism and Islam similarly erased before the claims of Christianity and Judaism. This type of reductive move has been tried in the historical past and traditiona such as Christianity and Islam have appealed to the uniqueness of their revelations, their scriptures, their inspired personalities, and their history to argue their place among the religions.

All the best in your work, John Grim John A. Grim Institution for Social and Policy Studies Center for Bioethics Yale University

Koichi Shinohara, Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University Mr. Sancheti, The scholarly opinion has long been that Jainism is a distinctive religious tradition, and not a reform movement within Hinduism. This certainly is the way we teach it in our programs. However, I do not specialize in Indian religions. I suggest that you contact two of my colleagues who are highly regarded scholars of Jainism: Phyllis Granoff at phyllis.granoff@yale.edu and Paul Dundas at pdundas@staffmail.ed.ac.uk. Sincerely, Koichi Shinohara (Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University)

Christopher Key Chapple, Professor, Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount University Dear Rishabh Sancheti: Thank you for sending the judgment of the court. This is quite fascinating. Fro the perspective of the history of religions, Jainism was not a reform movement but an independent faith akin to Buddhism. The Hindu tradition, which originated in the northwest of India and migrated southward and eastward, was referred to by the early Greek geographer Megasthenes as "Brahmanical" and Jainism and Buddhism, which originated in the northeast of India were referred to as "Sramanical." Hinduism believes in the authority of the Vedas and the efficacy of ritual; Jainism and Buddhism do not believe in the Vedas and only their laypeople practice ritual. Hinduism allows for monastic life generally only after one has lived a full family existence; Jainism and Buddhism advocate earlier renunciation of the world. Hinduism does not have a fully developed monastic tradition for women; Jainism has the world's oldest order of nuns. I understand for a variety of reasons why the Court took its particular position. Leading scholars of Jainism include John Cort of Denison University in Ohio, Paul Dundas of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, Lawrence Alan Babb of Amherst College in Massachusetts, Anne Vallely of the University of Ottawa in Canada, and various others.

With best wishes, Chris Chapple Christopher Key Chapple, Ph.D. Professor, Theological Studies Associate Academic Vice President Loyola Marymount University

Phyllis Granoff, Dept. of Religious Studies, Yale University Thank you for your note. I know that this discussion has a long history. As a scholar of Indian religions I would not hesitate to say that Jainism is a distinctive religious tradition and not a “reform movement” from within Hinduism. It is closer in fact to Buddhism than it is to what we call Hinduism. Indeed Jainism emphatically rejected the authority of the Vedas and vedic ritual as a means to salvation. Phyllis Granoff Dept. of Religious Studies Yale University

Professor Cromwell Crawford,Department of Religion, University of Hawaii. Dear Rishabh, The new academic year begins on Monday, so my response to your inquiry will be general. Jainism is not a sect within Hinduism, and it is not a reformist faction within the general faith. Historically, the sramanic movement, of which Jainism and Buddhism are representatives, have ancient roots which precede Hinduism. Doctrinally, Jainism and Hinduism are distinct on fundamental concepts, such as the doctrine of God, the nature of the soul, the meaning of karma, the purpose of worship, the authority and constitution of scriptures, the nature of human destiny, etc. Mahavir did not consider his religion as reformist, but as an extension of an ancient tradition. Jain ascetics who are the prime bearers of the tradition consider themselvesx a people apart. Major texts on Jainism treat it as a distinct religion. Leading universities in which Jain research is done do not view Jainism as a part of Hinduism. The confusion arises because the basic values of Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are similar, a phenomenon which is understandable because of the common culture; but cultural commonality should not belie fundamental religious differences between the three religions. Hope this information is helpful.

Professor Cromwell Crawford, Department of Religion,

University of Hawaii.

John Koller, Professor of Asian & Comparative Philosophy,Dept. of Cognitive Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Risabh, There is no doubt that Jainism is a separate and independent religion, not a form of Hinduism, or any other religion. It is probably considerably older than Hinduism. I know of no scholars who consider Jainism to be a form or sect of Hinduism. My own studies, some of which is included in my books, The Indian Way, and Asian Philosophies, shows Jainism to be a separate and independent religion. I am extremely busy at the moment, but you are right, and I wish you well. Perhaps at a later time I can be of more help. It is an extremely important issue, and I think that the Court is wrong in its judgment. You may cite me, including any of my publications, in your efforts to correct the Court's judgement. Sincerely, John Koller - Professor of Asian & Comparative Philosophy Dept. of Cognitive Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute NY

Proposal for Change

The article begins as follows:

""Jainism is considered by many a reformist movement that is a part of Hinduism. Many others regard it as a separate religion. However, in 2006 the Supreme Court of India gave a rest to the diversity of contemplations in a judgment where it opined that "Jain Religion is indisputably not a part of Hindu Religion".""

I have cited above, how the scholars and Professors of Theology and Religion find Jainism to be a religion in its own right. The abovecited introduction does not give the correct picture. It is only a result of a misconceived debate. I propose to delete this introduction, and invite a discussion on such proposal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legalese (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Could I suggest that you cite your sources using footnotes instead of including them in the main body of the text. Thanks, Addhoc 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for removal of original research

In this discussion, there was a consensus to remove the original research. Following this discussion, there was ample time to find sources and format the text. The changes I made were extensive, however they did have consensus. Addhoc 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced section

I'll remove the unsourced section in the next few days unless reliable secondary sources are included. Addhoc 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate attempt to subvert the truth

There is an wilfull attempt to subvert the truth on these pages in the name of "Unsourced section" and "original research". Bal Patil Court Judgement has been modified to advocate a NPOV and other court Judgement that proves Jainism as distinct judgement - Committee of Management Kanya Junior High School Bal Vidya Mandir - has been purposely deleted. I fail to understand why ? Where is the question of Original Research for court Judgement which are public documents. Is a court verdict delivered by a Judge a Original research ? Then delete all Judgements from Wiki.--Anish Shah 14:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the above you said "Is a court verdict delivered by a Judge a original research?" The answer is the court judgement is a primary source. My concern is that you are removing all the secondary sources and only using primary sources. Also, I have stylistic concerns - I suggest you have a look at WP:LEAD, for example. I've looked at some of your other contributions and you are clearly a good faith editor. Your edits to ahimsa were impressive, for example. In this context, I hope we can resolve this and find a compromise soon. Addhoc 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...Let us arrive at acceptable solution. However in Chronology of Cases I have cited the case laws. What more do we need. For Eg. AIR is All India Reporter along with year and Page no. Refer Case Citation in India. I dont know what more we need to do on this ?--Anish Shah 09:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Legalese 07:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)This article previously contained a reference to the more recent decision of the Supreme Court of India [U.P. Kanya Parishad], I wonder why was it deleted in the present series of edits.[1] A latter judgment of any court, in a common law system, if it conflicts with any previous judgment will be covered under the doctrine of Implied overruling. I invite a discussion on the present shape of this article, and propose to rewrite it. On the aspect of Case laws as primary sources, we must consider primary sources and secondary sources in the appropriate context. The "ratio decidendi" of a case law, when used, might be held as primary source, but because a judgment in itself is a reproduction of, and is based on, several pieces of secondary and primary research, a mere observation when cited from a judgment, [obiter dicta] cannot be held a "primary source", per se. Further, case-laws as a standard are complete in citation and rather, can be electronically retrived freely, merely with the name-clause of the case. [for India, see [2]]. Any comments, corrections are most welcome. Legalese 07:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Was the court judgement considered to be significant - for example, was the ruling widely reported? If you can include secondary sources, then ok, however you should avoid your own commentary in accordance with the original research policy. Addhoc 12:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Legalese 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC) I dont know what do you consider as a significant judgment. A judgment, when it comes from the Apex Court of a country is significant. A judgment, which attempts to "clarify" on an issue is significant. Also, newspaper reporting of judgments, widely or otherwise, should not be a criterion at all. This judgment has been "reported" by all legal journals, like AIR, SCC, SCT, JT etc. Its true that OR is to be avoided, but I think the present elucidation of the judgments follows a simple scheme, where any assertion can be verified by using the free judis search engine through the web. So, I guess we should keep this, which is otherwise a good and useful collection of information.Legalese 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest you carefully read the verifiability and original research policies, because you don't appear to understand them. In essence, articles should rely on third-party published sources including journals and newspapers, not vague mentions of web searches. Addhoc 14:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Legalese 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the links [User:Addhoc|Addhoc], on OR and Verifiability. However, please know that: (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. Case laws are published, and reported.

Further, I think the editor who has given the list of case laws, has carefully given "citations", which are from the most famous and basic law "journals". So, I feel to question them on "verifiability" is not correct.

AIR- All India Reporter, from which most cases have been cited, is India's biggest and most widely circulated law journal. In any case, the information can alternatively be verified using the judis search.

Hope this clarifies adequately, feel free to correct me. Legalese 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal status of Jainism as a distinct religion in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311225548/http://judis.nic.in:80/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=27962 to http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=27962

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)