Jainism and Dr Gours Hindu Code

Author(s): Champat Rai Jain
Publisher: Champat Rai Jain

Page 12

( 10 )
Practical Path. and have elucidated it with illustrations from the holy scriptures of the different faiths. Unfortunately Elphinstone knew nothing about the mystery-language of his own or any one else's religion and freely talked as he pleased. Forlong has shown how Brahmanical ascetism has arisen from Jaina tapas (see Short Studies in Comparative Religion).
Of the rulings reffered to by Dr. Gour, the one in 10 Bomb. H. C. Reports pp. 241-267 is the most typical. It was, however, passed in the year 1873 when the early errors were fully current, We must take it that the learned judges were anxious to do justice according to their lights, but the lights were not good. They quote Elphinstone's quotation (given in the Hindu Code) on pages 247, 248 and 249, and refer to some other minor works including the accounts given by certain military travellers, and finally consult Rev. Dr. Wilson whom they regard as possessed of "a knowledge of the castes of Western India and their literature and customs, as extensive as that of any other living person whom it would be easy to name". Dr. Wilson's opinion was that he was not aware of any authority in the books of the Jaina community or amongst the Hindu writers which would tend to support the custom set up by the plaintiffs and that he was informed by a learned Jati of the Jaina community and his Brahman assistants that they did not know of any such authority and that adoption was generally regulated by Hindu La w. The High Court also relied upon the fact that in many matters Brahman intervention was sought by Jains, c. g., in narriage ceremonies. They also refer to Colebrook, Wilson and others who shared Elphinstone's opinion on the same grounds as those already stated. No Jaina works seem to have been produced, though the names of some of them are mentioned, including Vardhmana (Niti), Gautama Prasna and Poonawachun (see pp. 255-256). Some of these had actually been cited in a Calcutta case (Maharaja Govind Nath Roy V. Gulab Chand and others) in 1833 (see 5 S.D. Rep. 276). This case is also referred to in the Judgment as also the work of Mr. Steel on Hindu castes who shows that the Jainas have books of their own which are different from the Brahmanical Shastras. But the High Court did not insist on their production and did not send for them of its own accord The party whom the Hindu Law favoured would not naturally be anxious to assist the Court in this