Acharya Tulsi
Violence is on the increase. Terrorism is spreading. The culture of kidnapping is taking deep roots. Incidents of thefts, plundering and killing have not stopped. Murders and suicides have become routine. These happenings are reported in the newspapers in headlines. Such incidents involving violence are being universally condemned. No sensitive person justifies them. The atmosphere of insecurity and terror has become a very big challenge in our age when human rights are being discussed at the international level when the appropriateness of at bonded labour and child labour is being questioned, what kind of mentality does the blowing up of innocent people with bullets indicate?
Every man has right to live. Why only human being, every living being has a right alive. Taking by force the life of any creature is violence. Violence is of two kinds – unavoidable and avoidable. It is not possible to refrain from violence to which a householder may have to resort for the sake of his livelihood. Unavoidable and necessary violence cannot be stopped. But when there is violence which can be avoided and without which life can be carried on, it seems that man is becoming cruel. It is necessary to stop such violence. But in a country or society in which even devastating violence is considered as legitimate as necessary violence and man goes around keeping under the protecting eye of law, where would sensitivity find any place?
There is mastyanyaya (rule of the might) prevailing in the world. Big fish swallow the small fish. Stronger animals satisfy their hunger by killing the weaker animals. Some animals are also man-eaters. Efforts are being made to annihilate such animals.
But man is not an animal. What is so great about his killing a living creature without any reason, taking the life of weak and dumb animals? Man is not a killer by nature. The human race has two classes: men and women. Woman is considered an embodiment of compassion. But it does cause astonishment when she is associated with killing. And killing whom? Killing not animals and birds, not men who attack, not those who commit crimes, but killing her own flesh and blood. What a savagery! What cruelty! How does a woman go to this extent of savagery and cruelty? It is a subject for research.
I am talking about foeticide. When a mother brings up her crippled child, she looks like a goddess. How can such mother, who without any selfish feeling, can sacrifice even her own happiness and comfort and agree to kill her unborn child in her womb? I do not wish to involve myself with the legal view in this matter. This killing is wrong from the point of view of human right. Is that child not entitled to live? This is wrong even from the point of view of innocent killing. What crime has that poor child committed against anyone? Giving legitimacy to abortion with a view to population control is as good as punishing the child for the mistake of its parents. This is regarded as a great sin from the point of view of doctrine of karma (karmashastra).
Acharya Bhikshu has written:
"A female serpent swallows her eggs, a woman kills her husband, a servant kills his master, a disciple takes the life of his guru—when this happens, there is the bondage of heavy karma causing delusion of the mind."[*]
Foeticide was probably not prevalent in those far off. Otherwise it would have been also included in the quotation given above. Foeticide is an abominable crime. No religious scripture can sanction it. How can such a crime be considered proper even from the point of view of ethics? Whatever moral considerations come into vogue in the name of nationalism or self interests are a different matter altogether, for, in that case, selfish consideration prevails over moral considerations.
The method of foetus-testing is becoming increasingly inhumane. The technique developed for conducting tests for chromosome disorder and hereditary diseases is now being used more to find out the sex of the child in the womb. If that child happens to be a female, her life is in danger. If the conventional and mistaken notions about male and female children have not been destroyed even in our age of science, when would they ever be abandoned? If a boy is born with good fortune, is a girl born after selling away her fortune? This new form of violence is a mockery of Indian Culture in this land of Mahavira, Buddha and Gandhi. There is a ban on foetus testing in some states. But unless man's mentality undergoes a change, he would go on discovering new ways.
Anuvrat is a campaign which supports moral values. A person who adopts the path of Anuvrat neither deliberately kills an innocent creature, nor does he commit suicide nor does he destroy the foetus. If this vow of anuvrat becomes affective, inhumane activity like destroying the foetus can be automatically checked along with terrorism.
