Author
Listed:
- Lakshmi Vijayakumar
- Sujit John
Abstract
Background: Hinduism is one of the oldest religions in the world and has over 1.1 billion adherents comprising about 16% of the global population living mainly in India and Nepal. The stand of Hinduism on suicide has been ambiguous through the ages, on one hand, condemning general suicides, while condoning religious suicides on the other. This ambiguity is reflected in contemporary India and among the Indian diaspora. Aims: To examine the stand of Hinduism as a religion in the context of suicide. Method: A selected review of literature covering the major Hindu religious texts, cultural practices and suicide. Results: People who follow Hinduism have a suicide rate of about 21 per 100,000 population compared to the global average of 11.4. Hindu countries have higher rates of suicide compared to Islamic and Christian countries, but these rates are lower when compared to Atheist and Buddhist countries. This is reflected in the Indian diaspora as well with reports from Fiji, the Caribbean, Malaysia and the United Kingdom, indicating that suicide was disproportionately high among those of Indian origin. However, a strong faith in Hinduism acts as protective factor. The Hindu belief in karma fosters a sense of acceptance of the vicissitudes of life with equanimity, and the belief in the cycle of births and deaths renders suicide meaningless, as one’s soul continues after death. Their religious beliefs makes the Hindus tolerate and accept hardships and calamities stoically. Conclusion: In certain situations, the Hindu religion acts as a protective factor, whereas at other times, it may increase the risk of suicide. It is important to understand these different nuances in the Hindu religion in formulating a culturally appropriate suicide prevention strategy.
Suggested Citation
Lakshmi Vijayakumar & Sujit John, 2018.
"Is Hinduism ambivalent about suicide?,"
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 64(5), pages 443-449, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:64:y:2018:i:5:p:443-449
DOI: 10.1177/0020764018777523
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:64:y:2018:i:5:p:443-449. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.