Ahiṃsā technically signifies a “negative duty,” or an ethical obligation to not perform specific acts of body, speech, or mind. Vegetarianism is a core expression of this duty as the practice involves the nonconsumption of animals’ bodies, substances that are only made available through acts of violence. However, many thinkers—Jain and non-Jain—have argued that a comprehensive understanding of ahimṣā includes not only this “negative” aspect, but also “positive” aspects prompting the practitioner to proactively engage in acts of assistance and protection. For example, as I discussed in a previous post, the vow of ahiṃsā includes a prohibition against tacit participation (anumata) in harm, meaning the explicit or implicit expression of approval of harms occurring in one’s vicinity. This aspect of the vow arguably generates a duty to intervene when one witnesses or knows about a human or animal suffering due to abuse, neglect, hunger, or abandonment. 

Moreover, it is also critical to understand that ahiṃsā is a practice fundamentally motivated by a feeling of compassion (dayā, kāruṇyā) toward all sentient beings. Compassion motivates one to not only refrain from increasing the present suffering of sentient beings but also to decrease the present suffering of others, no matter the source of their suffering. The common Jain practice of jīvadayā, or compassion (dayā) towards sentient beings (jīva), signifies providing animals with food, water, shelter, and medical care in circumstances where they would otherwise be deprived. The animal sanctuary (panjrapole) is thus—alongside vegetarianism or veganism—an example of compassion-in-action while also being inextricable, as mentioned, from the anumata aspect of the “negative duty” of ahiṃsā.

“Panjrapole” (also spelled "pinjrapole" and less commonly “panjarapole” or “pinjarapole”) is an English adaptation of the Gujarati word piñjrāpoḷ. The term comes from the Sanskrit word pāñjara, meaning cage or enclosure. While the origin of the second part of the word piñjrāpoḷ is less clear, a panjrapole refers to a place where elderly, infirm, or needy animals are cared for and allowed to live out the rest of their natural lives. The historiography on the origins of panjrapoles remains relatively underdeveloped, with most secondary literature referring readers to Deryck Lodrick’s seminal 1981 monograph Sacred Cows and Sacred Places. Lodrick contends that “the earliest documentary evidence for the existence of [any] animal homes in India occurs with the reign of Ashoka (ca. 269-232 B.C.)” (Lodrick 1981, 81). This evidence is derived from Ashoka’s Rock Edict II:

Everywhere…King Piyadasi [Aśoka] has established two kinds of medical services: medical services for humans and medical services for domestic animals. Wherever medicinal herbs beneficial to humans and domestic animals were not found, he had them brought in and planted everywhere. Likewise wherever root vegetables and fruit trees were not found, he had them brought in and planted everywhere. Along roads he had trees planted and wells dug for the benefit of domestic animals and human beings (Olivelle 2024, 282–83; also see Pillar Edict VII (iii), 317–18). 

Ashoka’s initiatives included the planting of medicinal herbs and trees and the digging of wells along roads to benefit both human and nonhuman life (Olivelle 2024, 282–83; see also Pillar Edict VII (iii), 317–18). Lodrick posits that these actions suggest that panjrapoles most likely existed during Ashoka’s reign (Lodrick 1981, 57). However, this interpretation is dubious, for while Ashoka’s edict certainly points to the provision of medical and watering services for animals, it does not explicitly reference the establishment of panjrapoles—sanctuaries where animals could live out their natural lives free from human exploitation. Additionally, the edict itself arises from a Buddhist context—Ashoka having converted to Buddhism—whereas panjrapoles are traditionally associated with Jainism. Lodrick also speculates that such institutions may have existed among Jains prior to Ashoka’s reign (Lodrick 1981, 59), yet clear evidence remains elusive.

Prohibitions against cow slaughter and protective measures for "unproductive" cows are documented through the Common Era, particularly in early Hindu texts like the Arthaśāstra and the Mānava Dharmaśāstra, yet these measures differ substantially from the multispecies sanctuaries of panjrapoles. Much later, during the mid-second millennium CE, European travelogues specifically reference Jain animal sanctuaries. For instance, in 1591, English merchant Ralph Fitch documented his observations in Cambay (modern-day Gujarat), “In Cambaia [sic] they will kill nothing, nor have any thing killed: in the Towne they have Hospitals to keepe [sic] lame Dogs and Cats, and for birds. They will give meate [sic] to the Ants” (Purchas 1905, 170). Fitch’s reporting echoes the veterinary focus from the much earlier inscription, yet the inclusion of “wild” animals such as birds, as well as the mention of ants (jīvat khan or “insect room”; Lodrick 1981, 19), demonstrates a shift from simple cow protection toward a more expansive ethic of care, providing refuge without expecting any form of material return. This broader practice of animal sanctuary care, corroborated by further European accounts (Lodrick 1981, 68–70), underscores the longevity of Jain panjrapoles, even if evidence of their earliest origins remains scarce. Despite these gaps in the historical record, panjrapoles are widely known within contemporary Jain communities, where their operation is viewed as an actualization of compassion through active caregiving for animals.

Unfortunately, current statistics on the number of panjrapoles in India are sparse. Evans (2014, 209) cites a 2005 study identifying 284 Jain sanctuaries in Gujarat alone. It seems reasonable to estimate that several hundred panjrapoles currently function across India, with variations in size, scope, and services. In the next post, I will examine Luvin Arms Animal Sanctuary in Erie, Colorado, a panjrapole established within the North American Jain diaspora.

References

Evans, Brett. 2014. “Engaged Jain Traditions and Social Nonviolence: Ethnographic Case Studies of Lay Animal Activists and Service Oriented Nuns.” CrossCurrents 84 (2): 201–18.

Lodrick, Deryck. 1981. Sacred Cows, Sacred Places: Origins and Survivals of Animal Homes in India. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Olivelle, Patrick. 2024. Ashoka: Portrait of a Philosopher King. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jonathan Dickstein, Assistant Professor at Arihanta Institute, completed his PhD in Religious Studies at the University of California-Santa Barbara. He specializes  in South Asian Religions, Animals and Religion, and Comparative Ethics. His current work focuses on Jainism and contemporary ecological issues, extending into Critical Animal Studies, Food Studies, and Diaspora Studies. 

Professor Dickstein's course 1014 | Jainism, Veganism, and Engaged Religion, co-taught with Professor Christopher Jain Miller, PhD is available now for self-study. 

Check out all Arihanta Institute courses here:

arihantainstitute.org/courses