Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: November 22, 2004
Maybe we have become too inured
by predictable images of a dharna. Maybe our measure of outrage has
become unnecessarily conditioned by explosive images of Falujah and
Palestine. Or maybe the battering ram of aggressive rationalism has
pulverised our faith in institutions that personify faith and tradition.
Whatever the reality, the sight
of a glum-faced BJP top brass trooping out of Rashtrapati Bhavan
on Friday night and sitting impassively on a dais in Patel Chowk
on Saturday failed to convey the magnitude of the occasion. To the
uninitiated, they could well have been demanding the inclusion of
Maithili into the 8th Schedule or pressing for compensation to the
victims of Bihar's rampaging gangs.
The issue is not the choreography
of dignified protest in a made-in- media society. The real issue, to my
mind, is the bewildering lack of mass outrage to a cynical assault
on one of India's premier Hindu institutions.
Let us accept grim reality for whatever
it is worth. The Shankaracharya of Kanchi, a powerful symbol of the
sanatan dharma, was arrested on the night of Diwali and charged with
murder. He was produced in court the next day, dubbed an 'undeserving
criminal' by the public prosecutor and remanded in police custody.
He was allowed no special privileges and lodged in an ordinary jail.
When he returned to court three days later, he was mocked for his
aversion to rahukalam and for his unwillingness to sign documents.
As devotees recoiled in horror,
police sources fed a hungry media with 'evidence' of his mendacity.
He was accused of facilitating cash payments to supari killers, of
being in telephonic contact with goons and even of plotting an escape
by helicopter to Nepal. The Junior Shankaracharya was said to have
demanded a CBI probe and, with hints of a monastic coup, it was said
that his brother had turned approver.
It now transpires that very little
of these grave charges can be substantiated. In fact, the police
have not even submitted their preliminary evidence to court. You
would have imagined that the authorities would have proceeded against
a person as revered as the Shankaracharya on the strength of watertight
evidence. But no, they arrested him and humiliated him on the basis
of suspicion.
The reasons lie in the vagaries
of Dravidian politics, particularly the competitive inclination to
invoke anti-Brahmin sentiment. Let us not forget that the DMK had
threatened an agitation against the state government if it did not
proceed against the Kanchi seer.
Karunanidhi was, in effect, daring
the Brahmin Jayalalithaa to take action against the Brahmin Shankaracharya.
For him, this was just another handle to beat Jayalalithaa with.
By ensuring the Shankaracharya was booked, regardless of the evidence,
Jayalalithaa has at least ensured that Karunanidhi can no longer
charge her of having a Brahminical bias.
The question is: Why was the Shankaracharyua
allowed to become a political football between two Dravidian parties
who are bound by an ideological aversion to the Hindu faith? The
anti-Hindus, in Tamil Nadu at least, have proceeded on the assumption
that there is no worthwhile Hindu sentiment. A Hindu nation, divided
along caste, regional and denominational lines, it is believed, will
stomach any indignity. This is a belief that binds all the secularist
parties.
Judging from the muted response
to the arrest, the secularists may well be right. There is disquiet
that the Shankaracharya was treated shabbily and there is pain that
a premier Hindu institution has been brought into disrepute. But
equally, there is astonishing passivity. The Shankaracharya of Puri
may claim that the assault on his Kanchi counterpart is a 'blow to
the existence and ideology of Hindus,' but the average Hindu still
believes this is an overstatement. Hindus have ceased to react as
Hindus.
Yet, Hindus have not ceased to believe
and conduct themselves as Hindus in their private lives. It is just
that they have gradually abdicated the public space to secularists
and organised minorities. It is an abdication that has happened by
default. The claimants to the Hindu public space have erroneously
focussed on the traditional institutions of the faith. Unfortunately,
these institutions, like the Kanchi Math, have become identified
with a narrow Brahminical order.
This may be unfair to Sri Jayendra
Saraswati who has consciously taken the Kanchi Math out of the orbit
of pure spiritualism and involved it in social and philanthropic
ventures. He created philanthropic institutions, campaigned for Dalit
rights, championed the Ayodhya cause and resisted conversions. Yet,
the public image of Brahminical exclusivity has persisted.
In being wedded to orthodoxy, neither
the present Shankaracharyas nor their institutions have had the temperament
to be defenders of the faith. The Maths and their groupies have come
across as socially aloof, insufferably arrogant and casteist. Their
Hinduism has not been inclusive. This explains why there was no spontaneous
explosion of fury at the arrest of the Shankaracharya.
The popular energies of Hinduism
have traditionally vested in the little traditions, epitomised by
the many stand-alone Maths, the numerous gurus and the many living
Gods. It is these sects, headed by the charismatic individuals who
we see on the likes of Astha channel and God TV, who are keeping
popular Hinduism alive. Their Hinduism is vibrant, inclusive and
imbued with some social vision. To be effective, Hindu politics has
to connect with this evangelical Hindu energy.
This should have been obvious to
every BJP leader who was present at last Saturday's dharna in Delhi.
Throughout the morning and afternoon, there were barely 1,500 people
at the venue. The mood changed with the arrival of the charismatic
preacher Asaram Bapu. On hearing on television that he was at the
venue, there was a rush of his devotees to the dharna. The crowds
swelled considerably and the BJP leaders requested him to return
the next day too.
The Ayodhya movement was one of
the few moments when Hindu nationalism and Hindu religious energy
converged. The convergence also happened because of the broadening
of the social bases of Hindu nationalism to incorporate the backward
castes, Dalits and adivasis.
Today, after six years of seeking
respectability from the India's secularised elites, the BJP appears
to have glossed over the social constituency that made its great
leap forward possible. Just consider this small but crucial detail:
of the seven-member BJP delegation that went to meet the President
last Friday, five were Brahmins. The tragedy is that this imbalance
didn't even strike the leadership.
Unless Hindu politics can break
out of this Brahminical stranglehold, the cynical assault on Hindu
institutions cannot be checked.
