The basic flaw in Kanchi Acharya’s arrest

Author: Rajendra Prabhu
Publication: Organiser
Date: December 26, 2004

Introduction: No law can be meaningful apart from the society in which it exists and for which it exists. Jayendra Saraswati is not an overnight godman like several others in this country. He holds a traditional seat of learning and spirituality and has grown into it.

I am not holding a brief for the Kanchi Shankaracharya, Jayendra Saraswati. I can understand the Tamil Nadu police, now at the receiving end of countrywide criticism of its handling of the issue, is human enough to overshoot its attempt to nail its prey. But certain things seem to jar on any reasonable ears even if you concede, for argument’s sake, that the police has a case.

First thing is that no reasonable person could believe that the adventurous arrest of the holyman all the way at Mehboobnagar in Andhra just on the eve of Diwali, was at all necessary. Nor is it credible that he would have run away to Nepal in a helicopter overnight. One police instruction to the airport authorities was enough to stop any such get- away attempt if at all there was one. No aircraft, helicopter or otherwise could get off the ground without specific written permission from the officials watching the Indian sky who have to provide an air corridor for any type of aircraft to fly.

Second, if the police had a cast iron case, as it claims to have, it could have easily got a court order asking the holyman to stay at a specific place away from the Mutt and not to meet anyone except with the court’s permission. And the interrogation could have been done without all this paraphernalia of incarcerating him in a jail. Maybe the strict interpretation of the law would look at the accused as an accused, stripped of his status.

That is the point. No law can be meaningful apart from the society in which it exists and for which it exists. Jayendra Saraswati is not an overnight godman like several others in this country. He holds a traditional seat of learning and spirituality and has grown into it. Millions rever him. Even law must be discreet. That the court has not granted the seer a bail is no argument. The court was not sitting in judgment over the facts of the case—that stage has not come as yet. The court was only responding to the police request for custody. Primarily it is for the police to weigh the pros and cons and come to a decision whether the custody is required or not.

The other aspect of the case is that police is all the time making claims or is seemingly eager to plant stories to nail down its accusation. The helicopter bubble apart, there was the news report inspired by the police about involvement of a middle-aged lady. For some 24 hours the country was made to believe that the police allegation had some substance. But the entire thing collapsed when the lady concerned appeared on TV. As a person afflicted with cancer and no means to support her family, and no attractive damsel at that, she could hardly be the one who could entice any sinner, let alone a saint.

As if by a cue, within 48 hours after the affair with the lady collapsed, comes an author of some repute. Suddenly she appears at a distant place and bares her story to the police. In all this there is one thing that the police seems to take for granted—that the public is a bunch of ignoramuses. Everyone who has ever seen a traditional Mutt of repute knows that the presiding authority there does not have any privacy except in the bathroom. There are tens of hangers on, devotees, callers, etc. and the Swami’s life is highly regulated with everyone knowing what time he is in meditation, or doing what worship and so on. I don’t think it would be easy to have freedom for such holymen to indulge in unethical behaviour with a woman even if they want to do. The Mutt teems with so many people all the time.

Till the police file the chargesheet, it is difficult to evaluate what is the value of the evidence against the Swami. Both the state government and the police get the benefit of doubt on just one consideration—they would not have gone to this extent unless they had a credible case. That is why a journalist of Cho Ramaswamy’s standing has not accused the government even while he has regretted the way the Shankaracharya has been treated. But one has to place the event in the complex politics of Tamil Nadu with the most important dynamic of the last 70 years—namely, anti- Brahminism founded by Ramaswami Naicker, the idol-breaker icon of the Dravidian movement.

Jayalalithaa claiming the legacy of the movement through her presumed closeness to the idol of the masses, MGR, has been anything but an idol breaker. She has been openly God-fearing, has gone to all possible temples, gifted elephants and other things to several holy places, taken a dip at all holy tanks openly, and even started a midday meal at temples with government help. There are of course accusations that she is settling scores with the Swami over some institutions that she was eyeing but which were snatched away by the Kanchi Swami as part of his expansion of social service.

It would be presumptuous for us to advise a person of the Kanchi Shankaracharya’s stature as he had a large number of most worthy and high ranking devotees to turn to, if he needed advise. But a suggestion might not be out of place. When so much money flows into an institution, that place often invokes jealousy from various individuals as that money gets spent on desirable activities. The Kanchi-Swami-inspired Shankara Netralya for instance was a great hit with its massive pro-poor treatment for opthalmic ailments. It would have been far better and would have attracted less controversy if the financial affairs could have been handled by a committee of eminent personalities instead of the Mutt being involved in the nitty gritty of spending.

It is not a question of the Kanchi Mutt alone. There are respected people in many other walks of life who are above board but they are not necessarily good or strict at handling money. If they don’t take enough precautions, many clever people exploit their approach to these worthies. It has happened with many holymen or even well-meaning people before. This is not confined to one religion or one community. The answer is not for government to take over these funds. The answer is for the eminent people concerned or the communities to evolve foolproof systems that keep them above any criticism in the use of these funds.

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, for instance, would not even physically touch money. This has a practical message down the line for every spiritual figure. The Mutt was implementing large projects for which the devotees paid. The Kanchi chief’s spirituality was a pro-active one. If one is not vigilant enough, there are many pitfalls when such projects are implemented.