This priestly turbulence

Author: Ashok Malik
Publication: The Indian Express

It would appear the Shankaracharya has been convicted, not accused Murder in the Cathedral meets Template of Doom. As soon as Jayendra Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi, was arrested for alleged involvement in the murder of a temple official, the great Indian punditocracy responded with its pet theories.

Rather than a focused inquiry, it quite suddenly became an all-purpose ''secularism-communalism'' debate. Overinterpretation went into overdrive. Jayalalithaa had arrested the Shankaracharya because she wanted to distance herself from the BJP, one theory went. After all, Jayendra Saraswati was close to saffron politics.

The VHP, with its equally simplistic reading of life, saw the invisible hand of the Congress. Sonia Gandhi's party wanted Muslim votes in Bihar and so had masterminded the Shankaracharya's arrest.

On television, the debate was as obtuse. The Shankaracharya doesn't matter, said one expert. After all, Hinduism has no Pope, it has no Vatican. Organised religion is bad.

In truth, nobody knew what to say. Some of what was said - such as in newspaper reports that traced the original (Adi) Shankaracharya's historicity to 500 BC, rather than the more accepted ninth century AD - didn't just confuse, it misled.

It's a pity. Even a fascinating issue such as the intrigue in Kanchi has led to reactions that are almost contrived, desperately wedded to preconceived notions.

It is all very well to argue that the Shankaracharya's arrest is in keeping with rule of law and secularism - as in separation of church and state. Yet it would help if this position were taken consistently.

There are cases against the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid that lie forgotten. A few years ago, a well-known television anchor was implicated in his wife's death. The Delhi Police baulked when it realised he was probably hiding in the mosque where his father was the priest.

Doesn't secularism enjoin equal treatment under conditions of equality?

The Shankaracharya may or may not be guilty. What is disconcerting is the presumption of wrongdoing by some sections. It would appear he has been convicted, not accused. A familiar liberal prejudice is at work here.

A few weeks ago, a Maulana linked to the Godhra case was arrested in Hyderabad. His supporters tried to stop the police; one of them was shot. The press didn't report the evidence against the Maulana, but did describe the crowds and what the dead man's brother called his ''shahadat''.

In contrast, in Tamil Nadu we are told, nobody is bothered by the Shankaracharya's arrest. He doesn't matter, Hinduism has no Pope, it has no Vatican. Organised religion is bad...

Silly as this reasoning may be, it doesn't really absolve the Shankaracharya. True, he may not be directly responsible for the murder. Some say his words may have been misconstrued.

Indeed, when an exasperated Henry II exclaimed ''Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?'' four knights took him literally. They rode off to kill the king's arch-rival, Thomas Beckett, archbishop of Canterbury. Maybe Jayendra Saraswati has a similar alibi?

Others argue that the murdered man, Shankara Raman, was not quite above board himself. When the present Shankaracharya's predecessor, Chandrasekhara Saraswati, had turned 99 a decade ago, he was showered with gold coins. Some of those disappeared. Both Jayendra Saraswati and Shankara Raman had figured in the controversy.

Still others are queasy about whether the Kanchi math's prodigious properties make it something of an investment agent for politicians. Sashikala, once described as Jayalalithaa's ''sister'', has been a confidante of Jayendra Saraswati. One of the murder suspects is said to be related to a senior DMK leader. Shankara Raman versus Jayendra Saraswati versus Jayalalithaa: why does it all sound like shorthand for division of spoils?

The good Shaivite Iyers who are still in shock at the Shankaracharya's arrest deserve sympathy. For them the Kanchi math does matter, it is a spiritual reference point. Yet do they not need to ask some questions? Jayendra Saraswati's political activism has made him more accessible, less orthodox. Has it also compromised corporate governance at Kanchi?

More than a pointless slanging match between competitive and equally spurious ideas of secularism, isn't this what India should be debating? In this country, so packed with mass-based religion and closely-held religious institutions, doesn't the believer-stakeholder have the proverbial ''right to know''?