Rohit Dhankar
A recent controversy about Shirdi Sai Baba started by Shakaracharya Swami Swaroopanand shows the intellectual, spiritual and tolerance level of the religious minded in our secular democratic country.
First a few facts
Set A from two Hindu sanyasins:
1. The Shankaracharya said “Sai Baba was a Muslim Fakir”
2. So he “ cannot be compared to Hindu deities or worshipped like them”
3. According to him certain forces are corrupting Hindu religion by arbitrarily creating new gods.
4. Uma Bharati thinks that “looking upon someone as a god was people’s personal opinion …”
5. However, the Shankaracharya is worried that “Statues of Sai Baba were being installed in homes. What if they were installed in our temples?”
6. He accuses Bharati of being “worshiper of a Muslim”
Set B from Shirdi Sai Baba worshippers:
1. “The Sai Temple authority in Lucknow has filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court demanding an FIR against Shankaracharya of Dwarkapeeth Swaroopananda Saraswati for hurting religious sentiments” of thousands of Sai Baba devotees.
The first question: Is the Shankaracharya being Hindu enough?
One can hardly fight with the fact that the individual remembered as Sai Baba was a Muslim fakir. His worship by many Hindus (perhaps very few Muslims) does not change this fact. We do not know much of his belief system in detail though.
But rest of the Shankaracharya’s claims hardly hold any water. The ancestors of the people today called Hindus have been too good at creating and worshipping gods. Right from the Vedic era they have run a virtual industry of this. Surely, the economic gains and power over peoples’ thinking have been the main motives. It is always doubtful—in all religions—whether the creation and worshiping gods is necessarily an act of faith or more motivated by possible socio-political-economic gains.
It is a well-known fact that Shiva and Ganesha are not Vedic gods, they were introduced in the Hindu pantheon much later. They have many temples devoted to them and form part of set of idols in many others. More recently Santoshi Mata has been created and fitted in the company of Devis smugly. Now she has temples devoted to her. A section of modern Hindus has a craze for building temples to politicians and even to film stars. So what danger a poor Muslim Fakir can cause to either Hindu mind-set or to their temples? How addition of one in tetees-caror can manage to corrupt Hindu religion? If the number and variety of gods corrupt it then it is already unredeemable corrupted.
For a change Uma Bharati is right when she says that “looking upon someone as a god was people’s personal opinion …”. That always have been the Hindu view regarding gods. There are plenty of Muslim fakir and even worriers who are being worshiped by Hindus in rural India, albeit at a smaller scale and in a local population.
It seems the Shankaracharya is deviating from Hindu attitude to creating and worshipping gods. We all have our right to create as many gods as we please, and in as many shapes and size as we please, to boot. Our gods do not even need to be all good, they can happily have some elements of maliciousness in them.
The second question: When the truth contradicts religious sentiments which should have priority?
We are living in a secular democracy. The claim that the Sai baba was a man, and a Muslim fakir is true enough. That worshiping Sai Baba is corruption of Hinduism is the Shankaracharya’s opinion. So are her claims that (i) a Muslim should not be worshipped, (ii) Sai Baba temples are being created to deflect attention from Rama Temple, and (iii) Sai Baba is no symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Now the issue is: if the one true statement and several opinions of the Shankaracharya hurt Sai Baba devotees’ sentiments can one file an FIR and drag him to the court?
As I said above we are living in a secular democracy, which guarantees freedom of expression. That right is extended to all citizens of India, the Shakaracharya included.
Sai Baba was a human, was a Muslim fakir and could not have been a god, as there is no such thing as god. If all this hurts Sai devotees’ sentiments, too bad. They should either change their belief system or learn not to get hurt so easily. However, they have a perfect right to worship Sai Baba as god if they like; after all everyone is free to be deluded or even a hypocrite.
The Shakaracharya of course is free to express his views, in this matter. But he can hardly be said to be following Hindu cannon in holding and expressing the beliefs that a Muslim cannot be worshiped by Hindus as a god, or that creating new gods will corrupt Hindu religion.
I don’t even think that there is such a thing as THE HINDU RELIGION. What we call Hinduism is more like a basket of several religious sects exhibiting a family resemblance. There is plenty of room in this basket for many more panthas. So don’t torment yourself, Your Holiness, as long as this creativity and variety is allowed Hinduism is in no danger.
******
Thinking Aloud 
Rohitji,
A very well balanced commentary on differing positions in this matter. I find myself almost in complete agreement with you, except the statement that creation of god’s is for some kind of social-political-economic gains. I personally think this has very intimate links with human psychology, people’s emotional needs, insecurities, fears, vulnerabilities and the like. In face of uncertainties of life and death, and the terrifying prospect of taking complete responsibility of one’s actions, their outcomes, failures, losses, and also beating by a thousand uncontrollable larger factors in front of which individual’s feel puny and helpless, people need a god to protect themselves emotionally. They need to feel that somewhere someone/something larger than all vagaries of life bothers about them personally, and can be approached to help them change their individual course of life. Of course, religious priests and faith-healers have endlessly exploited this tendency, but the cause seems to lie in the human psyche itself.
anshumala
LikeLike
Agreed. I was commenting more on the “creators usets” of gods than on all worshippers.
LikeLike
Hmm
I think the history of religious psyche always reflected socio-economic and political gains.
LikeLike
🙂 this says it all: “So don’t torment yourself, Your Holiness, as long as this creativity and variety is allowed Hinduism is in no danger.” and all along the problem seems to be our inability to accept this basic idea of/about Hinduism. i realised how true this is and how incorrect most of our dominant understanding of religion (in general) could turn out to be, when i read Donna Jordan’s “Sakti’s Revolution: Origins and Historiography of Indic Fierce Goddesses”; it talks in some detail of older pagan religions, the shift to organised religions and the related technological and ideological changes. perhaps, more importantly, recent enchantment (about 200 yrs old?) with monotheism has to be understood within its colonial-nationalist historical context as well. but i can see that one can respond to some of this divisive and foolish propaganda without invoking all these demanding debates. and quite effectively…if only it could assuage His Holiness’ hurt too 😀
LikeLike
Sir
Your article reminded me about the holy shrine Sabarimala: holy abode of Lord Ayyappa in Kerala. It is obligatory for a Sabarimala pilgrim to first visit the dargah built in honour of a Muslim saint ‘Hazrat Vavar Baba’ who is regarded as a close friend of Ayyapa Swami at Sabarimala temple. Pilgrims to Sabarimala temple have to visit the dargah first and then proceed to the main temple otherwise the pilgrimage cannot be regarded as complete. This element of the pilgrimage is its beauty and can be regarded as a model of Hindu- Muslim unity. It surely gives a blow to the communal forces in town. I wonder what reply Shankaracharya would have regarding this holy pilgrimage? So what if Sai Baba was a muslim? I don’t think worshiping him or any other fakir/saint would corrupt the so called hindu religion as long as we embrace the true nature of Hinduism which is like a broad umbrella that accepts everyone’s faith no matter what name we give it. Therefore, I totally agree with you when you say that “There is plenty of room in this basket for many more panthas.” As long as we have this broad view about Hinduism, there is no danger at all. The only danger then to us are the words of those prominent people who try to narrow down this beautiful wide picture thereafter inviting in more communal riots.
I personally believe that the creation and worshiping of Gods was necessarily an act of faith in the beginning and was not motivated by socio-political-economic gains. But in the current scenario as we all know, with more temples than toilets, the state-temple-corporate complex and with the coming in of more and more self-styled godmen/women, it is definitely motivated by socio-political-economic gains. There is a difference between faith and blind faith which people need to understand or else incidences like that of Asaram Bapu, Nithyananda etc. will keep reoccurring. So even when we agree with Uma Bharati, we should not forget that while ‘looking upon someone as ‘God’ and making personal opinions’, we should never let our power to think rationally and critically go for a stroll in the park. The ability to think critically and rationally is the need of the hour because it will keep us safe from getting exploited in the name of religion.
Rekha Bhaskar
LikeLike
Please let me know if you’re looking for a article writer for your weblog.
You have some really great posts and I feel I would be a good asset.
If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d really like to write some material for
your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please send
me an email if interested. Kudos!
LikeLike
Utter ignorance of everyone here Who just keeps ranting on blogs for money without even accepting facts 😂and yeah there’s no Muslim friend of ayyappa it’s an invaders dargah don’t you Muslim invasions on India and the damage they caused? Keep singing Hindu Muslim bhai bhai, you’ll too will meet the same fate
LikeLike