The arrest of the Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram as an accused in a murder case has led to a great deal of debate on a variety of issues, ranging from the lukewarm nature of Hindu protest to the propriety of arresting a man in his position. | |
| In passing, the political aspects of the arrest have also come in for comment. Where the first is concerned, namely the near-total absence of serious protest, it is perhaps indicative of the extent to which brahminism has slipped, especially in Tamil Nadu. |
| |
| As for the rest of the country, Kanchi door ast. Where the second issue is concerned, that of treating him differently because he happens to be who he is, the point has been made that if politicians can be treated with such great consideration when they are arrested, why not the Shankaracharya? |
| |
| In fact, the analogy is wrong because both notions spring from the ingrained Hindu notion that the status of a person before the law depends on his or her status in society. |
| |
| It is part of Manu smriti that punishment for the same crime must depend on the caste of the accused person. Those higher up in the caste ladder get lighter punishments, and vice versa. |
| |
| That this is completely inimical to modern society does not seem to occur to those who are complaining that while the "law must take its own course" the Shankaracharya should have been treated as a VIP. The point of course is that where the law is concerned there ought not to be any VIPs. |
| |
| It is worth bearing in mind that the murder itself is said to be the result of the victim crying foul over the financial affairs of the Kanchi mutt. |
| |
| What should be debated in this context is the larger issue of the place that religious institutions occupy in the political space of a country. In a secular country, where secularism is defined as a state where religion remains in the private domain because the government does not side with one religion or the other, it would be all right to leave religious bodies to their own devices. |
| |
| But when they enter the political space, the state has an obligation to ensure that they conduct themselves with the probity and integrity that is normally required of other such players""and this should apply just as much to the Kanchi mutt as to the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. |
| |
| The reason is simple: these institutions control massive assets and very large sums of money pass through their hands. This gives them, if you will, temporal power along with the spiritual power they traditionally enjoy. |
| |
| One way to mitigate the effect of the problems that such centres of spiritual and temporal power can create is to ensure that they spend the money that they receive, for strictly non-political purposes. |
| |
| The contrary example of Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanam notwithstanding, the bad way to do it is for the government to take direct charge. A simpler and more effective way would be to ensure that there is proper auditing of such institutions' accounts and better accountability, so that everyone knows exactly what is going on. |
| |
| There is nothing like a bit of sunshine to heal a wound. Surya namaskar, after all, is a Hindu invention. |
| |
|
| |
