Vikram Johri: The problem with abstinence

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

Among the many things we were fed about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's United States trip through his overactive PR machinery (or was it just an obliging media?) was the fact that he was on a fast throughout as the trip coincided with Navratri. Sections of the media, which focused on everything from his Madison Square Garden "performance" to the views of his army of "bhakts", seemed unable to digest, forgive the pun, this singular fact. The commentary on the fast was such as to attribute special powers to Mr Modi, what with repeated assertions that sought to remind the viewer/reader that the prime minister had been undertaking this painful procedure twice every year for the 40-odd years.

As with all things Narendra Modi, there was an element of fetishisation about the affair. His "extraordinary" ability to control his hunger even as he undertook a punishing schedule was celebrated; his face was analysed for signs of weakness. What Mr Modi went about doing was indeed impressive but it was no more than a personal choice. The moment we make this not about him but about something worth aspiring to is when we start to come across as naïve, or worse, fatuous.

Come to think of it, the entire pantheon of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its satellite leadership lays great stress on abstinence. When Mr Modi says: "Na khaoonga, na khane doonga" (I will neither eat - meaning steal - nor will I let anyone else), we are supposed not merely to gush at his scruples - but also marvel at his considered choice not to have a family, and ipso facto, not to indulge in sex. The yoga teacher Ramdev, for instance, has spoken of how his colleague Asaram did a great disservice to the cause of all such "saints" by meeting women in private. He himself, Ramdev was quick to add, never meets women followers in the absence of suitable company.

The vast majority of followers of the likes of Messrs Modi and Ramdev are family men and women who naturally lead lives that are anything but abstemious. Yet so deeply is the concept of self-sacrifice embedded in the Indian psyche that these public personalities automatically achieve the status of demigods. The idea that our indriyaan (senses) are out to deceive us into worldliness is so horrific to the Indian imagination that even people expected to know better fall for the charm (or blather, take your pick) of those who profess to control them.

Ramdev has constructed an industry around his practice of celibacy. Here is a man who built a brand of yoga that became a national obsession. He then, for no apparent reason, jumped into politics, aligning himself with the BJP. He now passes judgements on everything from black money to sanitation, and we are supposed to take him seriously. Why? Because he is a celibate. That is all. "But he really practises it", his followers counter with urgency.

The idea that someone is better solely because he practises celibacy or abstinence or any variations thereof is so convoluted that it would be impossible to bracket it under any dispensation (of ideas). The Roman Catholic Church is its followers' guiding light not because it is run by men who (supposedly) control their sexual urges. That may be one of the tenets of priesthood but to say that it derives its power from its keepers' celibacy would be fantastic.

Like Mr Modi's relationship with food, Ramdev's with sex is his choice and does not place him on a pedestal. The question assumes another dimension when we get to discussing Ramdev's views on homosexuality. Here is a man who considers homosexuals the scum of the earth and who promises he can cure them of their "disease" if only they would take some time out to do as he says.

Observe this hubris. The moment a man has told himself he is better than the others because he abstains, he is ready to assume the position of a moral arbiter. He is ready to pass judgement on others' choices and orientations. Ramdev's vision is completely bare, accommodating nothing that might be called understanding or love. That he is dealing, in this case, with homosexuals gives him the leeway to say what he pleases (no self-restraint there) since the vast majority of his followers, straight obviously, are in on the joke and would not mind.

The real wonder is precisely why his followers don't mind. Not just the gay thing, but what Ramdev's world view says about themselves. They must think pretty poorly of themselves, mustn't they, since they seem to worship this man who derives his sustenance and power from rejecting the kind of life they studiously live.

Beware the man who abstains too much. He is looking down on you even as his eyes radiate calm and his lips shed words of inspiration.