Sadhus and Maulvis should not be allowed to hijack the constitutional democracy. When Shri Ram is as much a Maryada Purushottam for Hindus as he is an Imam e Hind for Muslims.
Vivekanand Jha Ranchi, Maulvis and Sadhus should not be allowed to hijack the polity as per their whims and fancy. Notwithstanding the wide respect His Holiness Swami Abhimukteshwaranandji Maharaj, of Benaras, a likely successor of His Holiness Swami Swaroopanand Maharajjee to Dwarka Peeth, in the capacity of the next Shankaracharya, whose personal invitation for me to visit Benaras for discussions on Prof. G.D.Agrawal Sahab and the Mother Ganga is still pending, I take a strong exception on his latest outburst against our Muslim brethren, especially in the context of one Mr Saif Khan and other Muslim pilgrims who, with due reverence to Imam e Hind, Lord Shri Ram, have been traversing hundreds of kilometers for offering bricks at the Sanctum Sanctorum, in Ayodhya on 5th of August, 2020. His Holiness Swami Abhimukteshwaranandji Maharaj, suddenly going ballistic with his wanton aggression, tantamounts to undermining the very institution of age old secularism that remained the saving grace for the soul of Mother India. As I heard His Holiness Swami Abhimukteshwaranandjee Maharaj, on T.V, with his aggressive postures, dictating the stentorian command that Muslims should keep away from offering their bricks or any objects, on the occasion of the upcoming Bhoomie pujan on 5th of August, 2020 at the Sanctum Sanctorum in Ayodhya, I was astonished beyond the words could describe. Such was the level of my disgust over his observation that I called upon three prominent people instantly for their reactions.
All three, alike me, were equally astounded and anguished by the warning sounded by Swami of Benaras. My level of anguish with Swami’s remark was of such grave magnitude, that I began wondering how Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, the architect of Modern India, had the pioneering vision to insulate India from the clutch of the saints and Maulvis in order to make India a modern and secular republic. Suddenly my mind delved deeper into the incident that pertained to the revival of Somnath temple where Jawaharlal Nehru had put his foot down, despite such leaders like Dr K.M.Munsi taking the lead to reconstruct the temple, the ancient citadel of Lord Shiva. Small wonder then, when I had stumbled upon such stuffs, in course of my extensive research for my previous book The Making of Narendra Modi, Unmaking of Jawaharlal, I felt deeply saddened that why would Nehru, a Brahmin, notwithstanding the galore of fabrication of his antecedents available on net, would object to the revival of such an ancient citadel of India?
Especially when his successor, another illustrious statesman Prime Minister of India, Shri Vajpayee would speak so eloquently about it when he had famously said that if he were present when Ghazni had ransacked the Sanctum Sanctorum, he would have laid down his life but would never have allowed the desperadoes to escape with the booty. In 1996, perhaps the greatest speech ever delivered by anyone in the Parliament, India’s statesman Prime Minister while seeking votes on Confidence Motion, had famously said, ‘ Sir, we are not for a theocratic state’. Unequivocally, Ataljee was rejecting the concept of Sadhus and Maulvis dictating the terms to the nation, or interfering in the area of governance. In other words, Talibanisation of Indian society remained a forbidden proposition for BJP as well as for the Congress. More so, when India, due to the most credible vision of Jawaharlal Nehru, chose to pursue the path of secularism, the overall dominating influence of saints and maulvis in the affairs of governance was immediately sought to be given a decent burial once and for all. No wonder then the modern democracy founded upon Westminster Model of British Parliamentary democracy, sought to subordinate the role of saints and seers to managing the religion, and not the affairs of the state. In this backdrop, never in the post- independence phase, the saints and seers continued to enjoy the authority and the power to influence the segments of governance, even though they might have wielded the significant influence on the specific segments of population.
The Delhi riots in 2020, in no ambiguous terms, contributed to the fragility of Indian society as never before. Hindu- Muslim divide was an all time high. The social architecture of Indian society remained brittle which reflected in the recoiling of Muslims into deeper state of palpable silence. Regrettably, Sangh Parivar’s unedifying role in aiding and abetting the riots in Delhi, was a monster that broke the very summum bonum of underling secular spirit that hitherto kept the polity intact. Significantly, while Delhi riots, which shook the collective conscience of the nation, also triggered the awakening of the collective consciousness that had invariably slipped in hibernation over time amidst the frenzy of Hindu nationalism taking the nation by storm, with a Hindu mascot presiding over the nation’s affairs. But then Delhi riot at least was an eye opener even for thSangh, with Dr Mohan Bhagwat, despite national media going overboard on Tablighi Jamat for being instrumental in spreading Corona, giving the Prime Minister a clean cheat for inviting Trump in Ahmadabad, had the good sense to call 1,30 billion people as Indians. It was the time for healing the wounds of communal divides and seeking the integration
of almost 30 crores of Muslims with the national psyche. Dr Mohan Bhagwat’s comment signified that Sangh too, in all earnestness, had begun pondering the gravity of issue of communal divide and consequently was seeking to bridge it by promoting communal harmony. India, if it is to survive as a nation, it must adapt the concept and the vision of Swami Vivekananda which he spelled out so candidly: ‘
Vedantist mind and Islamic body’ shall constitute India’, With 30
crores of Muslims inhabiting the length and breadth of this country,
how could any political party or individuals even remotely contemplate
the repulsive idea to isolate them, to marginalise them or to reduce
them into the status of second class citizenship? Hindu- Muslim unity
alone is the recipe for the survival of our country. To treat them as
aliens or usurpers of our land and property, can only create a wider
gulf between the ommunities and shall open another door for the future
vivisection of our beloved Bharat Varsha. Hence in this backdrop,
Abhimukteshwaranandjee’s comment against those Muslims who, given
their overwhelming feelings for Imam e Hind, Shri Ram, traversing over
hundreds of kilometers to offer their heart felt salutations for the
soul of Bharat Varsha, should have been a welcome exercise, not the
object of such severe fulmination. Besides, even the apex court, in
the famous Kalyan Singh case, while defining Hinduism, had taken
recourse to Swami Vivekananda’s definition of Hinduism, had so
eloquently defined it as ‘the way of life’. Speaking in USA, Swami
Vivekananda had famously said, ‘ Everybody by birth is a Hindu, for no
prescribed ceremony has been ordained to make someone as a Hindu’.
Hence in this backdrop, Abhimukteshwaranandji Mahraj or, for that
matter, none has any locus standi to stop any one, least of all, our
Muslim brethren from offering their bricks at the Sanctum Sanctorum in
Ayodhya at Shri Ram Janmabhoomie. Abhimukteshwaranandji Mahraj or any
other saints or Maulvis should know India is not a theocratic state
and therefore their writs cannot run. Shri Ram is as much for a Hindu
as He is for a Muslim.
