The Kumbh

By Rajeev Dhavan

THE KUMBH is an event of staggering proportions. By the end of February, it is estimated some five crore people will have visited the Sangam at Allahabad. The six weeks of the Kumbh will generate a local economy of some Rs. 500 crores. To this can be added the cost of externalities including sums drawn from the public exchequer. The event has drawn a bewildering variety of people, including a young woman from Latin America plastered only with mud praying to the sun and a revered Japanese woman, Ms. Kiko Aikawa, who buried herself in the sand for several days. To the pomp, ceremony and colour exhibited by sants and sadhus, nagas and musicians can be added the quiet prayer of ordinary people uninhibited by caste prohibitions. Congregated on the banks of the Ganga and the Yamuna is a variety that speaks respectfully of the diversity of the Hindu faith to permit people to celebrate their faith in their own way. The Kumbh recurs every 12 years. In the 1950s, there was a stampede in which people were injured and died. The Kumbh of the 1960s was uneventful but impressive. From the 1980s, a tingle of politics has premeated the Kumbh. This time, the occasion of the Kumbh has been used to give support to the Babri Masjid controversy and to renaming Allahabad as Prayag. These are both political controversies. The Kumbh transcends centuries. It should not be permitted to be entrapped in the petty politics of our times.

An event of this proportion is a challenge to Indian secularism. What is the role of the state in relation to public events of a religiously celebratory nature? This is where Indian secularism is vastly different from American or any other kind of secularism. Secularism concerns itself with guaranteeing (a) freedom of thought, belief and worship, and (b) ensuring that the state maintains a neutrality towards all faiths. The first limb of Indian secularism has been interpreted in an expansive way to cover all kinds of practices and forms of worship. The foundation of this was laid in Justice B. K. Mukherjea's judgment in the celebrated Srirur Math case (1954) just before the Kumbh of the 1950s. The Supreme Court devised an engaging formula that all ``essential'' practices and forms of worship will be especially protected because they go to the core of the faith. Unfortunately, this `essential practice' test was deliberately misunderstood by several judgments by Justice Gajendragadkar in the Durgah Committee and Nathwara Temple cases (1962-63) so that non-essential practice even though part of the faith, received virtually no protection at all. This has materially affected freedom of religion. Thus, in the Babri Masjid case (1995) doubt was cast on whether prayer in a mosque was essential to Islam. Since it was left to the Court to determine what an essential practice was, the Court often determined whatever it wanted. Thus, the Supreme Court told the Anand Margis that the `tandava' dance was not part of their essential practice. It took a brave and courageous decision by Justice Ruma Pal (then, a Calcutta judge) to demonstrate that the Supreme Court had been imperfect in its approach. Courts cannot redefine religious practices out of existence. However, courts are empowered to determine that some practices are not in conformity with the public interest. This is precisely what was eventually done in the Anand Margi case.

But, it is the second limb of secularism which requires neutrality that is at the core of many contemporary controversies. If `strict neutrality' were followed, the state could not be associated with any aspect of the celebration and functioning of any faith. Thus, in America, such a strict view of neutrality has resulted in various municipal authorities refusing to fund, construct or permit the construction of a Christmas tree in the town square. This seems a contrast to the evangelical tone of President Bush's inauguration. But, what is the state's role in respect of religious institutions and mega events such as the Kumbh? If strict neutrality were followed, the role of the state would be more than a policing role. Eminent jurists have argued that the state cannot spend any funds for any religious event or institution. Hindu fundamentalists sometimes criticise the Union Government for providing facilitative support for Muslims to go to Mecca for the Haj. When the 2500th anniversary of Lord Mahavira was celebrated by the Union Government, a writ petition was filed by one section of the Jains that the whole excercise was religiously improper. Mr. Justice Deshpande of the Delhi High Court avoided the issue by declaring that the celebration was for all Indians not just the Jains. This was not a satisfactory explanation. Expenditure spent for the upkeep and resoration of temples has been unsuccessfully challenged in courts.

But, on what basis is state financial support given for religious institutions and events? To begin with, there is a misconception that the Constitution prohibits funds being spent for religious purposes. This is not so. The Constitutional restraint is that no specific taxes can be raised for religion. There is no restraint on expenditure - whether to facilitate the Haj, support for institutions or, perforce, events such as the Kumbh. This is of signal importance to Indian secularism and why it is different from secular ideologies evolved elsewhere in the world. Instead of following a strategy of strict neutrality, Indian secularism follows an approach of a participatory benign neutrality. The State celebrates the diversity of India without being associated with any particular faith. It is on this basis that support is given to the enclave of monuments and infrastructure at Bodh Gaya in Bihar and for Muslim, Hindu and Christian institutions and events to ensure their continuance with dignity. Without this support, many religious institutions and events would collapse.

So far, even though pointed political criticism is highlighted towards support for Muslims pilgrims to the Haj, the maximal support has been given to Hindu institutions and events. This is inevitable. But it ill-becomes Hindu fundamentalists to deny such support to others on an equitable basis. The Kumbh is an example of the celebration of benign neutrality whereby the state has helped to coordinate the Kumbh and provide a range of infrastructure support other than just policing. This is something that Hindu fundamentalists should bear in mind. Hinduism has been a prime beneficiary of India's benign secularism; and not a victim of secular policies.

The Kumbh has generated two other legal controversies. The first relates to whether luxury tents can be permitted on the banks of the river just below the Allahabad bund which protects both the river channel and the city. This is before the Courts. The second targets photographers - especially the foreign media for `invading' the privacy of worship. Both controversies have some legal substance in them. If the Kumbh is an egalitarian event, it must level out opportunities for all. The critical question is whether the luxury tents prevent equal opportunities for worship. This not how the issue is being approached by protesting sadhus flexing their power muscles. The issue of prying photographers goes to the root of the question of privacy even if the person praying does so in the open. Yet, pre-censorship is hardly the solution. It is for the Press Council to ensure that guidelines are laid down to ensure that the photographic celebration of unique events does not invade the privacy of men and women in prayer.

But, what is disturbing is not these controversies but the political manner in which they were generated. The Kumbh provided the occasion to declare when the temple in Ayodhya was to be built, whether Allahabad should called Prayag and to increase the hegemony of sants and sadhus over media photographers and travel agents. Fundamentalist politics has found an uneasy niche in the celebration of the Kumbh. This does a disservice both to the Kumbh and Indian secularism.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Breaking a mindset
Next     : The state of justice - II