Guha’s flawed understanding of Gandhi and Hinduism: Why Chief Justice is within his rights to visit temples

Controversy sells. This has been true as long as the media has existed. Commenting on controversies, therefore, remains a surefire way of catching the public eye. The problem is, sometimes there simply doesn’t exist a controversy to opine on. What is one to do in such a situation? Well, simply roll up one’s sleeves and create a controversy out of whole cloth, of course. Ramachandra Guha’s recent article criticising certain temple visits and subsequent interviews by the Chief Justice of India is a masterclass in such an exercise. One would imagine that a defender of secularism like Guha would have no issues with a citizen of India exercising his freedom of worship, even if that citizen happens to be a public figure. One would be wrong. Judging by the acidity of the article’s tone, the Chief Justice’s actions appear to have struck something of a raw nerve. For instance, Guha writes with some disdain that the Chief justice ‘offered himself to be photographed’ while visiting the temples. Guha’s displeasure is quite surprising. In the past he seems to have had no problem at all with nine of the last ten Chief Justices praying at the Tirumala and Padmavath Ammari temples, as is evident from the lack of critical articles written about their visits. One also wonders why Guha did not bring his rhetorical flourishes to bear when in October last year Rahul Gandhi visited the Golden Temple and allowed himself to be photographed while washing dishes. Since he chose not to write anything at all about the latter two cases despite their striking similarity to the present one, one can conclude that there is some qualitative difference between these situations which is not evident to us, but is clear enough to Guha. Still, it must be asked: where was his righteous indignation before? And why has it arisen now — all of a sudden and in so focused a manner? The article in question seeks to examine the Chief Justices’ actions from Mahatma Gandhi’s perspective. It asks: “…what would he (Gandhiji) have thought of a serving chief justice making public visits to temples, and getting himself photographed and giving interviews about it in the process?”. Although this author has not spent “many decades studying the life and legacy of the Mahatma.” as Guha has, he ventures to say that the Mahatma would have thought nothing untoward at all. A public figure giving an interview hardly seems to be the kind of thing that would have given the Mahatma pause. Rather, he would have been well pleased to see respectful reverence shown toward Hinduism by the Chief Justice. Let us not forget, as Guha seems to have, that the Mahatma’s favourite hymn was “Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram”, and it was he who said: “I am a Hindu because it is Hinduism which makes the world worth living.” Guha then goes on to suggest that the Chief Justice ought not to be visiting temples “ten days before the inauguration of the new temple in Ayodhya, in a spectacular ceremony that shall be a mark not so much of Hindu piety, but of Hindutva majoritarianism”. With this statement, Guha elevates innuendo into an art form. What exactly is so wrong about the timing of the Chief Justice’s visit to the temple? What connection, if any, does Guha seek to draw between the inauguration of the Ram Mandir and the Chief Justice’s actions? Is this statement a comment on the court’s decision in the Ram Mandir case, of which the Chief Justice was a part? The article offers answers to precisely none of these questions. It contents itself only with making subtle insinuations. Whatever else one may say about Guha’s writing style, he most definitely has a flair for creating prejudice. Upon being interviewed in relation to his visit to the Dwarkadhish temple, the Chief Justice had stated that the Dhwaja flying atop Somnath Dwarkadhish represented to him the unifying force of humanity as governed by the Constitution, which binds us together. This is surely a praiseworthy perspective for a judge to have. Guha, naturally, disagrees. He goes on to make a lengthy analysis where he concludes that the Chief Justice’s remark is historically and morally unsound, pointing to the history of exclusion of Dalits and menstruating women from temples and citing stray instances of such practices continuing into modern times. It does seem rather odd that an earnest affirmation of the humanity found in Hinduism should draw such a caustic reply. Indeed, Gandhi himself recognised that humanity was at the heart of Hinduism and his temple entry movements were an attempt to bring that principle to the forefront of the religion. The statement of the Chief Justice was simply an expression of faith and not an attempt at some kind of scholarly historiographical analysis. The latter remains the domain of eminent historians like Guha. That being said, even a cursory examination of his analysis shows it to be a non-sequitur. Let us take his argument to its logical conclusion. Henceforth, are all public figures to be prohibited from drawing inspiration from the values of their religion? If the Chief Justice looks upon the temple Dhwaja and finds in it a symbol of humanity, he does so in accord with his own understanding of his faith. It is not for Guha, eminence notwithstanding, to interpret the Chief Justice’s faith for him. Not being content with his dissection of the Chief Justice’s statements, Guha then proceeds to question his intellectual acumen because he drew an equivalence between Hindu tradition and the Indian Constitution. Regrettable though it is that the Chief Justice of India must do without Guha’s personal seal of approval, he may take some small solace in the fact that he continues to enjoy the confidence of the Bar, his fellow judges and the public at large, all of whom appear largely unconcerned about his exercise of his freedom of conscience. Bizarrely, Guha goes out of his way to point out the Chief Justice’s “saffron kurta” and then says that making a public temple visit at this juncture in national history raises questions about his judgement. Using the Chief Justice’s choice of clothes as a lead-in to criticise his temple visit is certainly an impressive display of mental gymnastics, even if it is otherwise meaningless. Despite what appear to be increasingly concerted attempts to corner the Chief Justice on a variety of non-issues, none have found purchase. The saffron kurta controversy, if it can be called that, is now added to the pile of such unsuccessful attempts. In concluding his article, Guha was kind enough to remind the Chief Justice about Granville Austin’s words regarding the Constitution. Such kindness ought to be repaid and so, I would remind him of the words of Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan on the Hindu religion: “Hinduism is not just a faith. It is the union of reason and intuition that cannot be defined but is only to be experienced.” Perhaps if Guha spent some time experiencing Hinduism as Dr Radhakrishnan intended, rather than simply criticising it, he might come to see the value of the Chief Justice’s viewpoint after all. The author is the founding editor of legal portal ‘Lawbeat’. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views._ Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.