The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Re-engaging organised religion

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Dec 17, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Re-engaging organised religion

By N. Ravi

The travails of the Kanchi Mutt should prompt deep reflection on the part of religious leaders in general on how best to manage the temporal affairs of the institutions they run.

THE ARREST of the Sankaracharya of Kanchi on a charge of murder and the subsequent political convulsions have brought into focus the critical issue of the place and role of religious leaders and organised religion in the political system and indeed in the life of the nation as a whole. The outrage of the followers of the Mutt is understandable, and so is the protest of the Bharatiya Janata Party which has been drawing upon Hindu religion and the authority of religious leaders to further its political campaign and would now see the incident as eroding its own political capital. As for the rest, the initial shock over the allegations that seemed so out of character with the religious office has given way to a more open minded look as the case unravels.

First, it is time to re-examine public and political attitudes towards religious leaders in general and time perhaps that veneration and deification yielded place to a more critical examination. However strong the faith, one cannot take the almost reflexive position that a religious leader can do no wrong and search for other reasons and conspiracies to explain away serious allegations. A religious office has to be clearly separated from the person occupying it, who may be saintly or may be wholly undeserving of respect and trust. And followers of a tradition or members of a sect ought to realise that the defence of the faith calls for defending the doctrine and protecting a religious institution rather than an individual religious leader personally.

Not in all religions and certainly not at all times have religious leaders been venerated without question. Protestant Christianity, for instance, respects the clergy for its learning and dedication, but hardly venerates it. Even in the Catholic Church, the veneration of the Pope is a relatively recent phenomenon and has more to do with the respect commanded by the later pontiffs. In the 13th and the 14th centuries there was a great deal of scepticism and irreverence prompted by the conduct of the Popes, as Garry Wills points out in his Papal Sins. Painters like Andrea Orcagna included the figure of the Pope burning in the fires of hell. Dante placed most of the Popes who reigned up to his time, including Bonniface VIII who after a famous quarrel exiled him from Florence, deep in hell in his Inferno and went on to write:

"Here popes and prelates butt their tonsured pates

Mastered by avarice that nothing sates."

Such criticism was seen not as an attack on the religion, but rather as a lesson in human failing to be drawn for the protection of the faith. In Islam, despite the recent attempts by the clergy in Iran, there is no unified or centralised religious institution and the role of the clergy is to lead the prayers in the mosques and interpret the Koranic law.

In Hinduism the veneration of the guru is carried farther than in most other religions though only a few traditions actually require a person to follow any particular one. Even here, what commands respect is learning, asceticism and dedication demonstrated by a religious leader, and not by the mere fact of holding the office does an individual gain reverence. A great deal more of questioning and scepticism about individual religious leaders prevailed in the past. Kautilya in his Arthashastra speaks of ways in which holy men could be used as secret agents, with disciples sent to invent and spread tales of miracles so that kings can be enticed out of the safety of their guarded fortresses to places where they will be more vulnerable to assassination, which suggests a cynical attitude towards holy men in general.

Second, the rules of engagement of religious leaders in the political system need to be understood clearly. Religious leaders like people in any other sphere are entitled to their political space and to intervene in the political sphere to protect their faith or to advance specific causes, and one may give little or no credence to their views or could choose to follow them without question. In intervening in political debates, religious leaders invariably draw upon their religious authority which helps them in their campaign but which also becomes vulnerable to attack by opposing forces. Because religious appeal touches deeper emotions than transient political allegiance, when religious leaders take up questions such as the Ayodhya dispute that need to be resolved by the political system, the discourse itself tends to become more emotional. Yet the issues ought to be seen for what they are, as political issues rather than as matters of faith.

Equally, religious leaders might seek the support of politicians much in the manner that royal patronage was sought in the past for protecting and spreading the faith. Most religious leaders would want some influence over the levers of political power for the assurance and benefits that would ensue. And politicians seek out religious leaders for spiritual guidance and intercession with the divine, but more often for the political support that their followers and their networks could provide. The point to be noted here is that religious leaders entering a political debate would be treated with the same attitude of respect or irreverence as the other political players and their followers can hardly expect them to be shown any special deference.

The third critical issue relates to the structure and regulation of organised religion whose vulnerability to corruption has been recognised in the theology of many faiths. Cardinal Newman, for instance, explains that a tendency to corruption inheres in the church as it combines the office of the prophet, the priest and the king, each of which is vulnerable to different corrupting influences. In managing the affairs of a religious institution, the quest for the truth, religious observances, devotion and austerity sit uneasily alongside expediency, greed and deal making that may come into the handling of money and the managing of property.

So long as religious institutions were lean and austere, keeping their focus on religious observances and maintaining their traditions, they could make do with the ancient institutional practices and structures. In recent times, some of the more active and ambitious institutions such as the Kanchi Mutt have ventured into the field of education and health, setting up a vast network of institutions. This entry into the sphere of social service is unexceptionable, and is in tune with the teaching of compassion and giving which is central to all religions. Yet expansion in the temporal sphere brings in its wake challenges that overwhelm the outmoded systems of management that are in place. By the very nature of their office, religious leaders are credited with a certain omniscience, and they have the final say on all matters including mundane matters of management in which they are unschooled. Quite apart from the efficiency issue, the system is also open to abuse. In a milieu of rapid expansion, swelling coffers and unbridled authority over men and the riches, asceticism becomes a difficult matter of personal discipline and commitment. With little transparency and accountability within the institutions, there is hardly any external check on normal human failings. When Lord Acton spoke of absolute power corrupting absolutely, he was referring not to political power but to the power of the popes.

The task of reforming the religious institutions, particularly the larger ones, brooks no delay. However, any talk of the Government taking over a religious institution or refraining from doing so is meaningless in view of the religious rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Article 26 clearly grants any religious denomination or sect — most of the mutts would fall into this category — the right to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, to own and acquire movable and immovable property and to administer the property in accordance with law. While the state may impose restrictions and regulations, the administration itself must be left in the hands of the denomination and cannot be taken over.

Any reform then is largely a matter of a particular denomination or order changing the internal structure of its own religious institutions. Introducing professionals at different levels, consultative decision making by groups rather than individuals, openness and transparency in the working and separating the administrative from the religious functions could be some of the more obvious elements of reform. Combining the temporal with the religious in a way that is at once efficient and free from abuse in a culture marked by reverence and unquestioned authority is indeed a difficult challenge. The travails of the Kanchi Mutt should prompt deep reflection on the part of religious leaders in general on how best to manage the temporal affairs of the institutions they run. They have the opportunity now to turn this typhoon into a tail wind.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

SUSTAINING THE MOMENTUM

KILLING FOR SAND

Re-engaging organised religion

Bush's tactics unchanged

Venezuela-India ties to centre around oil