Reportage on the Rampal issue has only served to present a simplistic picture of a more complex situation

Modern gurus gain mass following through technologies such as the Internet, satellite television and social media. These technologies create not only a support base, but also greater possibilities of large-scale backlash. Media images of ‘jagat guru’ Sant Rampal’s followers defying police orders at his Hisar ashram and rumours that his private militia is ready to take on the might of the state has, however, only served to present a simplistic picture of a more complex situation. The Rampal case may be something more than just another instance of breakdown in law and order and the state protecting the public good against anarchic sectarian forces. Most media reporting, particularly television, has not bothered to inquire into the nature of the public that each side to the dispute, those supporting and opposing Rampal, represents. It has been conveniently assumed that the public that follows Rampal consists of lawless and simple-minded disciples of a power hungry and luxury-loving autocrat and that a munificent state now seeks to both ‘rescue’ his followers as well as restore the general rule of law for the benefit of all its citizens. The lines of good and evil may be, in fact, more blurred than this.

There is a local history of Rampal’s problems in Hisar. This has to do with his relationship with mainstream Hinduism. While one need not approve of every aspect of his behaviour and lifestyle, it is important to consider whether this episode relates to something other than the familiar media discourse of “a self-serving godman and his irrational followers.” Rampal is one of the very few gurus to publicly challenge the basic tenets of textual Hinduism, and particularly that version championed by the Arya Samaj. Among other aspects, his website lists the following “conditions” for potential disciples: prohibition on pilgrimages, intoxicating substances, fasts and shraddh ceremonies (ancestor worship); lack of compulsion in worshipping gods and goddesses; multiple ways of performing funeral rites rather than compulsion on strict orthodoxy; and prohibition of untouchability and dowry. The broader framework within which Rampal positions his religious ideology is that of the medieval mystic poet Kabir — he refers to Kabir as the “Supreme God” — and it is this which leads him to invoke Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Islamic traditions as constitutive of true faith.

Rampal has been openly critical of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj. In several of his public discourses available online, he characterises Swami Dayanand as being ignorant of Hinduism’s holy texts and misinterpreting their message. The Arya Samaj, as is well known, has deep roots in north India (and Punjab in particular). In many ways, the version of Hinduism that Rampal appears to promote would be anathema to adherents of the Samaj. In particular, Rampal’s championing of deviations from established religious practices related to significant events and processes such as births, deaths and social relations is also likely to provide fertile grounds for hostility between his followers and those who might see his utterances as sacrilegious.

Are Rampal’s followers simply dupes to his wily ways? Is he, like so many others, a guru who is merely concerned with self-aggrandisement — luxury cars and palatial houses — while making fools of his followers? Conflicts, both ideological and physical, between his followers and those representing other forms of Hinduism in Punjab and Haryana would seem to suggest that there might be more to the story and that the story is also about a longer history of hostility between different religious traditions in India. Kabir Panthis with their invocation of multiple traditions of worship and inherent iconoclasm pose a particular problem for orthodox religious traditions. In particular, they question both hierarchical dicta (caste, for example) as well as the processes and rituals that maintain them. And it is worthwhile thinking about how this aspect might be playing out in a situation that has been too simplistically portrayed as a problem of law and order and a godman with overwhelming powers over his credulous followers. Let us pay attention to the complex nature of the public rather than assume it has no mind, or politics, of its own. Does, in fact, Rampal’s public seek a place of its own, one that has been denied through existing religious dogma?

Let us remember that histories come to roost in the present ways in complex ways. How then does the history of questioning religious orthodoxies intermesh with the compulsions of the present? While it is too glib to say that Rampal is a revolutionary spirit seeking to overthrow established structures of power, there may be more than a grain of truth in the suggestion that his public position is unlikely to go down well with current political formations (in the traditional sense of party politics). Consider, for example, the fact that his Kabirideology is openly (whether wittingly or unwittingly, one cannot say) in conflict with the version of Hinduism that finds favour with many sections of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). If we simultaneously keep in mind the significant clout the RSS currently enjoys within political spheres at national and State levels, it is not difficult to imagine that Rampal might also have fallen foul of the state for specific reasons.

There have been several media reports about Rampal’s many acres of land, palatial accommodation, luxury cars, and the recalcitrance of his followers and their illegal challenge to the state (as we are told). However, there is hardly any reporting that speaks of the ways in which the terms of the conflict are not all as clear as is being made out. Television images are excellent at presenting a complex story as a visual spectacle, but other forms of media reporting do us great injustice when the big picture is dimmed by the seductions of the little one. It makes us easy prey to black and white views of the world.

(Sanjay Srivastava is Professor of Sociology, Jawaharlal Nehru University.)