Tinkering with Religion

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Consumption of food by the hungry, playing with a cricket bat for the youth or cooking on a gas stove for the homemaker are consumption which clearly lead to happiness. This is the ordinary situation. The link between consumption and happiness breaks down in other circumstances. For example Jain ascetics give up consumption of food and slowly embrace death and feel happy in doing so. Or, a young man fights for his religion and gives up his life. Or, a person living in a house having centralized air-conditioning goes for Hajj to Mecca or walks many kilometers to worship at the shrine of Kedarnath. It is clear that sometimes giving up of consumption begets happiness.
The connection between consumption and happiness is established through the heart. Consumption that is in tune with the heart begets happiness while that which is contrary to the heart begets unhappiness. Clearly, the status of the heart is higher because the heart determines which consumption will be good.
The tension between consumption and worship is embodied in our Constitution. Article 25 guarantees that an individual’s Right to Worship will not be taken away. This injunction is absolute. The State cannot deprive a person of his Right to Worship for any reasons whatsoever. Article 21 guarantees physical welfare. It is stated that one can be deprived of his life or personal liberty in accordance with law. A person can be deprived of his Right to Life if the Government feels that deprivation of his right to life will enhance the lives of many more. For example, if a lone farmer would refuse to shift from the submergence area of a hydropower project then the Government can forcibly evict him. The benefit to the large numbers of users of electricity would far exceed the loss to an individual. However, similar deprivation of Right to Worship for making a hydropower project is not allowed in the Constitution. There is no provision for depriving a person of his Right to Worship.
The distinction between Article 21 and Article 25 is reflective of the difference between consumption and higher seeking. Economic theory recognizes that mere increase in consumption does not lead to human welfare. For example, a study done for World Commission of Dams show that Human Development improves drastically from 0.2 to 0.75 as electricity consumption per capita rises from 0 units to 1000 units per family per month. Hereafter, further increases in electricity consumption do not add much to HDI. An increase in consumption from 1000 units to 10,000 units per month only adds a trifle 0.10 to the Human Development Index. Implication is that large increases in consumption of the rich are not adding to human welfare.
The twin objectives of Right to Life under Article 21 and Right to Worship under Article 25 can be opposed to each other. An increase in consumption of bananas by a person suffering from cold will beget him illfare, not welfare. A writer may be happier preserving his freedom than by making money by toeing the official line. A Mullah may be happy living frugally. This happens because these persons have evolved to the level of Article 25. They have recognized that unending consumption is a trap. They want to connect with God within even if that entails giving up consumption. Thus it can be said that human beings at the lower level of existence are focused on enforcement of their Right to Life under Article 21; whereas those at higher level of existence are focused on Right to Worship under Article 25.
We may analyze the happenings at Uttarakhand in this backdrop. There was a Dhari Devi Temple. This was coming in the submergence area of the Srinagar hydroelectric project. There is a tradition in Uttarakhand that the Devi descends on some person and speaks live. Two meetings were held between the Pujaris of the Temple and the Company in 2009. On both occasions the Devi appeared and categorically stated that she was not willing to be shifted from her place. On June 15 this year the Devi again appeared and warned that she will bring disaster if shifted forcibly. The Company persisted and lifted the Idol on the afternoon of June 15. Immediately thereafter disaster struck at Kedarnath.
It is disputed by the Government- and Dam authorities that lifting of the Idol has any connection with the disaster. They say it is mere coincidence. It does not help their argument, however. Our law has a concept of Precautionary Principle which states that something must not be done if there is a lurking danger. Precautionary Principle required that the Idol not be lifted because there was a danger.
This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court in the recently delivered Vedanta judgment. People of Odisha worshipped a particular Mountain as a living Deity. Vedanta wanted to do mining there. The Court said in no uncertain terms that Right to Worship of the local people could not be withdrawn for attaining economic growth. It directed the Company to proceed only if the local people agreed to mining. Consumption of minerals was denied for attaining Right to Worship. Unfortunately the Court refused to stay the uplifting of Dhari Devi Temple on the same principle. As a result the idol was uplifted on June 15th and disaster struck on June 16th.
Right to Worship under Article 25 stands on a higher footing than Right to Life under Article 21. A person can be deprived of his Right to Life under Article 21 by following a due procedure of law. For example, one person may refuse to shift from the submergence are of the dam. He can be forcibly removed because his removal would lead to welfare of larger numbers. However, such a deprivation of Right to Life under Article 25 is not permitted. It was unfortunate; therefore, the Court did not stay the upliftment of the Temple the disaster took place.
This concept of Divine Retribution is not unique to the Hindus. The Holy Koran and Bible give many such instances. For example, the Great Flood was brought upon the earth because wickedness had increased. Thus, the link between lifting of Dhari Temple and the Disaster is not merely a Hindu Imagination but is endorsed by all major religions.
India’s Sages like Vivekananda and Aurobindo and Iqbal have stated that India’s destiny is in the spiritual domain. We must not only reinstate the Dhari Idol but also prohibit such tinkering with Religion for economic gains. A repeat of such disasters is likely if man does not listen to his inner voice.

Follow our WhatsApp channel