I was surprised to see the matter snowballing into a big controversy. In my opinion, once Dadlani and Arvind Kejriwal tendered an apology without any conditions, the matter should have ended. In Jain tradition, a much higher value is attached to apology - that of kshama (forgiveness). In Jainism, a particular day is celebrated as Kshamavani or "Forgiveness Day", a day of forgiving and seeking forgiveness.
On this day, every member of the Jain community seeks forgiveness for his or her faults or mistakes from everyone. This is considered to be the first step towards salvation or Nirvana. In the Jain tradition, forgiveness is an exalted form of non-violence - "it benefits both the forgiver and the forgiven." Tarun Sagar-ji was gracious enough and said there is no need for apology, that he is not angry. Yet the matter was politicised by the BJP and others. A protest was organised. Ill-will was harboured against Dadlani and AAP, where as in the great Jain tradition, the Michchhami Dukkadam (if I have caused you offence in any way, knowingly or unknowingly, in thought, word or deed, then I seek your forgiveness), once Dadlani asked for forgiveness, it should have ended. But then such is the nature of politics in our country, every issue becomes political.
A much bigger issue is should a religious guru like Tarun Sagar-ji be invited by the elected Haryana assembly to address legislators in the house? It is said that the Indian state is a "secular" state and religion has no place in the business of state; the assembly, being an arm of the state, should keep itself away from the religion, religious practices and religious gurus. It is said that the founding fathers of the Indian constitution deliberately adopted a secular state. The Indian constitution is secular in nature, though originally the word "secular" was not inserted in the name of India despite a very passionate argument put forth by the likes of K.T. Shah.
Music composer Vishal Dadlani referred to the speech of Jain monk Tarun Sagar as "monkery" on Twitter
The Constituent Assembly did debate this but decided against it despite the presence of such luminaries as Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and B.R. Ambedkar. There is no denying the fact that secularism is a western concept which clearly establishes the dichotomy between the Church and the State. Nehru did not find much value in adding the word secular if it was not practiced in reality. Our founding fathers did not want to adopt a western concept of secularism which thrives on the negation of religion. Indian leaders believed in secularism as being equidistant to different religions, based on equality and justice to all religious groups, to both the majority and the minority. But there was consensus that religion should live in the private space. Gandhiji said on 15 July 1947 - "Hindus, Muslims, Parsis and Christians, all are Indians. Religion is a private matter."
If religion should be in the private space, then religion should not enter the corridors of power. India is a multi-religious society; it did not opt for a state religion. According to the constitution, the Indian state observes tolerance towards religion, but does not allow it to eavesdrop in the business of state, it does not permit religion to dictate the functioning of the administration. it gives respect to religion but it does not allow it to interfere in statecraft. It is in this context that the invitation to Tarun Sagar-ji to address the Haryana Assembly violates the very spirit of the constitution.
As a religious guru, he has every right to preach and propagate his religion outside the precinct of the assembly. He can address legislators outside the periphery of the assembly, the temple of democracy, at a private place. As private citizens, legislators can receive religious preaching from any religious guru or saint. But once they enter the assembly, they are no longer a private person. They become the state and the state can't be seen to be entertaining religion. Religious gurus are also private citizens when they don't don the mantle of a religion. As private citizens, religious gurus like any other citizen can become members of the assembly and can then address legislators on secular issues like poverty, unemployment, women security, gender equality, drunkenness and other issues of development and social upliftment.
India opted for a secular state unlike Pakistan. Pakistan succumbed to the charm of religion and now everybody can see the price that Pakistan is paying for the same. The strange cocktail of religion and state has made Pakistan a failed state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was aware of the dangers of a theocratic state, he uttered the need for a secular Pakistan, but his untimely death hastened the process of Islamisation. Secularists like Ayub Khan and Z.A. Bhutto were not far-sighted. They could not withstand the pressures of religion and (initially) minor space conceded by them to religion turned Pakistan into a den of radicals and a place of bloodbath where a normal life is not possible. We the people of India should not commit the same mistake. Let religion live in our hearts. It should not dictate our public life.
With all due respect, I would like to listen to Tarun Sagar-ji, not in the assembly, but in our homes. It will be great for India if religion is not allowed to meddle in politics and functioning of the state.
(Ashutosh joined the Aam Aadmi Party in January 2014.)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.
