The controversy over yoga and the chanting of Om is superfluous and has been deliberately raised by certain sections of the people and the political establishment with vested interests
As the World Yoga Day approaches on June 21, a controversy is certainly going to start on whether ‘Om’ should be invoked or not at the commencement of yoga practices. It is not a secret that artists like Resul Pookutty have been inspired from the sound of Om, have used Om in their work and have even won the Oscar, accepting inspiration fromOm. The question, therefore, arises: Is chanting Om , practising yoga or any other ancient Indian tradition, can be reduced to an exclusive preserve of only one faithIJ Do Indians of some religion have no claim over cultural, spiritual, mystical symbols of India like yoga and OmIJ Should Resul Pookutty be told that since he’s not a follower of a particular religion, he had no right to use a cultural/spiritual/mystical symbol of IndiaIJ Should Indian culture and Indian history, which is believed to be approximately five millennia old, be relegated to a compartmentalised box based on religionIJ Can there be a common cultural heritage of all Indians under the Constitution of IndiaIJ
The Supreme Court of India had an occasion to consider whether Om is a privilege of Hindus only. In the case of Jagdev Singh Sidhanti versus Pratap Singh, in its judgement dated February 12, 1964, the Supreme Court, while answering a question with respect to use of Om symbols by an election candidate, held that “but it is difficult to regard Om which is preliminary to an incantation or to religious books, as having religious significance. Om it may be admitted is regarded as having high spiritual and mystical efficacy: It is used at the commencement of the recitation of religious prayers. But the attribute of spiritual significance will not necessarily impart to its use on a flag the character of a religious symbol in the context of which the expression religious symbol occurs in the section with which we are concerned…” The court further considered the efficacy of Om independently of any statute and held that “a symbol stands for or represent something material or abstract in order to be a religious symbol, they must be a visible representation of a thing or concept which is religious. To Om, high spiritual or mystical efficacy is undoubtedly ascribed; but its use on a flag does not symbolise religion or anything religious”.
Though the judgement in the case of Jagdev Singh Sidhanti , versus Pratap Singh has been partly overruled on the issue of interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People’s Act, in the case of Abhiram Singh versus CD Commachen (dead) By lrs & Ors, the adjudication on use of the word Om has not been disturbed, as the court answered a very limited reference. In the same vein as the Supreme Court of India the United Nations official website emphasises that “yoga is an ancient physical, mental and spiritual practice that originated in India. The word ‘yoga’ derives from Sanskrit and means to join or to unite, symbolising the union of body and consciousness”. This is the world-accepted benchmark to test yoga and its incorporation of incantation of Om as a Sanskrit word with it .
Precisely, Sanskrit is the bogey raised many a times, that it belongs to a particular community and is not common heritage. Sanskrit and yoga also share the same antiquity and origins relatable to Hindu religion. It is further argued that a Nehruvian view of secularism would not have allowed Sanskrit and Om to be used by the state. The apex court, in the case of Santosh Kumar versus Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development, in the context of common heritage of all Indians, quoted Jawharlal Nehru that, “If I was asked what is the greatest treasure which India possesses and what is her finest heritage, I would answer unhesitatingly — it is the Sanskrit language and literature, and all that it contains. This is a magnificent inheritance, and so long as this ensures and influences the life of our people, so long the basic genius of India will continue.”
What Nehru stated also finds reflection in fundamental duties under article 51A of the Constitution, wherein every citizen is obligated to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. Can it be argued that anything which has been existent in India, be it yoga or Sanskrit language before the first century, is not part of our composite cultureIJ The answer obviously seems to be a ‘no’. There might be a section of a particular ideology which may want to do away with culture, religion, belief or faith and would want to look at the world only in terms of proletariat and bourgeoisie. But that is not how the modern democratic civilised world is organised. The Supreme Court, in Santosh Kumar’s case, after considering all aspect of secularism, passed a mandamus directing the CBSE to include Sanskrit as an elective subject in the then syllabus under consideration.
As the market for yoga in the United States alone grossed to approximately $27 billion per annum, an opportunity has been missed by the policy-makers of India to provide employment to huge masses, may they be of any religion through an ancient, practice which not only has benefits for the body and mind but also for the economy and employment, while preserving the ancient culture of all Indians. But has India not already missed an export as big as softwareIJ