The purpose here is to ask if there is a selective approach in regulating denominational efforts
India is a land of festivals. By the Gregorian calendar, each of the twelve months has some major festival celebrated in some part of the country. It has to do with anything, from a collective memory to the harvesting season. It is a welcome sign because it feeds the spirit of joy and merry making. It also breaks the feeling of drudgery and boredom from the routine. If Holi was to be celebrated in a particular way, that is the way it had to be celebrated. The same was true of Eid or Christmas or for that matter any festivity. It is only in the last decade or so that the governance regulatory framework started entering the method of festive celebration. A classic example would be how some agencies have put a frame on the bursting of crackers during Diwali or the way colour is to be applied and with what 'intensity' during Holi. The purpose of referring to these instances is not to pronounce judgement (which may be valid in its own right) but to flag the essence of an approach to how festivities are to roll out. Clearly, governance processes have not been bashful about venturing into certain expressions of ‘festivities’. Another analogy, at an operational level, can be cited. Any number of Hindu places of worship, from Kerala to J&K, have been taken over by the government. The revenues which are primarily from donation of Hindu worshipers are used as per government's preferences. Interestingly, no such intensity of attempt seems to have been made to regulate the management of income of the places of worship of other denominations, which could involve, Islam, Jainism, Sikhism Christianity or whatever else.
The purpose here is not to enter into that debate but to ask if there is a selective approach in regulating denominational efforts? The argument is simple: if the approach of managing the ‘governance 'of certain types of festivities and places of worship is 'beneficial' then the benefits of that approach should be made available to improving the festive spirit and efficiency of all denominations. If the approach that is being followed is not so sound, then it should be improved; applied even-handedly in every similar case. Consistency is a virtue in public dealings. The entire situation, reference festivity styles and governance, is quite complex. Commerce rides many waves of the festivities. And if volumes are significant, consumerism wins. Illustratively, consider the way Christmas is celebrated. By an estimate, in US alone, the retail industry during Christmas is worth around $3 trillion. The cutting of the pine trees in Europe is a business of $60million. In the UK, the slaughter of Turkeys during the festive season is worth $10 million. Obviously, consumerism is at the driving wheel. This means there is intense lobbying, advertising and whatever else goes with it to keep the business rolling. There is a close linkage between popular sentiments and consumerism which if 'commercially' tapped can be, operationally, a very 'enriching' and profitable process. One cannot handle these issues just by moralising. The response in the name of 'sustainable development' is not proving adequate in causing effective rethink, let alone reversing the depleting impact of consumerism. The time has come to fall back upon the eternal postulates of fair play, even handedness and sound judgement, to rethink how the human race can manage its material pursuits. This is the need of the times. This needs to be done before the current trends of selectiveness and 'consumerism' become too devastating to tackle in a sensible way.
(The writer is a well-known management consultant of international repute. The views expressed are personal.)