I respect the Shankaracharyas. They are wise people with intimate knowledge of Hindu scriptures. They can recite them chapter and verse. They can quote shlokas, dohas and chaupayees with the consummate ease of an accountant reading through balance-sheets.
They head peeths that are centres of learning and fountainheads of Hindu thought. But they have no business to tell me whom I should worship. The Shankaracharya is a guru, not a dictator. My religion is not institutionalised; it has no universally accepted head like the Pope is for the Catholic community. Nor is it monotheistic like Islam. As a Hindu, I have far too many deities that I can keep count of — some with several hands and more than one head; at least one with an elephant's trunk; another with a snake round his neck; and a third who has been projected as an incorrigible flirt. Some are fair, others dark or blue even.
This is not the end of the spectrum of my gods. I worship Hanuman who, at the end of the day, is a monkey. Even the rat is worshipped (although I must admit to not doing so) because it served as a vehicle for one of the deities. Trees and stones are worshipped too. If inanimate objected are given the pride of place in puja rooms, what is the problem if a human being, who many believe was an incarnation of god or had god's special blessing, is deifiedIJ
None of this has troubled me. They are all fit to be worshipped so long as I have faith in their godliness. Just as I have aastha in the Sai Baba of Shirdi. It does not matter that the Shankaracharya of Dwarka Peeth finds the Baba unfit for worship because the Baba was a human being, not god. Those who worship him see god in him. Why should that rattle the Shankaracharya, Swami Swaroopanand SaraswatiIJ He should have better things to do than to infringe on the lay Hindu's right to worship whom he or she likes.
The confrontation between the Sai bhakts and the Dwarka Shankaracharya has been triggered by the latter's out-of-the-blue remarks against Sai Baba. The eminent religious leader has resorted to the mumbo-jumbo lay Indians do not understand, and, he believes, that will impress and frighten them enough to eliminate Shirdi's saint from their list of deities. He has said the Shastras do not permit such worship and that no worship done in such illegitimate manner will fetch the devotee the desired results. Worse, it would be an affront to Hinduism.
If you know the Shastras, you are a scholar; if you don't, you can still be a devotee. Sant Tukaram did not know the Shastras, nor did Sant Gyansheswar. Meera surrendered to the love of lord Krishna; she did not have to be a master of the scriptures to do so. Tulsidas was lovelorn and no scholar of the Shastras. He wrote Ramcharit Manas that remains one of the two most important religious texts of Hinduism — the other being the Bhagvad Gita. The low-caste and a one-time dacoit to boot, Valmiki, penned the Ramayan. Has the Dwarka Shankaracharya, for all his scholarliness, given us anything remotely close to these epicsIJ For ages, the Shastras were used by the Brahmin class as a tool of dominance over the other communities. The Shastras were meant to unite the Hindus; they were used to divide. And, yet again, we see the same happening. The Dwarka Shankaracharya is using Shastra power against devotees of the Sai Baba.
There could be three reasons for the Shankaracharya's outburst against the Sai Baba of Shirdi. First, he is uncomfortable with the fact that a man whose religious identity remains mysterious should be worshipped by Hindus; second, he is disturbed by the enormous funds that are pouring into the various trusts that manage Sai temples — money that could have come into the kitty of the peeths; and third, he wants to push a political agenda by dividing the Hindu community. Since the Shankaracharya's devotees are likely to take umbrage at the second possibility, I shall not dwell on it, though I maintain that money could be a reason. But let's look at the first one. Shirdi's Sai Baba never identified himself as a Hindu or a Muslim; he said: “Sabka malik ek”. His devotes came from all sections of society, and his Hindu followers soon began calling him Sai Ram. If, as a Hindu, I can worship a stone or a tree which is religion-free, what harm can I do to Hindu religion by worshipping Shirdi's saint who professed the religion of humanityIJ Surely, it adds a feather in the cap of the broadminded Hindu.
Mystic poet Kabir (Hindu or MuslimIJ) had said: “Kabir kewal Ram kahi, sudh garibi jhali/kood badai budsi, bhari padsi kalhi” (Kabir says, utter Ram's name and work for the poor. Don't be foolish enough to indulge in arrogance; else you will pay heavily for it). May I ask the Dwarka Shankaracharya if it's not arrogance on his part to demean the beliefs of others and impose his writ on themIJ For them, their Sai Ram is supreme, not some Shankaracharya's diktat. I may not follow the stringent rituals of worship the religious heads are so much in love with — indeed I have yet to even pay a visit to Shirdi — but my devotion is no less deep.
Now let's deal with the political part. A large chunk of Shirdi Sai Baba's followers comes from Maharashtra, which goes to poll in a few months' time. The Dwarka Shankaracharya is a known supporter of the Congress, and the party is not expected to do well in the coming election. Would it not be great to divide Hindu voters into pro and anti-Shirdi Sai Baba camps and hope the division will benefit the CongressIJ When Union Minister Uma Bharti recently supported the Sai bhakts, the Shankaracharya's supporters went berserk, even demanding that she quit. Soon after, senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh came out in open endorsement of the Shankaracharya's position. The Dwarka Peeth chief is supposed to have renounced worldly temptations; why has he then been playing politicsIJ
As a small boy, I would listen with rapt attention to my mother's sing-song voice when she recited at the end of her prayers the invocation to lord Shiva: “Namami shamisham nirvan roopam/Vibhum vyapakam Brahma Veda swaroopam…” I understood nothing of it, yet tried to imitate her, much to her amusement, and have since then bonded with those words for a reason I cannot explain. To this day, they are etched in my mind, although I have never read through the mantra in full. No Shastra, no scholarly discourse that any Shankaracharya can offer, will be able to explain the connect. There's just one explanation: Faith. And it is this faith that the Shankaracharyas, the Sant Samaj and the Akharas must respect.