India’s Lord Spiritual

                                

Last Sunday, on 19 March 2017, a man in orange robes and shaven head, the head priest of a famous Indian temple became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state with a population of 224 million. Outside of India, only China, USA and Indonesia have more residents. Uttar Pradesh boasts of the picturesque Taj Mahal. Lord Vishnu’s two well-known incarnations, Rama and Krishna were born in this state. Many Indians, including me, were uncomfortable at the sight of a monk assuming a high political office. This article is a rambling to figure out why we feel this discomfort.

Double hatted minister

Funnily enough, this choice should not come as a shock if we look at the original meaning of the word minister: a member of the clergy, a priest. In ancient times, superstition - and not science - ruled the world. Priests were often the most educated lot. They usually achieved that by keeping others away from education. Kings represented God. When Christianity was formalised, politics and religion fought for supremacy. Kings wanted Popes to report to them, but Popes controlled civil matters. In the 16^th century, Henry VIII asked the Pope’s permission to annul his marriage. When the Pope refused, King Henry VIII along with his kingdom abandoned Catholicism by forming the Church of England. In England, till today, the Monarch is the supreme governor of that Church.  

The House of Lords, English parliament’s upper house, has 26 bishops appointed as Spiritual Lords. They take part in debates and vote just like their peers. One of them reads the prayer aloud to commence the day of the Legislature.

The ecclesiastical attire

Those 26 Bishops wear a prescribed sacred uniform. Dress is an important part of our identity. Where attire is concerned, all religious institutions maximise their efforts to minimise sexuality. Cassocks and long shapeless skirts are imposed to hide curves and contours, heads are shaven or covered, Christian clergy wear collars, Indian monks usually smear their foreheads. Materials and styles signify a church hierarchy. Colour is very important. Even secular people are particular about a mourning dress. Possibly for contrast, white people wear black, and Asians (Indians, Japanese) wear white at funerals.

I asked myself whether a Chief Minister in orange robes and shaven head had made me feel uneasy. Muslim men with long beards, women in black Burqas, Jews wearing Kippot (skull caps), Jain nuns in white sarees make me wonder why they need such a visual display of their group identity. Is it insecurity of some sort, or excessive loyalty to their religious beliefs, or a minority symbol? Well, Yogi Adityanath, the monk politician, doesn’t belong to any minority community. Though heading the state, he continues to wear the uniform of a Hindu monk.

That could be one source of discomfort. Then I remembered India’s previous Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, wore a turban and a beard, a uniform for Sikh males, throughout his ten-year tenure. That had never bothered me, so why this reaction now?

The American secretaries

Have you ever wondered about the weird titles in the American cabinet? Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State (an Indian friend of mine thought she was given that job because she was a woman), a title difficult to understand for non-Americans. As a matter of fact, Secretary of State is the Minister of Foreign affairs and Secretary of the Treasury is simply the Minister of Finance. The USA has no ministers and no ministries; they have secretaries and departments instead. 

The probable reason is the desire of America’s founders to keep throne and altar separate at any cost. They couldn’t even tolerate words common to religion and politics. The American Bill of Rights (15 Dec 1791) proudly proclaimed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  

Separation of State and Religion

Why should the State and Religion be separated? I can offer three main reasons.

First, political governance is a geographic concept. A President or a Chief Minister is elected to govern an area defined by boundaries. Religion transcends such boundaries. The Catholic Pope goes around the world addressing his religious followers, and recommending conversions. Muslims anywhere in the world must face Mecca in Saudi Arabia while saying Namaz. These are clearly examples where State and Religion are in conflict. Even when a Parish Priest has his geographical boundaries defined, he serves only those believers in his parish who belong to his religion, not the entire parish. 

Second, a democratic state aspires to improve the material conditions of its citizens. This is achieved through scientific progress, business, commerce, by applying economic laws. Science is based on reason, religion is based on faith. Scientific method requires questioning and evidence. Religion is allergic to scientific method. We are expected to believe in and communicate with a variety of Gods (or a single God) without having seen or met one.

It’s known that as science advances, religion declines. So, it’s a strategic imperative for all religions to thwart the progress of science. Catholic priests oppose abortion and contraception, Imams insist on enforcing 14-centuries-old Sharia, and Hindu priests term beef-eating as the biggest disaster facing mankind. (Many Hindus are secretly happy to eat Big Macs abroad). This known desire of all religions to keep their followers primitive, directly contradicts the desire of political governance to make progress.

Third, the difference between the material and spiritual world. State and political governance are expected to deal with the material world, build bridges and roads, collect taxes; provide security, housing, water, electricity, issue identity documents.

Most priests are asked to renounce the material world. Instead of wearing t-shirts and Jeans, they wear freak uniforms. They are required to suppress their natural urges and devote themselves to God. By claiming this hardship as a sacrifice, they become God’s middlemen. God’s agency is their source of religious power. Religious power is historical, acquired in medieval times by making fool of gullible, superstitious masses. Progressive governments in the 21^st century can’t allow religious power to interfere in political governance. 

How to keep them separate

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. [The Bible (Matthew 22:21), (Mark 12:17)]

The eligibility to contest elections in democratic societies generally requires two conditions: a minimum age and length of residence in the candidate’s constituency. A secular state cannot prevent anyone satisfying those two conditions from contesting an election. No reasonable grounds to stop a priest from becoming a political candidate.

Catholicism, probably the world’s most organised religion, prohibits its priests from taking up a political office. No Pope can become a President. [(Canon 285.3” Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power. (Code of Canon law)]

Hinduism is, like most things in India, disorganised. Hinduism has no founder, no single divine book, no pope, no congregations and no code of conduct. It’s too much to expect that Hinduism will ever prohibit temple priests from assuming political offices.

The danger called Theocracy

We saw above that a Temple Head Priest becoming a Chief Minister presents a case of conflict of interest. Normally, such conflict is resolved by the Chief Minister giving up his regular job while he occupies the political office. A businessman or a lawyer can do it, but a priest? On becoming the Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath should wear shirts and trousers, grow hair, and resign as the head priest. But God’s men can’t do it. Neither can they leave their religious beliefs behind. (You may notice I haven’t discussed Yogi Adityanath as a person. His biography suggests he is not a Hatha-yogi, but a Hate-yogi. But even if he was a good or civil man, in principle it is wrong to appoint him.)

Some people are worried about the 20% Muslims in Uttar Pradesh under the rule of a firebrand Hindu monk. But it’s not only the Muslims. What about the atheists and agnostics? What about the progressive Hindus, who love to eat beef and hate moral policing?

A theocratic state is one where a priest rules in the name of God. The fatwa-fan Ayatollah Khomeini and his equally worthy successor Ali Khamenei have blessed Iran with their supreme leadership. Iran is the logical conclusion of any place where religious and political power is united in the same person.

That is the gravest danger posed by the appointment of a temple priest. God save Uttar Pradesh.

Ravi