Insulting Hindu Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand Is the Biggest Mistake of the BJP Government in India
In India, religion is not merely a matter of personal faith; it is a living civilizational force that shapes social ethics, collective memory, and political legitimacy. When a government is perceived to disrespect a figure who embodies that civilizational continuity, the consequences are profound and long-lasting. The controversy involving Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand has therefore emerged as one of the gravest political and cultural missteps of the BJP-led establishment.
This episode is not just about crowd control, protocol, or administrative discretion. It is about symbolism, dharma, and the fragile trust between political power and spiritual authority in a country where the two have historically coexisted through mutual respect.
The Unassailable Civilizational Authority of a Shankaracharya
A Shankaracharya is not an ordinary religious leader. The institution traces its lineage to Adi Shankaracharya and represents one of the highest custodians of Sanātan Dharma. The four mathas—established to preserve Advaita Vedanta and Hindu orthodoxy—have guided Indian society for over a millennium.
For millions of Hindus, a Shankaracharya is a moral and spiritual compass, not a political actor. Historically, kings and rulers sought their blessings before coronations, wars, and major civilizational decisions. Their authority rests not on force or popularity, but on continuity, scholarship, renunciation, and dharmic legitimacy.
To insult or humiliate such a figure is not perceived as an administrative action—it is seen as an affront to tradition itself.
A Direct Contradiction of the BJP’s Core Narrative
The BJP’s political identity is inseparable from its claim to represent and protect Hindu civilizational values. Temples, saints, rituals, and cultural revival form the backbone of its ideological appeal. When a government that projects itself as the guardian of Hindu interests appears to mistreat a senior Shankaracharya, it creates a devastating contradiction.
The question that naturally arises in the minds of devotees is simple yet powerful:
How can a party that claims to champion Hinduism appear hostile to Hindu spiritual authority?
This contradiction is far more damaging than criticism from ideological opponents, because it originates within the very cultural ecosystem that sustains the party’s legitimacy.
From Administrative Issue to Moral Outrage
Governments often justify such incidents by invoking security, crowd management, or procedural rules. These concerns may be valid in isolation. However, in religious contexts, how authority is exercised matters as much as why it is exercised.
Heavy-handed policing, lack of prior coordination with religious institutions, public confrontation, and dismissive communication transform a manageable administrative issue into a moral crisis. When a revered seer is publicly stopped, denied dignity, or treated as an inconvenience, the optics overwhelm the explanation.
In matters of faith, optics are substance.
The Magh Mela Incident and the Breaking Point
The confrontation during the Magh Mela at Prayagraj, particularly on Mauni Amavasya—one of the holiest days in the Hindu calendar—became the flashpoint. The traditional palanquin procession and ceremonial bath associated with a Shankaracharya are not privileges; they are centuries-old religious protocols.
Preventing such a ritual, coupled with allegations of mistreatment of disciples and the subsequent hunger strike by the Shankaracharya, elevated the incident from a local administrative dispute to a national religious and political crisis. For many devotees, it symbolized state arrogance overriding dharmic maryada.
Alienating Saints Weakens Cultural Legitimacy
Saints and religious institutions are not mere symbols; they are networks of influence that shape social attitudes at the grassroots. Monasteries, akharas, temple trusts, and spiritual lineages command loyalty that political parties cannot manufacture.
Once trust is broken, it is not easily restored. Religious institutions have long memories. Perceived insults often lead to silent withdrawal of moral support, open criticism, or passive resistance. For a party that relies heavily on cultural legitimacy, this erosion is far more dangerous than electoral opposition.
A Strategic Gift to the Opposition
The opposition did not need to invent a narrative; it was handed one. The framing was inevitable:
“A government that claims to protect Hinduism is insulting Hindu saints.”
This narrative resonates not just with opposition voters, but with devout Hindus who may otherwise support the BJP yet feel deeply uncomfortable with disrespect toward spiritual institutions. Such moments create cracks in what appears to be a consolidated Hindu vote base.
The Limits of Polarization
Polarization can mobilize support when directed at political adversaries. But it becomes counterproductive when it targets respected spiritual figures. A Shankaracharya cannot be easily dismissed as “anti-national” or “anti-Hindu” without provoking backlash across ideological lines.
Instead of consolidating power, such incidents risk uniting saints, household devotees, and apolitical believers in shared disapproval of the state’s conduct. That is a dangerous form of polarization for any government.
Law, Order, and Dharma Must Coexist
This issue is not about placing religious figures above the law. No one is immune from legal norms. However, dharmic civilizations have always emphasized maryada—restraint, propriety, and respect in the exercise of power.
A mature state enforces the law with cultural sensitivity. It plans ahead, communicates respectfully, and avoids public humiliation of revered figures. Failure to do so reflects not strength, but administrative and political immaturity.
Long-Term Damage to Hindu–State Relations
The most serious consequence of this episode is not immediate protest, but long-term mistrust. When saints begin to view the state as dismissive or hostile, cooperation during future religious events becomes fragile. Informal channels of coordination collapse, increasing the likelihood of repeated confrontations.
In a country where mass religious gatherings are a recurring reality, this erosion of trust is not merely political—it is a governance risk.
What Should Have Been Done—and What Can Still Be Done
The damage was avoidable, and it is not yet irreversible. A responsible course would include:
-
A clear acknowledgment of administrative lapses
-
Respectful dialogue with the Shankaracharya and other senior saints
-
Institutional coordination mechanisms between religious authorities and administrations
-
Clear protocols that balance security with dignity
Such steps would signal humility, course correction, and genuine respect for Hindu institutions.
A Self-Inflicted Wound
Insulting—or appearing to insult—Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand is not a minor controversy. It is a self-inflicted wound to the BJP’s moral and cultural credibility. In a nation where religion and identity are deeply intertwined, symbolic disrespect carries consequences that no electoral arithmetic can easily neutralize.
Governments may command power, but spiritual authority commands conscience. When the two collide unnecessarily, it is always the state that loses legitimacy in the long run.
