Ascetic Games
Page 18
Yet, the shankaracharya whose services the VHP has used the most is not Narendranand Saraswati, but Vasudevanand Saraswati, who, with the backing of the Sangh Parivar, has claimed that he is the ‘real’ pontiff of Jyotish peetha in Uttarakhand. Vasudevanand Saraswati has remained the most visible shankaracharya in the VHP’s programmes, presiding over most of its Dharma Sansads since 1991, after Jayendra Saraswati stopped participating. Vasudevanand Saraswati also has the distinction of fighting a three-decade-long legal battle with Swaroopanand Saraswati to establish his claim over Jyotish peetha. In September 2017, the Allahabad High Court rejected the claims of both and directed that a new shankaracharya be elected within three months by the pontiffs of the other three peethas (Dwarka, Sringeri and Puri), along with the Kashi Vidwat Parishad (KVP) and Bharat Dharma Sabha. Within weeks, Swaroopanand, outsmarting Vasudevanand Saraswati and the VHP, once again got himself elected as the shankaracharya of Jyotish peetha. Vasudevanand and the VHP contested this re-election, alleging that the last round of elections did not follow the procedure laid down by the high court. The case is still pending.
Besides Vasudevand Saraswati, the VHP also propped up Rajrajeshwar Ashram to destabilise the anti-VHP Swaroopanand Saraswati. Although Rajrajeshwar Ashram has got himself anointed as shankaracharya, he lives mostly in Haridwar, staying away from the Junagarh-based peetha—the stand-in peetha for the Dwarka peetha that is said to have been submerged in the ocean—guarded ferociously by Swaroopanand Saraswati’s men.
The VHP similarly spurred the proliferation of shankaracharyas, who recognised that the title would greatly help them in the growing spiritual market. This new breed of shankaracharyas, who are present in large numbers in the Dharma Sansads organised periodically by the VHP, are hardly ever attached to any of the peethas mentioned in the Sanskrit texts said to be written by Adi Shankara.
The Kashi Vidwat Parishad, a Varanasi-based body consisting of ‘learned’ persons from the Brahmin caste, has played a key role in the proliferation of shankaracharyas.12 Believed to be established around the mid-nineteenth century by legendary Sanskrit scholar Mahamahopadhyay Pandit Shiv Kumar Shastri, the KVP has remained an amorphous body marred by various claims and counter-claims. There is no record of its origin. The only authoritative book on the history of Varanasi’s Sanskrit scholars, Kashi Ki Panditya Parampara by Acharya Baldev Upadhyaya, talks of Pandit Shiv Kumar Shastri attending the meetings of the KVP, but says nothing about the origin of the body.13 The scanty references to KVP in this voluminous book talk about the body resolving issues concerning the interpretation of Hindu canonical texts, but the book does not touch upon the distribution of high-profile titles like that of shankaracharya.
During the 1980s, however, the KVP emerged as the bestower of coveted religious titles. Before long, these titles were up for sale, and there began an internecine fight among various groups of Varanasi’s ‘vidwats’, each claiming to be the real inheritor of Pandit Shiv Kumar Shastri’s legacy, and hence the real KVP. This fused with the VHP’s demand for religious leaders and triggered an exponential rise in the number of dharma rishis, dharmacharyas and shankaracharyas. Through much of the last two decades of the twentieth century and the initial years of the twenty-first century, groups of Sanskrit scholars claiming to be the KVP became a wild new industry producing shankaracharyas and other coveted title-holders rather frequently.
Occasionally, however, Varanasi’s Sanskrit scholars break their silence over the KVP’s new role. In 2004, for example, the KVP almost imploded when two of its prominent members—Pandit Ramyatna Shukla and Pandit Shivji Upadhyay—went out of their way to declare Dayanand Pandey, an activist of the VHP’s youth wing Bajrang Dal, as shankaracharya and gave him the new name Amritanand Dev Tirth.14 The question of who has the authority to announce a new shankaracharya has always remained a grey area, adding to the confusion of claims. The scholars even fabricated a new peetha for his sake—Sharada Sarvagya peetha—which nobody had heard of and which claimed to control a Sharada temple in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This angered the community of Varanasi’s Sanskrit scholars and both Ramyatna Shukla and Shivji Upadhyay were ostracised and expelled from the KVP.15 A few years later, Amritanand Dev Tirth was arrested and charge-sheeted as one of the main accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. ‘But by then Ramyatna Shukla had re-captured the Kashi Vidwat Parishad. By dividing Varanasi’s scholars along regional lines and mobilising support from those belonging to Banda district [Uttar Pradesh], he started calling himself as president of this body,’ claimed Pandit Kamlakant Tripathi, another member of the KVP.16
The factional fight continues, and so does Shukla’s control over the body. But the VHP, which fuelled the fight and and kept switching sides as the fight progressed, remains at ease, having largely accomplished what it had set out to do. There are many other instances of the KVP anointing a shankaracharya at the behest of the VHP. The proliferation of shankaracharyas and the VHP’s quest to undermine the pontiffs of the four main peethas have remained closely intertwined.
IV
It was this institutional backing that Achyutanand Tirth had taken for granted rather confidently when he set out to dislodge from Dwarka peetha a shankaracharya who had remained the biggest stumbling block for the Sangh Parivar. Much of his initial efforts—both before and after declaring himself the shankaracharya of Dwarka peetha in February 2017—involved an unusually bitter and public campaign against Swaroopanand Saraswati. He declared, at the very outset, that Swaroopanand Saraswati’s possession of the two peethas, Dwarka and Jyotish, was against the norms and that his continuation as the shankaracharya of Dwarka peetha was a total violation of Mathamanaya.
‘Moreover, no one is allowed to hold two seats of shankarayacharya simultaneously,’ Achyutanand Tirth told me a few days after giving up the title of shankaracharya.
These arguments were also printed in a series of handbills that flooded Haridwar after Achyutanand Tirth became shankaracharya. One such pamphlet, which was distributed on the day of his consecration, was titled ‘Shastriya Paramparaon ka Atikraman (Subversion of Sacred Tradition)’ and was clearly an attack on Swaroopanand Saraswati, though his name was not mentioned. Detailing how the ‘reigning shankaracharya’ had occupied the Dwarka peetha with the help of his ‘money and muscle power’ and in violation of all the provisions of Mathamanaya, the pamphlet exhorted ‘all the akharas and their associated ashrams’ to come forward in defence of sanatan dharma and ‘expel such acharyas’. Several other handbills, issued by an unheard of outfit, Akhil Bharatiya Shri Dharmaraksha Sena, levelled unsubstantiated and highly provocative charges against Swaroopanand Saraswati. At least two of these pamphlets also attacked Narendra Giri, the head of Niranjani akhara, who in his capacity as the president of the AIAP had taken a public stand against Achyutanand Tirth’s bid to become shankaracharya.
To send a message to the Sangh Parivar, which had not come out in the open to back his claim, Achyutanand Tirth got Sumeru peetha shankaracharya Narendranand Saraswati—a prominent member of the VHP’s Kendriya Margdarshak Mandal, the highest decision-making body in the outfit—to preside over his consecration ceremony. After the ceremony, Narendranand declared: ‘Swaroopanand Saraswati does not deserve to be a shankaracharya. Therefore, the sadhu community decided to remove him and appoint Achyutanand Tirth in his place, for Achyutanand Tirth fulfils all eligibility conditions.’17
No sooner had Achyutanand Tirth got himself declared as the shankaracharya than he launched a crusade to protect the holy river Ganga and proclaimed unflinching loyalty for Prime Minister Modi. ‘No one except Narendra Modi has done as much for Ganga as I have. I walked along the length of the river twice, first from Gomukh to Haridwar and then from Haridwar to Patna,’ he said as he showed me some of the photographs he claimed were taken during his journey. ‘By the way, which seer went to Kargil when our jawans were dying on the front, sacrificing their lives to save our nation? Only I did.’
But none of this seemed to ha
ve worked. Instead of coming forward to support him, the VHP stayed away from the entire controversy. A close aide of Achyutanand Tirth who preferred to remain anonymous, said, ‘It was shocking. Achyutanand Tirth had done so much for the VHP. Yet it never tried to persuade the Dasanami akharas to not go against him even when he was facing a fierce attack from Swaroopanand Saraswati. Why on earth did the VHP try to strengthen the hands of Swaroopanand Saraswati?’
Since the akharas were in danger of losing their credibility further by supporting Achyutanand Tirth, especially given the various controversies they were publicly mired in, any attempt by the VHP to prevail upon these monastic orders might have been counter-productive and created a distance between the VHP and Dasanami akharas. Letting Swaroopanand Saraswati vanquish Achyutanand Tirth was necessary collateral damage.
So when the VHP acted pragmatically, the Sanskrit scholars, whom Achyutanand Tirth had gathered from Varanasi and Delhi to attend his consecration ceremony as the representatives of the KVP, turned hostile. Of around the dozen Sanskrit scholars who were at the ceremony, I talked to three—two from Varanasi and one from Delhi—and discovered that none of them were associated with the KVP. Interestingly, all three claimed that they were misled into attending the consecration. ‘I was told that there would be a conference of Sanskrit scholars who would debate on dharma shastras. It was only after reaching Haridwar that I realised that the real purpose of the ceremony was to declare Achyutanand Tirth as the shankaracharya of Dwarka peetha. However, I did not take part in the consecration part of the ceremony. After the consecretion, I was invited to speak on Adi Shankara’s rationale behind establishing the four peethas. I deliberated on the issue for nearly an hour and then left the venue,’ recounted Professor Anjaneya Shastri of Vaidik Darshan department, Banaras Hindu University.18
Hariprasad Adhikari, vice president of the Kashi Pandit Sabha and a professor at Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, who also attended the ceremony said, ‘All I was told when I got the invitation from Achyutanand Tirth was that a conference of Sanskrit scholars would be held on the day of Shivratri. I knew of him and so I accepted the invitation. I discovered the real purpose of the event only after I reached Haridwar. But since I had accepted the invitation, I attended the ceremony but made it clear to everyone that I had not come to declare Achyutanand Tirth as shankaracharya of Dwarka peetha.’19
Professor Ramesh Kumar Pandey, vice chancellor of Delhi-based Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri National Sanskrit University, attended Achyutanand’s consecration ceremony thinking he would be taking part in the annual festival of the magnificent Bhuma Niketan temple in Haridwar. ‘I was late and reached there around two in the afternoon. As I entered the town, I was struck by the hoardings along the road declaring Achyutanand Tirth as the shankaracharya of Dwarka peetha,’ he said. ‘Initially, I ignored that—mahants and swamis have the habit of using laudatory titles with their names in public posters and hoardings. Later, after I reached the venue, I realised that the entire event was meant to make him shankaracharya. But since I reached late, I missed much of the fun.’20
Achyutanand Tirth fell from the position of shankaracharya not because he did not do enough to secure the coveted title but because he had chosen the wrong time. But this was not the only time he had attempted to become shankaracharya. This desire had taken root in him as early as in 1996, when he attempted to set up a ‘Vidwat Parishad’ of his own in Varanasi. Back then, taking advantage of the internal strife in the KVP, he succeeded in attracting several of its prominent members. Many Sanskrit scholars responded to Achyutanand Tirth’s initiative and broke away from the KVP.21
The breakaway members held several meetings at Bhuma Adhyatma peetha, Achyutanand’s Varanasi ashram. Finally, after deliberating for months together, these Sanskrit scholars formed the Shri Kashi Vidwat Gaurav Parishad with Pt Shripatiram Tripathi as its president and Pt Kamalakant Tripathi as its vice president.22 ‘Within a year, the new body acquired the reputation of being the real incarnation of Kashi Vidwat Parishad. It continued like that for several years. Around 2003–04, Pt Vatukprasad Sharma started a drive to unite all factions of the Kashi Vidwat Parishad. He succeeded in persuading all the members of the Shri Kashi Vidwat Gaurav Parishad to return to the parent body. That was the end of Achyutanand Tirth’s initiative,’ said Pt Kamalakant Tripathi. ‘Achyutanand had made it clear even back then that he aspired to become shankaracharya. This was the impression I had when we started holding meetings at Bhuma Adhyatma peetha. But somehow, he did not press for it. Gradually, he even withdrew from Varanasi, and Shri Kashi Vidwat Gaurav Parishad fizzled out.’23
Pt Tripathi, who acted as Achyutanand’s point man back then and who was, therefore, made the sole vice president of Shri Kashi Vidwat Gaurav Parishad, agreed that Achyutanand Tirth could easily have become shankaracharya while the new body was alive. Achyutanand Tirth, however, missed the opportunity, or perhaps decided to wait for a more appropriate moment. But, the timing of it all, over which no godman has any control, is critical.
V
The decision that cost Achyutanand Tirth his exalted position stemmed not only from the Dasanami akharas’ wish to stay away from any fresh scandal but also from their desperation to blunt the charges levelled by the shankaracharyas of the four main peethas that militant monastic orders play a role in creating bogus, self-made shankaracharyas. Since the 2010 Haridwar Kumbh, these main pontiffs, under the leadership of Swaroopanand Saraswati, have increased their pressure on the Kumbh administration to allot them contiguous land so as to distinguish them from the fake shankaracharyas. Dasanami akharas, whose popularity has been dwindling, have been frantically opposing the shankaracharyas’ demand. Having enjoyed a star status in the Kumbh so far, the akharas fear that this might lead to the emergence of a rival focal point in the Mela area, which might eventually steal the show from them.
Traditionally, the camps of shankaracharyas in the Kumbh area have always been dispersed, with perhaps a few of them becoming localised centres of attraction for devotees. In contrast, the lane with the camps of the Dasanami akharas, which are grouped together, act as a popular hub for devotees. This might be affected if the shankaracharyas of the four peethas are permitted to set up their camps together, which would give them a chance to reinvent themselves and become a rival centre of attraction for devotees. The peethas were revered in the past and the shankaracharyas of the four peethas wish to rekindle the memory of this past glory; and there is no better way to do this than to have a focal point for them in the Kumbh Mela area, providing them a good opportunity to also distance themselves from the rest of their breed.
Partly because of this, no sooner had the 2010 Haridwar Kumbh begun than the pontiffs of the four peethas launched a fierce agitation against ‘fake’ shankaracharyas. The agitation, which created brief turmoil in the Kumbh, was spearheaded by Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati. ‘The agitation continued for nineteen days and, in the end, the local administration was forced to act. The administration had to remove the signboards of all the shankaracharyas, other than those of the pontiffs of the four original peethas,’ he said.
The agitation put the Shaiva akharas in an awkward position because they were responsible for awarding titles to many of the ‘fake’ shankaracharays. The AIAP, which was headed at that time by Vaishnava sadhu Gyan Das of Nirvani akhara, was divided on the issue. While Vaishnava akharas openly supported the demand, Shaiva akharas stayed away from the controversy. The AIAP, therefore, remained mostly inactive all through the agitation, with Gyan Das declaring: ‘Till the Maha Kumbh Mela ends, there should be no controversy.’
The demand for allocation of contiguous land came up again during the 2013 Allahabad Kumbh, and began surfacing as soon as land allocation in Kumbh Nagar began. The shankaracharyas demanded that they be alloted land near the Sangam, around a statue of Shankaracharya. They referred to this yet-to-form area as the Shankaracharya Chatushpad. The idea of the Chatushpad was mooted by Swaroopanand Saraswati and led on the groun
d by his disciple Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, while the shankaracharyas of the other two peethas—Nishchalanand Saraswati of Govardhan peetha and Swami Bharati Tirth of Sringeri peetha—consented.
The Kumbh administration initially agreed to this demand and allocated land to these pontiffs. But the moment the shankaracharyas started the construction of their camps, the Shaiva akharas collectively passed a resolution asking the Kumbh administration to annul the move, threatening to withdraw from the Kumbh if it did not. The administration caved in and rejected the proposal on the ground that the implementation of the idea of Shankaracharya Chatushpad would amount to ‘starting a new tradition’.24 The akharas succeeded in vetoing the whole thing.25
Miffed at the administration’s U-turn, the shankaracharyas declared that they would boycott the Kumbh unless their Chatushpad demand was accepted. Nirvikalpanand Saraswati, the secretary of Nishchalanand Saraswati, was reported in the media to have said that the Kumbh administration’s refusal to accept this demand was an attack on the Hindu religion and that the pontiffs would hold a discussion before responding to the development. Ramani Shastri, the representative of Bharati Tirth, said that the shankaracharyas of the four peethas were the highest gurus and that the Kumbh administration’s decision to reject their proposal was an assault not only on them but also on Sanatan Dharma. According to Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, ‘The Chatushpad proposal should have been treated as the commandment of our shankaracharyas. Instead of showing reverence for the proposal, the administration asked them to remove their camps from the proposed area. This means that in the eyes of the administration there is no respect for shankaracharyas.’ About a fortnight before the Kumbh was to begin, Swaroopanand Saraswati addressed a press meet at Allahabad and declared his decision to boycott it. ‘In Kumbh Mela, people come to secure the life after death. For this, they should get the guidance from proper gurus. In the absence of Chatushpad, this won’t be possible. I am, therefore, leaving the Kumbh area in protest,’ he announced before departing for one of his ashrams in Madhya Pradesh.26