Ravi Shankar The Unwise

I had thought I would never share this incident with anyone. While reporting in this business of news we come across and see many things, but are unable to speak about all of them. Often it’s not important to do so, either. These conversations are informal, or sometimes off the record. A journalist needs to maintain the sanctity of these values.

But Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has crossed the limit. He wants to play a role in the resolution of the Ayodhya conflict and has been trying to find a way in for a while. His latest statements are dangerous and scary. He says that if the Supreme Court does not decide in favour of a temple, there will be a civil war in the country.

I saw this unveiled face in 2002 as well. That is the incident I am going to recount here. I was a reporter for a television channel. An invitation came from the proprietor/promoter of a large media house of the country. It was to meet Ravi Shankar at the media promoter’s place. This invitation came via a senior of mine. The group of 5-6 journalists who went included the editor of this group’s newspaper and the senior who had invited me. These were the days just after the Gujarat riots. As soon as he got in, Ravi Shankar said he had gone to meet then Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani. He said some other thing as well – which were meant to impress that he was extremely concerned about the situation in the country and was working to reinstate peace and brotherhood.

In a little while came forth this dialogue – wo log bade hi kattar hote hain. Quran mein toh likha hain, pata nahi sau ya aise hi kuch logon ko maar kar musalman ko ghazi ki upadhi mil jati hai. (those people are quite fanatical. It is said in the Quran that if they kill a hundred or so people a Muslim attains the title of Ghazi (a warrior general). He repeated this line, and then went around explaining it. I was the junior-most in this group. When I noticed that no one else made any comment on his statement, I gathered my courage and very politely asked him where was this written and had he read it himself? I added that I believed what he was saying was incorrect and that he shouldn’t say things like that. Ravi Shankar looked a bit shocked and rattled, then he changed the subject and moved away. But the mood of the entire meeting had changed. In a little while, we left. When we stepped out, the editor of the large English newspaper said that since they were the hosts he couldn’t express his disagreement, but that I had done the right thing. My senior patted my back and said, ‘very good, I had only thought of you as a kid wearing jeans but you left Ravi Shankar speechless very smoothly and with gravitas.’

I don’t know much about religious texts but I am pretty sure that there is nothing like this in the Quran. The word Ghazi means warrior, a religious warrior – it is an Arabic word, same as these are words of the English language.

There were many of my acquaintances that saw gentleness and peace in Ravi Shankar. As a reporter, I always had an inquisitive eye on all, from Rajneesh to Ravi Shankar, and Swami Ramdev. Ravi Shankar could never really capture my attention. His organisation called me many times, creating opportunities for interviews, but I never went. My initial impression was that he was a guru for urban affluent people and if he teaches yoga, shavasana and prayer then it’s a good thing. But I never took that as a hook or trigger for an interview.

Basically, if look at the Baba/religious guru market, a clear trend is visible. There is no dearth of tragedy and depression in India, so most people spend their lives based on feel-good and faith.

Ravi Shankar caters to the wealthy and middle class. Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev is for the luxury segment. Somewhat different from them is Baba Ramdev. He is the aam aadmi – poor people’s guru, who at least delivers some direct benefits. He teaches yoga, sells everyday necessities, but protests hypocrisy and superstition. As for the licentious and cruel likes of Asaram and Gurmeet, let us not talk about them here. People like Ravi Shankar spend their lives trying to prove themselves as godmen, different from common people. That is why, whenever I see educated successful people getting caught up in a cycle of superstition and religiousness under the influence of Ravi Shankar, I feel bad.

In the field of politics, very often these men – walking around wrapped in religious-spiritual cloaks – end up becoming panegyrists for the politicians, who play around with them. They are desperate to become their flag bearers and sing sonnets in their praise. We are usually unable to see their proximity to power and hunger for fame because they cloak themselves differently, in a way that has us showing them respect, believing them to be miracle-makers so that we don’t weigh them on the scales of logic or ask any questions. In repeating what he said in the interview while defending himself against criticism Ravi Shankar has set a new record of falling from dignity.

He might not see the electoral use of polarisation, hate, and sectarianism in society; because it is possible that he is doing all this, on invitation or uninvited, to keep his shop running. We are a free thinking society, you have every right to give your opinion, as do I. In 2002 I had formed a loose opinion that Ravi Shankar is ignorant, with his latest role he has solidified that view. Along with being ignorant he is anarchic as well.

Sanjay Pugalia is Editorial Director at Quintillion Media.