Since day before yesterday, the media and large sections of the public is having a gala time over Swami Nithyananda’s bedroom antics with a Tamil actress. Everybody is outraged. “Shocked,” “devastated,” “how can he do this?” “betrayal of trust,” “Fake Gurus,” is the typical reaction from what we call the “layman.” But here’s the thing: he’ll probably be back and he’ll thrive even better in Round 2. However, for now, what was intended has been accomplished very well: manufacturing mob outrage using sleaze tactics.
It helps to answer a few questions at the outset:
Did Swami Nithyananda commit a crime by having sex with that woman?No. The video clearly shows it was consensual.
Are such Swamijis/Godmen “allowed” to have sex?
Yes unless they’ve explicitly, publicly declared that they are celibate and/or where they have prohibited their followers from having sex. In which case, it becomes a case of hypocrisy, double-standard and not really a crime. The operative word always is “consensual.”
Yes unless they’ve explicitly, publicly declared that they are celibate and/or where they have prohibited their followers from having sex. In which case, it becomes a case of hypocrisy, double-standard and not really a crime. The operative word always is “consensual.”
Does Nithyananda’s act involve abuse of position and/or power?Going by this video, this is unclear, and really immaterial. Again, the woman wasn’t coerced into having sex with him.
Do reports of sandalwood illegally stocked at his ashram make him a criminal?They do but that is totally unrelated to him having sex with the actress.
So what or who is really wrong here?
Several answers but the most obvious one is buried beneath all the mudslinging happening: journalism of sleaze a.k.a invasion of privacy. The culprit of the whole episode is the TV Channel that carried out this rotten spycam operation.
Several answers but the most obvious one is buried beneath all the mudslinging happening: journalism of sleaze a.k.a invasion of privacy. The culprit of the whole episode is the TV Channel that carried out this rotten spycam operation.
But why is the public outrage focussed mostly on the Swami having sex with the actress?Because of what we have inherited as we shall see later.
Am I condoning Nithyananda’s romp caught on camera?
I leave that up your intelligence to figure out.
I leave that up your intelligence to figure out.
But, the aftermath turned out as expected. The gleeful media readily extrapolated Nithyananda’s “immoral act” to brand Hinduism. If you’ve followed the case, the media has already passed its irrevocable judgement that Nithyananda is somehow a wrongdoer because he, a Godman, Guru, indulged in sex. That explains why the Congress News Network–Islamic News Network’s “show” is cunningly titled, “Sex, Sleaze and Swamis: Bhupendra Chaubey asks the panel what’s wrong with India’s holy community.” The Big Daddy of the Indian TV media, SpiNDTV, true to its name has wasted no time in slipping in its typical insinuation: “Bangalore godman: Modi a follower?” (I recommend looking at all the pictures in the SpinDTV picture gallery).
But the duplicity and innuendoes don’t end here. Now, a certain section of the media has appointed itself as the guardian of the “real” or “true” Hinduism. This section changes its tone and lingo to suit the occasion. It passionately hates the “goons” and “thugs” and “extremists” who besmear the fair name of the oh-so-all-encompassing Hinduism by wielding tridents, disrupting movies, Valentine’s Day, etc. Some of the more passionate protectors hailing from this section wax about “I don’t want MY Hinduism to become like an aggressive version of Islam.” Please note the special stress on MY. Others “defend” Hinduism by wailing like dogs in freezing winter nights about how “Pop Hinduism,” “Instant Gurus” have hijacked the “true essence” of Hinduism. Yet, these same Media Mullahs give space on their papers and Websites for the selfsame instant Gurus. However, their version of “true” Hinduism is this: a Zoo or Museum version of Hinduism at which you can throw fruits and nuts and watch the adherents take the bait and clap in glee, or worse, admire from a distance and gasp, “Ooh sooo esoteric!”
Truth is, both cases are different variation of the same despicable act of Hindu baiting by the Media Mullahs and assorted intellectuals who are bleeding our universities dry. For had they even the basic inkling of Sanatana Dharma, they’d know that nobody can proclaim himself or herself as a Guru. It is an honour that is bestowed upon a person after he/she passes the most stringent of spiritual and philosophical tests. This time-honoured tradition dates way back to Vedic seers right up to Ramana Maharshi. Guru literally means one who dispells darkness. In other words, he/she is one who has experienced philosophical enlightenment and he/she makes no claim that he/she has the ultimate key to the Truth. He/she doesn’t advertise his/her enlightenment but will accept disciples if they pass his/her test and vice versa. Unlike today’s Pop Gurus (for the record, I abhor them for the damage they do in the long run) who acquire a smattering of Yoga, Tantra (nothing to do with sex as is commonly misunderstood), meditation, ill-understood Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, and a bastardized form of mysticism. However, if there’s a Pop Guru who has understood all these accurately and still goes about like a Nithyananda, he is a bigger charlatan.
Neither does our tradition prescribe celibacy for someone who is looked upon as a Guru. Majority of the ancient sages were married, had children and some even had more than one wife. Yet, why do we still revere a Vishwamitra who had numerous “affairs” and fathered many children? That’s because he gave us the most amazing Gayatri Mantra, which the same media–Slimes Music for example–makes tons of money out of. Which brings us to another instance of the media and academic ignoramuses who sit in the judge’s seat. There’s a wide gulf of difference between a Sanyasin and these self-styled Gurus. Celibacy among other things, is prescribed for a Sanyasin. Hindu tradition strictly condemns aSanyasin who, in the position of a Guru abandons celibacy. Strict punishment is prescribed for such Sanyasins and once he has abandoned his celibacy, he can no longer claim the right to be a Guru. Apart from this, the respect or devotion people have for someone in the position of a Guru doesn’t rest on whether he/she is celibate but what he/she brings for the world. So why was the public outraged when Nithyananda’s footage was aired?
The answer to that question lies in the colonized attitudes that continue to plague Indians: it shows we haven’t cast away the ugly Victorian morality. More accurately, it points to the hold both Islam and Christianity continue to have on the Hindu psyche. The same crowd that went berserk over Nithyananda’s romp video still flock to that charlatan couple, Kalki and Amma “Bhagavan” (sic), both married and who would’ve definitely had sex at least once. What explains this?
Back to the media, we wonder why no channel has ever planted a spycam inside the dark and holy halls and rooms of a Church or Cloister. Is it because perhaps the good Lord Sees All and needs no spycam? All exposes of the Father-Sister, Brother-Sister, Brother-Brother games that go on in those holy halls have seen light of the day because somebody from within revealed them to the world. And let’s not forget that these Brothers and Fathers have taken an oath of lifelong celibacy when they entered God’s Service. Let’s not even go near the Madrassas. Here’s a sample (Image courtesy: http://freethinker.
![pervy[1]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vb3jTyq7MjfU65SyIRBiu9iLUrQCepN4K9Ud1EUHxTmm0_hcmiEsfNsApukqQe29qzOk_l-EgoI3mxal9UTjMo9ojhG4S0AsxcwN-vIi_ZEwNev7U5SgBAszI=s0-d)
Any spycams a la Nithyananda? Courageous Media, we’re waiting. Which brings us to the real issue in this whole affair de disgrace: invasion of privacy. But then sting ops are de rigeur in today’s TV journalism. It’s one thing to do a thorough, old-fashioned investigative journalism and another to put cameras into somebody’s bedroom to expose exactly…what?Interestingly, not one media house has questioned the TV channel for adopting Peeping Tom tactics to manufacture sensationalism out of nothing.
Additionally, the argument that Nithyananda broke the trust of millions of his followers is also bogus. A Pop Swami/Guru, Nithyananda, like others of his ilk, cleverly marketed his wares. Those who came into his fold have no right to complain for their own disillusionment. In the end, Swamis and Gurus like Nithyananda thrive because of the en masse loss of our traditional values. And it is equally also the reason why the media thrives in derogating Hinduism.
