He was in her bedroom. The Kanchi Shankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, was supposed to be blessing the space, but he was chuckling. I looked at the daiquiri-swigging young woman, appropriately dressed for the occasion in designer salwaar-kameez; she whispered in my ear, “Oh, he is so cute!” I am aware that women dig men with a sense of humour, but this was stretching it a bit.

Earlier in the evening, the large drawing room of a duplex apartment in an upscale area of Mumbai had been readied for the darshan. The guests sat in rapt attention as he intoned about nothing in particular; then they prostrated before him. A small low table stood between them. (Holy men follow the principle of bar dancers – look, but don’t touch.) Later the patriarch of the family presented him with a thick envelope. Since his unstitched robes had no pockets, he handed it to one of his disciples. Many such envelopes must have come his way, which is the only reason I would be interested in his accountant. Which is perhaps the only reason he too might have been interested in his accountant.

They are saying he is not an ordinary man, he should not be treated like any other prisoner. True, it is indeed extraordinary for a holy sage to be implicated in the murder of his accountant-manager. He attended conferences overseas, like any academic on a junket; he visited the homes of the rich and famous, he took money for such darshans like any movie star ‘gracing’ functions; and he played politics, better than most politicians. He was a travelling salesman-cum-broker-cum-corporate honcho.

Heading a Rs.5000 crore religious empire is no loose change. I read somewhere that he is the seventh most influential man in the country, and the President and Prime Minister trail behind him. The most powerful people in the land bow before him. Such is the anxiety now that the Catholic Church in Kerala has expressed “deep pain”; elsewhere the maulvis have said his arrest was “reprehensible”.

Who then are the “anti-Hindu forces” at work? The non-Brahmins? One might be tempted to ask why someone in such a powerful position like the Shankaracharya could not do much to address the issue of the cleavage within Hindu society.

He may have ‘worked’ with Dalits, but supported Tamil Nadu’s law against their conversion.
A petition had been filed against him for demeaning the Dalit community. A group of them were not allowed to enter the village temple in Kancheepuram. Instead of making it possible for them to do so, the Shankaracharya offered to build a separate temple for them.

So, is this about Hinduism? Assuming that the saffron brigade has travelled all over the world in search of nirvana, and are therefore calling him the “holiest man on earth”, how does the arrest become a Hindu issue? VHP General Secretary Praveen Togadia asked, “Is it a motive to finish off a Hindu seer and Hindu Society?” How is finishing off a seer, if it be that, the same as finishing off Hindu society? What happened to the ancient civilisation?

But the insecurity stems from the usual nitpicking: “…why has no action been taken against Imam Bukhari of Delhi?” Why? Has he been accused of murder? There was a PIL filed against him regarding the use of the mosque’s surrounding space for personal/ commercial benefit. He was made accountable. Why can there be no questions of accountability regarding the Kanchi Swami’s mutt?

Besides, is the Shankaracharya apolitical or secular?

If I had my way then I would most definitely book the Kanchi Swami for murder – the murder of the Ayodhya peace plans. His compromise formula was supposed to be implemented on a war footing, but to repeat one off-colour yet apt quote, “Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.” Sri Jayendra Saraswathi knew about every erogenous zone.

He talked about de-politicising the issue, but worked with politicians. Even before a court verdict, which is what the Muslims had agreed to with him as mediator, he took part in the Dharma Sansad at the Kumbh Mela in December 2000 to set the deadline for beginning the construction of the Mandir at its chosen site in March 2002. For him the Babri Masjid was “merely a victory memorial, not a place of prayer”. Is it any wonder that his devotees like P.V.Narasimha Rao are lauded for their ‘piety’ in not stopping the installation of Lord Ram’s idol? That at a public meeting he could tell the former PM, “Vajpayee, tu bhi mandir banana to chahta hain, par kahta nahin hain (Vajpayee, even you want to build a temple, but cannot say it)”?

And how different is he from Narendra Modi when he mouthed the Hindutva line about the Gujarat riots being a reaction to Godhra? If he were a true spiritual leader he would have pulled up his disciples. Instead, he said, “The VHP is doing good work. It is because they have done good work that they have got a good name today.”

It has been a mutual massage sort of relationship. The Sangh Parivar has had no clout in the South. The seer was their great hope. Today, sitting in jail, eating basic prison food, sleeping on a floor mat, saying his prayers (incidentally, this would be his routine anyway), he is an even greater hope. With absolutely no logic we hear comments like “Hindus have no protection”. It is rather unfortunate that a national party in a secular democratic republic urges the community to agitate “throughout Bharat” against the arrest of a man of religion. Where does Bharat come into the picture? Simple. Haven’t we been told that Hindutva is nationalism?

Therefore, at a time when Hindutva’s nationalism is getting shaky, they have found their knight-with-a-staff. Behind bars he makes for a compelling image of the victimised, that too one who was a ‘peacemaker’. Nobody tries to understand that he is in prison regarding a murder case and it has nothing to do with his religion or his politics. The devious message being conveyed is: if this is what they can do to a saintly person, can you imagine what will happen to the rest? 80 per cent of the population is being made to believe they are in danger because one man is in prison.