Dera Sacha Sauda is filthy rich, has massive political influence and has got a tremendous popular following. In spite of that, it is on the brink of collapse due to a scandal, a scandal which is not at all potent enough to topple an empire. And it’s not as if the charges are unique. Cardinal Muller was recently removed from power as there is too much noise being made over the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. So, what exactly is different here? Both the crimes are equally abhorrent. And, is it that easy to topple something such big? Or, is there a chink in Dera’s armour which is helping in it’s collapse?
Interestingly, there is another parallel in the world history, the lessons of which we are loathe to learn – the chaos in the Middle East. Let’s take two names two centuries apart – Mustafa Agha Barbar and Bashar al Assad. Both approximately did the same thing, according to their opponents – massacre a select set of people. Barbar, it’s Alawites and Assad, whomsoever it is. While Assad is struggling for his existence, Ottoman Empire of whom Barbar was a part of, never faced any existential threat because of Barbar’s actions. This lets us ask, in spite of the fact that Ottoman Empire faced rebellions after rebellions, why wasn’t anyone able to do anything to the Ottomans while it’s almost a cakewalk to take down Assad?
All four, Gurmeet Ram Rahim, Muller, Barbar and Assad are guilty. But, while Muller and Barbar are governors, GRR and Assad are the rulers. When there is a trouble, simply, replace the governor and make him personally accountable. The anger against the institution will be channelled towards the individual and the threat is staved off. But, what happens when the ruler is targeted? He is ready to bring down the institution with him, instead of accepting the reality. So, this raises another question – why is it that Hinduism is this decentralized while the Abrahamics are not? Is it a deliberate attempt to weaken the religion there by chipping off institution after institution? Or, may be, is it time for us to create a sort of central institution for Hinduism and bring every godman under this umbrella and then replace this ruler with a governor?
Interestingly, there is another parallel in the world history, the lessons of which we are loathe to learn – the chaos in the Middle East. Let’s take two names two centuries apart – Mustafa Agha Barbar and Bashar al Assad. Both approximately did the same thing, according to their opponents – massacre a select set of people. Barbar, it’s Alawites and Assad, whomsoever it is. While Assad is struggling for his existence, Ottoman Empire of whom Barbar was a part of, never faced any existential threat because of Barbar’s actions. This lets us ask, in spite of the fact that Ottoman Empire faced rebellions after rebellions, why wasn’t anyone able to do anything to the Ottomans while it’s almost a cakewalk to take down Assad?
All four, Gurmeet Ram Rahim, Muller, Barbar and Assad are guilty. But, while Muller and Barbar are governors, GRR and Assad are the rulers. When there is a trouble, simply, replace the governor and make him personally accountable. The anger against the institution will be channelled towards the individual and the threat is staved off. But, what happens when the ruler is targeted? He is ready to bring down the institution with him, instead of accepting the reality. So, this raises another question – why is it that Hinduism is this decentralized while the Abrahamics are not? Is it a deliberate attempt to weaken the religion there by chipping off institution after institution? Or, may be, is it time for us to create a sort of central institution for Hinduism and bring every godman under this umbrella and then replace this ruler with a governor?
