Our Devatas Are Not Your Metaphors

India’s sacred traditions deserve to be understood on their own terms and not reduced to fashionable intellectual provocations or political props.

An intricate stone carving of Lord Kartikeya (Murugan), on his divine peacock vehicle (Paravani) at the historic Brihadisvara Temple in Thanjavur.

India recently commemorated 80 years of independence from British rule. However, it is pertinent to question whether our indigenous traditions, civilizational memory, and Devatas, the Hindu deities of Bharat, have truly achieved freedom. Specifically, freedom from misrepresentation, ridicule, abuse, and intellectual intimidation remains elusive. Under the guise of "freedom of expression," certain authors and self-proclaimed intellectuals assert the right to mock, distort, and vilify what millions consider sacred. What is often presented as progressive thought may devolve into the arrogance of neo-self-colonized individuals, who perceive themselves as uniquely enlightened and thus entitled to define, dissect, and demean traditions they scarcely comprehend. While political freedom was attained in 1947, intellectual freedom for our civilizational consciousness remains incomplete. Our Devatas merit understanding, not contempt masquerading as scholarship or courage.

It is crucial for individuals identifying as Bhaaratiya to prioritize understanding Bharat from its own perspective, rather than through the frameworks of modern ideologies. Engaging with its cultural history should not be perceived as an exploration of obsolete customs, but rather as an appreciation of the living essence of this land. Key inquiries include: How does Bharat conceptualize the sacred? What is the nature of Brahman? How do Indians perceive life, duty, consciousness, and the relationship between humans and the divine? Addressing these questions is essential for comprehending the essence of this civilization. However, certain self-identified intellectuals neglect this endeavor. For example, when the Prime Minister mentioned “dimagi Naxals,” Devdutt Pattanaik referenced Bhagavan Kartikeya, the son of Shiva, in a satirical Facebook post. The relevance of a contemporary political statement to Bhagavan Kartikeya is questionable. Why was the Devata invoked in this political context? This exemplifies a broader issue: sacred figures are often incorporated into modern debates without adequate consideration of their theological and civilizational importance. This practice does not reflect a profound understanding of Bharat, but rather a tendency to employ Bharat’s Devatas as metaphors for convenience.

Questionable Purpose

The troubling aspect of this satire lies in the remarkable transformation of “Dimagi Naxal” into a “Shiva-bhakta,” the association of “Naxal” with Kartikeya, the invocation of Naxaleshwar Mahadeva, and the eventual inclusion of Bhagavan Kartikeya, the son of Shiva, in a contemporary political discourse. The intellectual purpose of this exercise is questionable. The Prime Minister's mention of “dimagi Naxals” was situated within a clear contemporary political context, and the inclusion of Kartikeya neither enhances understanding nor provides intellectual clarity. Historically, the term ‘Naxal’ originates from Naxalbari and the Naxalite movement that began there in 1967, unrelated to Kartikeya or any sacred grass tradition. Consequently, the argument conflates linguistic wordplay, mythology, folklore, and political history into a singular joke, presenting the resultant confusion as intellectual sophistication. If such a statement is intended to insult or offend religious sentiments, determining whether an offense falls under Sections 299 or 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, would depend on the statutory requirements of intent and specific facts. However, a broader question arises: why must a Hindu deity be involved in every political disagreement? A Kannada saying, "ಕೆಲಸವಿಲ್ಲದ ಬಡಗಿ ಮುಕುಳಿ ಕೆತ್ತಿದ" (when a carpenter lacks meaningful work, he carves whatever is at hand, even an ass), aptly describes the absurdity of creating unnecessary tasks in the absence of substantial work. This prompts the question of whether this is what we are witnessing: in the absence of a substantive political argument, even Bhagavan Kartikeya becomes material for an elaborate wordplay. The Naxalite movement had a distinct political ideology and historical agenda; transforming its name into an etymological fantasy does not render the argument profound. It merely illustrates how a sacred figure can be appropriated when the aim is to manufacture cleverness rather than engage seriously with the political issue or the civilizational tradition being referenced.

Casual Irreverence

To genuinely express love for India, it is imperative to liberate its Devatas from the influence of neo-self-colonised individuals who perceive the mockery of Hindu sacred figures as a demonstration of intellectual superiority. Some may believe that by ridiculing Hindu Devatas, they are appeasing certain societal factions or proving their ‘progressiveness’ to intellectual peers. However, it is worth questioning whether our Devatas are so trivial that they can be utilized as props for political jokes, ideological debates, or artistic provocations. The Naxalite insurgency in India exacted a cost beyond ideology; numerous security personnel sacrificed their lives combating armed Maoist violence within the nation. Yet, we now witness intellectual exercises where the term “Naxal” is divorced from its political context and used as a pretext to invoke Bhagavan Kartikeya. It is hoped that the younger generation in India will cultivate independent thought rather than outsourcing their intellectual curiosity to popular authors. The recent controversy in Kolkata concerning a theatrical portrayal of Goddess Kali - where objections from viewers and netizens led to an apology from the troupe - raises a pertinent question: is this the manner in which we wish to represent our Devatas? Would we so readily transform the central sacred figures of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam into theatrical props, political metaphors, and subjects of ridicule? If not, why should Hindu Devatas be expected to endure what others would deem unacceptable when directed at their own sacred traditions?

Many Hindus who venerate Bhagavan Kartikeya may experience distress or offense due to satire; however, it is unlikely that the majority will immediately resort to legal action. Hindu society can be likened to an elephant that continues its path despite the distractions around it. Devotees often exhibit patience, absorbing insults while maintaining their devotion. This patience should not be misconstrued as indifference. There are also Hindus who are aware of the long-term implications of consistently reducing their deities to mere metaphors, caricatures, and political symbols. They recognize that seemingly minor acts of ridicule can gradually normalize a culture where Hindu sacredness is perceived as readily available for public consumption. It is imperative for independent India to first respect Hindu traditions, believers, and their legitimate interpretations of their sacred world. Instances of even minor misrepresentations of Abrahamic religious traditions in popular media often provoke widespread outrage, media scrutiny, and institutional responses.

The central issue is not whether every Hindu must be perpetually offended, nor whether humour or criticism should be prohibited. A mature civilization can accommodate disagreement, satire, and even sharp criticism. The pertinent question is whether intellectual standards are applied consistently. If a community's sacred figures are repeatedly targeted because they are perceived as safe, while other traditions are approached with greater caution, this does not constitute equality of expression; rather, it reflects an unequal cultural expectation. Hindu society should not be compelled to demonstrate its tolerance by silently accepting every distortion of its sacred traditions. Respect does not imply immunity from criticism; it entails acknowledging that the individuals being discussed possess a legitimate voice, memory, and understanding of their own Devatas, and this voice cannot perpetually be dismissed as mere “claims of misrepresentation.”

Conversely, when the sentiments of an ordinary Hindu are hurt, there is often an expectation for them to simply dismiss it as humour. This raises the question: does fostering an inferiority complex among Hindu believers confer intellectual superiority? It does not. For India to achieve true intellectual freedom, it must abandon the presumption that Hindu sacred traditions require constant reinterpretation by external observers. Hindu deities should be liberated from casual interpretations, caricatures, and ideological appropriation. Before discussing the liberation of Hindu temples, it is crucial to first liberate Hindu deities from the burden of external metaphors.

(The writer is a Bengaluru-based author and scholar. Views personal.)