So, the
Sathya Sai Baba turns 80 this week. The celebrations have already begun.
TV channels show us footage of an Afro-haired old man in a saffron robe
being wheeled out for the adoration of teeming devotees. And naturally,
all the old staples of the Sai Baba story have been pulled out: the
‘miracles’, the claim to be the reincarnation of the Sai Baba of
Shirdi, the assassination attempts (two that I know of), the legion
of celebrity devotees (including, apparently, former President R Venkataraman
and current incumbent Abdul Kalam - perhaps there is a vibhuti corner
in Rashtrapati Bhavan), and, alas, the sordid controversy about the
old boy’s behaviour with little boys.
As you
may have guessed from my tone, I am not big on the Sathya Sai Baba (I
have more time for the Shirdi original), but I am continually amazed
by the unwillingness of his devotees to concede that there is any truth
to the many allegations made against the Baba during his long career
as king of the godmen.
The homosexual
abuse allegations are now too numerous to dispute. (Enter ’Sathya Sai
Baba’ and ‘homosexuality’ on a Google search and you will get
an astonishing 18,000 references.) I am prepared to believe that at
least some of the young men who claim to have been fondled or otherwise
assaulted by the Baba are liars.
But can
every single person who claims to have been fondled be a liar? By now,
the list of complainants runs into triple figures. And that’s just
the Westerners. (The Indians seem less able to speak out against the
Baba.) Surely, there is a case for the old boy to answer?
Bizarrely,
none of the fondling-of-devotees stuff seems to perturb any of the Baba’s
high-profile followers. And, when you ask the many senior politicians,
who turn up at the Puttaparthi ashram to fling themselves at the
Holy One’s feet, whether they are legitimising the Baba’s activities,
the only responses you get follow predictable lines: “Even Jesus had
to face criticism” etc etc.
Then,
there’s the business of the ‘miracles’. There’s enough evidence
to suggest (eye-witness accounts mainly) that Sai Baba can materialise
rings, expensive watches, sacred ash and the odd locket almost at will.
It is also true that portraits of Sai Baba have been known to ‘weep’
even when the swami is far away. And, the Baba has been able to regurgitate
a shivling from his insides on days of special significance.
It is
clear that no ordinary man can do any of these things. But does it follow
that, by virtue of these ‘miracles’, the Baba is some kind of God
as many of his devotees argue?
There
are two objections to this claim. The first is that while sacred ash
may be unavailable to the average Joe, there are large numbers of people
to whom it is as easily accessible as it is to the Holy One.
I refer,
of course, to stage magicians.
The sad
reality of the Sai Baba’s ‘miracles’ is that every single one
of them can easily be duplicated by even a moderately-talented conjuror.
In the old days (dating back to the 1960s), when scepticism was first
expressed about Sai Baba’s ‘magic’ powers,critics asked why it
was that the watches he produced, seemingly out of thin air, all said
‘Made in Switzerland’ and why they tended to be much advertised
brands. (Rich devotees got Omegas, the poor just got sacred ash.)
Sai Baba’s
defenders retorted that the great man had never claimed to be a holy
watchmaker. His skill did not lie in creating watches or rings. These
already existed. All the Baba did was to invisibly teleport them through
solid matter till they reached his sacred fingers.
Problem: This is exactly what magicians claim to do.
No magician claims to have created the rabbit that emerges from the
hat. He claims to have teleported it. And so, what is so special about
a man whose tricks are roughly on par with K Lal but well below the
standard of David Blaine or David Copperfield?
Sai Baba
devotees are sensitive to the ‘Afro-haired conjuror’ sneer. Over
a decade ago, the magician PC Sorcar was refused entry into Sai Baba’s
presence. He went, under a false name and when the Baba miraculously
produced a sandesh, Sorcar returned the compliment by miraculously producing
a rasgulla. The Baba began shouting and Sorcar was physically evicted
from the ashram.
The magician
wrote about the encounter in Sunday magazine. But since then,
he has come under so much pressure from the Sai Baba lobby that he’s
reluctant to repeat the experience. No matter. There are enough people
who can do the same tricks. They do not even claim to be a god and would
cheerfully reproduce any of the old boy’s ‘miracles’ on demand.
The second
objection to the Baba’s ‘miracles’ Is also fundamental. His devotees
now take the revised position that the Omega watches are merely his
‘calling cards’ meant to show ordinary mortals how cosmic he is.
The real God-like stuff, they say, consists of the Baba’s ability
to see into the future, to change destiny and to heal the human body.
All this is highly dubious. If he
can heal other people, then why doesn’t he just heal himself first,
and kick away that wheelchair? If he can see into the future,
how consists of the Baba’s
ability to see into the future, to change destiny and to heal the human
body.
All this
is highly dubious. If he can heal other people, then why doesn’t he
just heal himself first, and kick away that wheelchair? If he can see
into the future, how come he failed to predict the two assassination
attempts? And if he can change destiny, why doesn’t he start by changing
that Google search that portrays him as a bit of a sicko?
I am familiar
with all the arguments against my position. There’s the traditional
one of how the Baba does not want to interfere with the karmic cycle
of good and evil. Well, in that case, he should stop pretending that
he can heal people and remove karmic sickness. The moment he bends the
laws of nature, he is already mucking about with the karmic cycle anyway.
Then,
there’s the he-does-so-much-charity argument. I do not for a moment
dispute that he spends many of the crores his devotees shower on him
for very good causes. And I accept that he has built hospitals, colleges
(and, incongruously enough, a planetarium) for the people of Puttaparthi.
But all
that this proves is that he’s a philanthropist of some description.
Nor is religious philanthropy novel to Hinduism. The Ramakrishna Mission
does much more than the Sai Baba has ever done or ever will. (Actually,
it’s done more work in Calcutta than Mother Teresa’s better-publicised
missionaries - but that’s another story.) However, none of its
monks claims to be God. And they don’t need to produce Omega watches
out of thin air. They are too busy helping the poor.
But, my
basic objection is this: if this man is a sort of God come down to earth
to help us, credulous humans, then why doesn’t he use his powers for
the public good? What’s the point of materialising a sandesh when
you need to materialise mounds of rice for the poor? Why bother giving
some crooked politician an Omega watch when you can stop the Tsunami?
Why do these God-like powers never extend to any more than mere conjuring
tricks? Why do they never translate into anything that is substantial
and truly helpful?
If this
is the best that God can do, then surely PC Sorcar is God too?
|