Web Only Feature

SMALL SAINT, BIG MESS

As two Hindu mutts in Tamil Nadu differ on the Salem "Kuttiswamiyar" issue, the little saint continues to spin a web of confusion, writes India Today's Arun Ram.

Teenagers are trouble-makers. Thirteen-year-old Bharaneedharan proved this in an exceptionally different way when he chose sanyasam and left two groups warring for his custody a fortnight ago. The tussle between Sri Hari Raghavendra Bharaneedhara Swamigal's parents and his disciples might have come to a temporary pause but the controversy appears to be spiraling on to a new plane-a stand-off between two powerful mutts in Tamil Nadu.

Ironically, it is a move-intervention of Madurai Adheenam-that resolved the first crisis and sparked off the other. Madurai Adheenam claimed to have worked out a compromise on June 29, when the parents-Pattabhiraman and Savithri-were allowed to stay with the little sage. The parents had alleged that a coterie was holding their son captive to make money out of his spiritual appeal and wanted Bharaneedharan to return home. With the boy remaining adamant that a sanyasin cannot stay with his parents, the law enforcers were in a fix. Finally, Madurai Adheenam worked out a formula in which the parents would stay with the boy in his ashram. He has even offered to accept Bharaneedharan as his sishya.

"Everything is solved," Madurai Adheenam said, "there is no longer any confusion." Now, the confusion seems to be between the Kanchi mutt and Madurai Adheenam on the very authenticity of Bharaneedharan's spiritual status. While the Kanchi mutt is yet to comment openly on the matter, it is gleaned that Kanchi Sankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswathi is not very happy with the sudden popularity of the self-proclaimed Bharaneedhara Swamigal. When India Today asked the Kanchi Sankaracharya about his opinion on the little swamy, he said: "The media is creating a hype around him. The best you can do for the country is not writing about him (Bharaneedharan).

Meanwhile, Madurai Adheenam has gone all out in support of the "kuttiswamiyar". "He has spiritual wisdom and I am sure he will make a big contribution to Hinduism. This is a spiritual matter which should not be politicised," he told India Today.

On the Kanchi Sankaracharya's remark, Madurai Adheenam would only say that he "doesn't understand why the Sankaracharya said so." It appears to be only the beginning of another round of debates. For one, the very spiritual philosophy of Bharaneedharan doesn't seem to have gone down well with the Kanchi mutt. The teenage-saint claims to be representing both the Vaishnavites and Shaivites. "Hariyum Shivanum onru; Ariyathavan vaayil mannu (Vishnu and Shiva are one; For those who don't know this, life is none)," he had told India Today at the peak of the custodial tussle. He sports the holy marks of both the major Hindu sects on his forehead- a "naamam" to represent Vishnu and a "pattai" signifying Shiva. This, say sources in the Kanchi mutt, is highly debatable. Close observers of the Kanchi Adheenam are not sure how the boy could be absorbed since he doesn't hail from the Pandaram sect of Brahmins.

As the spiritual debate is likely to be ignited in the days to come, Bharaneedharan's ashram in Salem wears an uneasy calm. The compromise formula doesn't seem to have worked out, what with the parents not staying in the ashram for more than a couple of days. "The compromise is an eyewash," a close relative of Bharaneedharan told India Today, "as the boy is still being influenced by a coterie." The parents had agreed to go to the ashram on Madurai Adheenam's advise. But now, Bharaneedharan, while willing to accept his mother, is said to be averse to giving respect to his father. "The chances of the parents reviving their plan to approach the Madras High Court is very high," says the relative.

The main contention of the parents that the boy should not be allowed to be a pawn in the hands of the group running the Sathya Dharma Trust remains unresolved. If the parents decide to move the court, the law enforcers would find themselves in a spot. "There is a lack of clarity on the issue since it involves religious freedom on one hand and the parent's right to the minor's custody on the other," a senior police official told India Today. Legal experts also echo the concern.

BUSINESS TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | SMART INC.
MUSIC TODAY | ART TODAY | THE NEWSPAPER TODAY | SYNDICATIONS TODAY

Write to us | Subscriptions | Advertise with us
© Living Media India Ltd