The Gujarat government’s decision to conduct a yagna to usher in the monsoon faced varied comments. Some fumed, “Can a government in a secular country perform a religious rite?” Others asked, “Is this what will solve our water problem instead of rainwater harvesting?” To grasp the significance of the event, it is relevant to ask, how do yagnas fare in history?
Today, history is a divisive subject. If we consider that our basic physical, emotional and psychological needs have not changed much over the centuries, history becomes relevant in explaining varied sociopolitical outcomes. Often it teaches that we are condemned to repeat past actions.
In India, history has often involved the complex relationship between religion and politics, two variables that will remain closely interlinked at least for several more generations. I believe that a truly secular state is an impossibility in India, given that Hinduism, earlier a system of beliefs, was only not-so-long-ago christened a religion. All parties continue to pander to religious bodies, and the power balance today has actually reversed in favour of religious bodies that no longer seek safety but threaten to sway voter opinion.
Religious institutions grow through political patronage. Politicians gain emotional connect and legitimacy, and by the law of institutional supply and demand. This dynamic is here to stay. If we want a balance in terms of the influence that religion has on politics, we need vigilant checks and balances to ensure that personal excesses are regulated, as their removal is an ideal but a practical impossibility.
Coming back to the yagna incident, a relevant question that it raises stems from the very meaning of the word yagna. Internet definitions incorrectly equate it to a sacrifice. In reality, a yagna is the most primeval and basic of all transactions — an exchange by mutual consent. In a sacrifice I give away what I have and don’t have any more of it. In a yagna, I still retain some of what I have and get more because I have given the others something they need and then taken what they have given, which I need. The principle of reciprocity is the bedrock of community living. Yagna in this case is appropriate, but the powers that commissioned it in Gujarat, using the yagna principle of giving to get back, should have looked at what the rain gods truly need. Then plans to create canals and storage facilities, afforestation, and many other alternatives would have sprung up. The same time and energy utilised for a more modern version of the yagna may have resulted in saving water, if not guaranteeing the monsoon.
If we accept the cyclical nature of history, we can also see that some human behavioural patterns are unavoidable. We need to re-contextualise those actions to be more effective in a modern setting.
The writer works on behaviour change for institutions based on Indian history and philosophy
