The uniqueness of Yogi Aditya-nath becoming the CEO of an Indian state has gone largely unnoticed. Yogi cannot be blamed for this. He is not the type to play hide and seek with anyone.
Yogi is the first instance in post-Independent India of a religious leader wielding significant State power. In a significant first-ever, the secular and the spiritual have now come to converge colourfully on one man. That this should happen closely in the wake of the decision of the Supreme Court outlawing the use of religion for electoral gains is, in itself, at once symptomatic and noteworthy.

Our concern here is not with symbolism: saffron ensconcing itself in the seat of secular power. It is, rather, with its implications for the law and logic of our shared life under the umbrella of a Constitution that mandates India to be a secular democratic Republic.

The crucial difference between a secular and a theocratic State, between politics and religion, is the idea of human freedom. Religion preaches freedom, but turns it, whenever and wherever the authoritarian spirit takes hold of it, into a zone of rigid regimentation. This made Jesus denounce the keeper of Judaism for turning religion into a millstone round the necks of believers. What is authoritarian cannot help being prescriptive. It grants you, mostly, the freedom to conform. At the same time, the spiritual core of religion urges you to be free inwardly. So Jesus said, “The truth will set you free.” Wherever there is truth there is freedom; and, conversely, where falsehood reigns there will be slavery and indignity. Every religion deserves to be judged on the extent to which it liberates and empowers human beings. Coercion in the name of religion betokens the ascendancy of the demonic over it. It is a clear sign of degradation. All religions are at peril, especially whenever it gets mixed up with State power, of succumbing to this degradation.

Consider Yogi’s decision to make yoga compulsory for all school children in UP. Pay particular attention to his sincere argument in support thereof: that yoga is good for health. Health is good for all.

Health, we admit, is a national concern. But personal health is not. While the State may provide health services to all citizens, the State cannot decide for citizens, much less coerce them, to make use of such facilities, or to what extent they should, in case they do. The state may decide if a person with an infectious disease should be allowed to travel by public conveyance insofar as it endangers the health of others. But the State cannot decide whether a person bearing an infectious disease should necessarily undergo treatment of this kind or that, or should be treated within a particular system of medicine or be treated only in a government hospital, even if such hospitals are provided with special facilities and expertise for the purpose.

No functionary of the State, till the abrupt emergence of Yogi Adityanath, has strayed beyond the Lakshman rekha demarcating the private-personal from the public-political sphere. The scope of Yogi’s gesture goes far beyond the naiveté of marching the people of a state into better health, whether they will or not.

Now consider Yogi’s logic in this regard. Why should Muslims feel aggrieved on account of their children compulsorily benefitting from a proven system of physical wellness in the world? After all some of these postures are common to reading the namaaz, aren’t they? It is through this argument that the cat jumps out of the bag of religious authoritarianism, with its hallmark incapacity for objectivity, which is the ability to see the issue also from the other side.

The fact that there is a common ground between namaaz and yoga in terms of certain movements and postures, actually spoils Adityanath’s case. If the movements are similar, surely namaaz should suffice as well as yoga. Why insist, in that case, on your prescription as against mine, both being similar? It is like, “Drink Gangajal from my bottle, not yours. You have no excuse for rejecting my supply because I have taken it from the same source as you have.”

We are all with the Yogi as far as cow protection is concerned, even if not all of us worship the cow. If my eating cow-meat – which cannot happen unless cows are butchered – offends my neighbour I cannot hide myself behind the curtain of private vs. public argument. The cow is not personal to myself. Its protection is, besides, constitutionally mandated.

While we may endorse cow-protection, every sensible person is bound to deprecate the vigilantism of gau rakshaks (cow-saviours). Vigilantism mocks rule of law. It is facilitated by majoritarian triumphalism. It is irreducibly political, and has nothing to do with religion. It is hard to believe that any religion will sanction killing of human beings for any reason whatsoever. To the extent that I know Hinduism, it does not. What, then, are the legitimate options available to a cow-worshipper, or Constitution zealot vis-à-vis cow protection, if he cares for his religion and his own bottom-line humanity?

He can adopt the path of persuasion. If it happens that cows are being illegally killed or transported – never mind by whom – he has the right, nay duty, to intervene to the extent of persuading the person(s) concerned to desist from this illegal activity. He has, however, no right, in a civilized society, to break into someone’s house and counsel him, much less lynch him.

In the event of such persuasion not paying off, he has the option to inform the police and leave it to them to uphold the law of the land. The State mocks itself by outsourcing this function to vigilantes and private militia. Vigilance on behalf of the cow is legitimate, vigilantism is not. To think otherwise, is to belittle the State. Only in a failed state is the argument valid, “We have to intervene because the police can’t do it.”

Clarity of understanding is a civic duty. Public life, otherwise, could prove a slippery slope. A society could slide down, unbeknown to itself, and crash into the valley sooner than expected.
It is more important for Yogi Adityanath, than for any other Chief Minister, to be mindful of the separation between religion and politics, between Church and State. It is important for the people of Utter Pradesh, and the Indian intelligentsia, to keep vigil against confusion in this regard, which can prove lethal even in the short run.

Not long ago, Gujarat was the Hindutva laboratory. That laboratory has now relocated itself to UP. That is the message, by the way, that lurks in Subramaniam Swami’s revelation that Yogi was not Modi’s choice. Modi, that is to say, had to accept Yogi. Yogi may profess, and even seem to be, under Modi’s long shadow. But shadow, who doesn’t know, is a matter of where the sun stands. So we shall know if we are at the dawn, or the noon or the dusk of Bharat called India.