When a court begins to question personal spiritual choices and family dynamics, it treads dangerously close to moral policing. This approach can lead to infringement on personal freedoms, reinforcement of regressive social norms, and delegitimisation of alternative lifestyles and choices. While the court’s concern for the well-being of citizens is commendable, it’s crucial to maintain a balance between protection and overreach. In a diverse society like India, we must respect the multitude of life choices available to individuals, as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others. – Mahathi Aguvaveedi
As a concerned citizen observing recent events, I feel compelled to address the comments made by Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court regarding the choice of individuals to pursue monkhood at Isha Foundation. While the court’s role in ensuring justice is crucial, some of the remarks made seem to overstep the boundaries of judicial purview and infringe upon individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
The suggestion that Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev should be questioned for supposedly “encouraging” young women to renounce worldly life while his daughter is married is problematic on several levels. First, it makes an unfounded assumption that Sadhguru is actively encouraging monkhood. In reality, at the Isha Yoga Centre, only a fraction of the residents are monks, while thousands, the vast majority, are very much engaged with their families. This fact alone contradicts the notion of widespread encouragement of renunciation.
Second, this view disregards the fundamental right of adults to make their own life decisions, regardless of their gender or the choices of others around them. It implies that the personal choices of Sadhguru or his family members should somehow limit or dictate the options available to others, which is neither logical nor ethically sound. Moreover, it seems to devalue the choice of monkhood, a respected tradition in many cultures and religions, suggesting that it is somehow less valid than other life paths.
Monkhood and renunciation have been integral parts of Indian spiritual traditions for millennia. This path is not unique to any single organisation. Hinduism has numerous monastic orders, including the Dashanami sampradaya and various Bhakti traditions. Buddhism, which originated in India, has a strong monastic tradition that spread across Asia. Jainism places great emphasis on asceticism and renunciation. Even globally, Christianity, Islam (through Sufism), and other religions have monastic traditions.
Are we to question the validity of all these traditions and the choices of millions of individuals throughout history?
It’s also worth noting that in 2016, the Madras High Court itself ruled in favour of individual choice in a similar case involving Isha Foundation (H.C.P. No. 1656 of 2016). The court then recognised that adults were staying at the foundation “on their own volition following a path of Sanyasin which they like”.
The Danger of Moral Policing
When a court begins to question personal spiritual choices and family dynamics, it treads dangerously close to moral policing. This approach can lead to infringement on personal freedoms, reinforcement of regressive social norms, and delegitimisation of alternative lifestyles and choices. While the court’s concern for the well-being of citizens is commendable, it’s crucial to maintain a balance between protection and overreach. In a diverse society like India, we must respect the multitude of life choices available to individuals, as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others.
Instead of questioning why young women choose monkhood, perhaps we should be asking if these individuals are making informed choices, if their constitutional rights are being protected, and if there is any concrete evidence of coercion or illegal activity. These are the questions that fall within the purview of the judiciary, not the personal or spiritual choices of consenting adults.
While the court has a duty to investigate any genuine claims of wrongdoing, it must do so without bias against particular lifestyle choices. Let us hope that as this case proceeds, the focus remains on facts and individual rights, rather than on subjective judgements about personal spiritual paths. – News18, 1 October 2024
› Mahathi Aguvaveedi is a Communications Consultant in Bangalore. She holds a Master’s degree in Public Policy from Columbia University. She has worked in the international development field, focusing on public health, sustainability, and refugee support in the Global South.
