The politicisation of this year’s Maha Kumbh has reached unprecedented levels with the number of attendees taking a dip in the Ganga being inflated to unreasonable figures, solely to make the fair appear excessively grand.
The Shahi Snan has also been renamed as Amrit Snan – a bath to attain immortality – perhaps to appease an inherent inferiority complex.
In a column published on January 16 in the daily Naya India, columnist Shruti Vyas wrote that when she asked a photojournalist, who had returned after covering the Shahi Snan, about the crowd’s enthusiasm and faith, he replied, “What faith, what devotion? People are pouring in, taking a dip, clicking pictures and leaving.”
Later in the column Vyas commented, “Many people like you and me may perceive that this year’s Maha Kumbh is grand in every respect, except faith.”
She referred to a video of the 1954 Kumbh (the first after the country’s independence) doing rounds on social media, in which people are seen reaching the fair without any pomp, on bullock carts, buses and even on foot, and taking a dip in the Ganga. They appear engrossed in prayers and seeking peace.
She wrote that till 2013, the sanctity of taking a dip in the holy river during the Maha Kumbh was prevalent. No young boys and girls, influencers, sadhvis and content creators thronged the place dressed up in costumes ‘in accordance with Kumbh’ to get likes on social media. This year, the Maha Kumbh has the feel of a fair, where shooting videos can help you go viral.
In the end, Vyas concluded that it (Maha Kumbh) has all been politicised. This is the first Kumbh of the ‘new India’, which is taking place in the city that has been renamed from Allahabad to Prayagraj.
Posters with photos of Modi and Yogi have been put up all over the country for its promotion, describing the Maha Kumbh as ‘the expression of India’s timeless spiritual heritage’. A spiritual event being linked to the country’s national identity – the Maha Kumbh is getting lost in the glitter of the festival.
It was only apt to begin the article by mentioning Vyas’s remarks as the politics of Hindutva, which according to her is politicising the Maha Kumbh, cannot dismiss her claims by labelling her an atheist, anti-Hindu, heretic or leftist as she is a devout Hindu and has attended the Kumbh before.
In this context, the complaints about the Maha Kumbh, surfacing from several other quarters, have become more valid.
It has been alleged that had this politicisation not crossed all its limits, there wouldn’t have been a need to exaggerate the number of people attending it, nor to rename the Shahi Snan, whether as a mark of superiority or to satisfy an inherent inferiority complex. (Calling oneself a proud Hindu and avoiding the term Shahi Snan does not seem logical anyway).
Also read: Why Gandhi’s 1915 Kumbh Mela Reflections Matter in 2025
Rejecting confluence
It would not have been merely the ‘Maha Kumbh of one faith’ then, but the Maha Kumbh of an unprecedented confluence of various faiths. It would have better represented the traditions of Hindu religion (which now has a more fashionable term for it – Sanatan) because this religion in its true form is a confluence of several faiths despite some of them being contradictory.
But with crooked politics at work, the situation is such that while foreigners are being treated with some ‘generosity’, fellow citizens of even a slightly different faith or method of worship are being rudely told off and being asked to stay away from the Maha Kumbh.
Conditions’ are being imposed on them if they wish to attend the Maha Kumbh. And to ensure that these conditions are met, they are employing those representatives of the ruling system who have the responsibility of ensuring that any citizen of the country can move anywhere without being stopped.
Meanwhile, the head of this politicising clan is Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat, who, while calling Ram, Krishna and Shiva as the ‘self’ of all Hindus, is hypocritically asking whether they (Ram, Krishna and Shiva) are only gods and goddesses; or do they belong only to those who worship them?
He should have instead directed his question to Yogi Adityanath, who is hell-bent on overthrowing Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s internal power tussle and emerging as a bigger ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’ than him.
Adityanath and his gang are constantly pulling off antics which make one wonder whether Ram, who is believed to have united North and South India, will continue belonging to all Hindus in the future.
Caption: Flower shower from government helicopter at Maha Kumbh on the occasion of Makar Sankranti. (Photo courtesy: Facebook@MYogiAdityanath)
Champat Rai, the general secretary of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Tirtha Kshetra Trust, has even claimed that the grand Ram temple in Ayodhya, which ended the alleged 500-year-long wait for Ram, belongs to the Ramanand sect, and not to the Shaivites, Shaktas and Sanyasis.
Now, the people of his ‘parivar’ are intent on blocking the path of mutual dialogue and debate in their efforts to impose their divisive mindset on the Maha Kumbh by setting aside its original spirit.
They want to ruthlessly break long standing traditions of the Maha Kumbh propagated by Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who had challenged all non-Vedic beliefs by hoisting the ‘Pakhand Khandini Pataka’ many years before the establishment of Arya Samaj during the Haridwar Kumbh of 1867.
Back then, neither the government stopped him, nor did anyone demand such action to be taken. But today, the path of selfless discussions about religion and tradition, which was not even thwarted by the British, is being blocked through strategic politicisation. When it comes to hypocrisy, no matter how much it grows, they remain unconcerned.
Unanswered questions
Another example of the extensive politicisation of the Maha Kumbh is the BJP’s reaction to Azad Samaj Party president Chandrashekhar Azad’s comment on the event.
Chandrashekhar had recently remarked that only those who have committed sins should go to the Maha Kumbh. “Neither have I committed sins nor do I need to wash them away.”
Any response to this comment, made from the perspective of the Dalit community, should have come from a religious leader. But the ruling party members were more ‘perturbed’ by it than any religious leader. A cabinet minister under Yogi, Dinesh Pratap Singh, even called Chandrashekhar a crow.
Interestingly, no one answered the questions related to government policy raised by Chandrashekhar.
One of his questions was related to the money spent on Kumbh. He was of the opinion that the funds could have been spent on providing medical care, education and employment to the youth and solving problems of many families.
Another suggestion offered by Chandrashekhar that went unanswered was that when the prime minister and chief minister visit the Maha Kumbh, they should pray for the dead bodies that surfaced on the banks of the Ganga in Allahabad during the Covid-19 pandemic. He also said they should also pray for those who were beaten to death in Muzaffarnagar, and also for the young man who attempted to self-immolate in front of the parliament after failing to get justice, Azad had remarked.
Also read: Can the Ganga Survive the Kumbh Mela?
Not only this, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav raised questions on the arrangements of Maha Kumbh and pointed out the dominance of VIP culture at the religious meet. But no efforts were made to counter these allegations. Instead, with much disdain, Akhilesh was advised to conduct a self-assessment and remember the arrangements at the event when he was in power.
Unfortunately, no one pointed out that the people of the state have punished Akhilesh for the problems during his term by snatching power from him. Are the new rulers proposing the same punishment for themselves?
Arrogance of those in power
Despite all this, the power-hungry politicians who have taken over the ‘Indian state’ (in the words of Rahul Gandhi) and are not stopping at any limit, sometimes appear helpless even in this ‘golden era’. This is because the people of India have considered religion a personal choice long before adopting democracy as described by the Constitution.
They also believe that a man has the freedom to accept or abandon any religion voluntarily, even when living under political slavery. That is why, despite facing many ’emotional atrocities’ in the distant past, they did not let the intentions of those powers – who imposed the religion they chose and declared to be the most benevolent and liberal – to succeed.
People even rejected their efforts towards social reform, believing it was not their responsibility, and paid more attention to those saints and social reformers who stayed away from the corridors of power. This is because people understood very well that state patronage cannot carry any religion or sect very far or for a long time.
That is why Islam, which some claim had ample state patronage, spread more in places where Sufis and saints actively propagated its contemporary values with love, than those places where the swords of its rulers waved.
Much earlier, moved by the terrible massacre during the historic Kalinga battle fought between 262 and 261 BC, ‘Devanampriya’ Ashoka took refuge in the non-violent religion of Buddhism and propagated it in various ways, spreading the message that his path of life of non-violence and compassion is the most beneficial for man.
A large section of his countrymen followed his footsteps but could not continue on the path longer than five-and-a-half decades, after he bid farewell to the world.
Another example is that of Mughal emperor Akbar, who held power from February 11, 1556 to October 27, 1605. The religion promoted by him called Deen-e-Ilahi also met a similar fate. He tried to present it as the most beneficial idea for his multi-religious and multilingual subjects and merged the essence of all the prevalent religions of the world at the time.
It not only contained the views of Hinduism and Islam but also facets of Jainism, Buddhism and Christianity. But the people refused to accept it. In fact, even Akbar’s own courtiers and others who were part of his kingdom rejected it.
Trusted courtiers of Akbar, like Man Singh and Abdul Rahim Khan-i-Khanan, continued to follow their respective religions and did not accept Deen-e-Ilahi.
However, Akbar never forced anyone to accept it. Nor did he take any strict action against those who did not accept it. If only the arrogant rulers, who are undermining the fundamental spirit of Hinduism by politicising events like the Maha Kumbh in the name of uplifting Hinduism with state patronage, understood this in time.
Krishna Pratap Singh is a senior journalist.
This article has been translated by Naushin Rehman. Read the Hindi original here.
