Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Swami Nityananda, a self-styled Godman, a swindler and a sex-offender in the eyes of prosecution, enlarged on bail last year in trial for crimes including rape, is hiding when the Karnataka Police is chasing after him on recent orders of the Chief Minister to take him into custody on fresh allegation of crime and after his pet goons assaulted the reporters querying about his alleged refusal to accept court summons on charges of sexual abuse raised newly by one of his victims, a woman belonging to USA.

The criminals are using bails as their freedom to commit further crimes as the courts are not binding them to prove themselves innocent within a stipulated period. By wrongful interpretation of bail, the courts are helping criminals to hoodwink the law and to stay free to play further havoc upon the society.

It is absolutely wrong to assume that everybody is innocent until proved guilty. Judiciary from bottom to top is addicted to this wrong. Therefore, the criminals are misusing bails to their own advantage.

It is not that the bail granting judge considers the accused not guilty.

The cognizance of the case against the accused is by itself indicative of acceptance of the alleged offense as true until proved otherwise.

So, the accused, granted bail, is an offender until proved innocent.

In other words, the judge holds the accused prima facie guilty; but honoring human rights, grants him time to prove himself not guilty.

This is the concept of bail.

Therefore, every bail needs be time-bound with stipulation that the accused must prove his/her innocence within the period of bail, failing which the court should simply pronounce the punishment, provided for the offense under the penal codes.

But judiciary is not doing it. As a result of which, judges are continuing to make farce of their power to grant bails; crimes are spreading and criminals are not being properly punished and the society is not being free from the grips of the offenders, the shrewd Sri Sris, the avaricious Babas, the spiritual looking mafias, the Gurus and the Godmen.

Had the so-called Godman Nityananda not been enlarged on bail or had his bail been time-bound and had he been required to prove his innocence within the boundary of that time, he might have already been punished for the crimes he is charged with or the cause of seeing in him a menace might have been removed.

But going through the Nityananda episode one does not feel like seeing something exceptional in the self-styled Godman.

In the country of the Sathya Sais, of Jayendra Saraswatis, of Chandraswamies, of Krupalus, of Thakurs, of Dadas, of Didis, of Dhirendra Brahmacharies, of Nirmal Babas and the likes, who of the so-called Godmen is not a devil?

2 comments » Write a comment

  1. There are noncontroversial and real spiritual guides. Only the true seekers come in their contact by the grace of Supreme. Using ones own intelligence may not work in spiritual sphere.

    • Dear Sri Raut,
      Many thanks for the time and thought given to the article. Even as I respect your belief, I would like to reiterate that, “Noncontroversial and real spiritual guides” never style themselves as Godmen.

      One instance may suffice. Orissa’s most “noncontroversial” and most revered, Acharya Harihar Das was a matchless “spiritual guide” to his pupils and the people; but was never a Godman to any of them. He never posed as a Godman; never allowed any propaganda that could have projected him as a Godman.

      The article in question deals with fellows who pose as Godmen.

      On the other hand, any phenomenon relating to God cannot be “noncontroversial”. Because, the concept of God itself is the basic cause of controversy amongst human beings.

      God forms the crux of battles that tear up every possibility of unity of the human society and destroys the environment of world peace. Wars are fought on the question as to which God is to be worshiped, which not. From the pre-epics till the present days, God has stayed the fountainhead of hatred of man for man. In Orissa context, episodes of Graham Stains and Laxmananand are enough to tell us to what nasty low the followers of different Gods can stoop.

      As far as “true seekers” are concerned, they are basically non-believers; because, belief in God does not keep alive any quest. So, no Godmen can be of any use to a “true seeker”. And, therefore, for “true seekers” the concepts like “grace of the Supreme” are meaningless. Buddha’s declaration that man is the maker of his destiny does not allow “grace of the Supreme” any role in human life. Every achiever is self-made. Ekalavya is an instance, whereas the Godman in his care is the villain.

      In fact “true seekers” are no seekers of any God, but are seekers only of human virtues. And, the Godmen, who thrive only on self-propaganda while amassing wealth by exploiting the faith of gullible followers are never any paragon of virtues. From days of epics to date, this is the reality witnessed.

      Whosoever enjoys being called a Godman or does not disapprove being called so, is a person with a scheme behind a mask. Devil always works behind a mask. Instance is Ravana. Behind the mask of a monk, he had obtained so many boons from all of the Gods of the epics, including Brahma. Had he not been masked as a saint, Siva and Brahma et cetera would never have entertained him and Sita could never have ignored Laxman’s injunctions in Chitrakuta to the extent of being kidnapped by him. No devil works without being regarded as a Godman.

      I am, therefore, yet to see, who of the Godmen is not a devil.
      Kind regards,
      Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.