Religion, Power and Political Expediency: Swami Raghavendra Questions Congress’ Ideological Stand After Delhi Sadhus’ March

‘A Noble Aim Cannot Be Achieved Through Impure Means’: Swami Raghavendra Questions Mixing Religion With Political Ambition

Satya Dharam Samvad convenor criticises Delhi march led by Computer Baba, questions Pappu Yadav’s participation and asks Congress to clarify whether electoral power can justify ideological compromises

New Delhi: Swami Raghavendra, Convenor of Satya Dharam Samvad, has sharply criticised a protest march involving Computer Baba and a group of sadhus in Delhi, describing the episode as politically confused and raising broader questions about the increasing intersection of religion, electoral politics and the pursuit of power.

In an authored commentary, Raghavendra argued that Indian philosophical traditions have long warned against separating political objectives from the morality of the means employed to achieve them.

“A noble objective cannot be achieved through impure means. If political power becomes the ultimate goal, the principles that supposedly distinguish one political formation from another begin to lose their meaning,” he argued.

Sadhus’ March to PMO Stopped

According to Raghavendra, Computer Baba, a former Madhya Pradesh minister who has taken varying political positions over the years, led more than 100 sadhus from Mandi House with plans to march towards the Prime Minister’s Office and submit a memorandum.

The procession was stopped because it allegedly lacked the required administrative permission. Raghavendra said Delhi Police subsequently took around four mahants to the PMO, where they claimed they were asked to join the regular queue. Feeling insulted, they returned and addressed the media.

He questioned why most of the sadhus who had initially assembled were no longer visible when the delegation returned. The remaining religious leaders reportedly complained that their memorandum had not received appropriate attention and described the episode as an insult to Lord Rama. They also announced plans for individual “samadhi” protests at Atal Samadhi, but Raghavendra claimed the prominent participants had disappeared by evening.

Pappu Yadav’s Participation Questioned

Raghavendra reserved particular criticism for Independent Purnia MP Pappu Yadav, who, according to the article, joined the protesting sadhus and lay on the road after the procession was stopped.

He also referred to Yadav’s earlier appearance in Parliament dressed as a sadhu and noted that Jyotish Peeth Shankaracharya Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati had sought to defend that episode through references to classical traditions.

Seeing Yadav chanting “Jai Jai Shri Ram” alongside the protesters, Raghavendra said, raises a larger political question.

“Where does the Congress stand? Does it stand with personalities who have advocated ideas such as Hindu Rashtra, or with Mahatma Gandhi’s fundamental principle that the purity of the means determines the character of the end?” he asked.

The commentary notes that Pappu Yadav is an Independent MP politically aligned with the Congress, but does not establish that the Congress formally organised or endorsed the Delhi protest.

‘Is Political Power the Ultimate End?’

Raghavendra also criticised Computer Baba’s political trajectory, referring to his past support for Hindu Rashtra, his opposition to the BJP over the Ram Temple issue and controversial statements concerning Muslims.

He questioned whether political parties claiming commitment to scientific temper and sarva-dharma-sambhava, or equal respect for all religions, should directly or indirectly associate themselves with religious figures whose political positions may conflict with those principles.

“Even if political power can be regained through such alliances, what fundamentally changes in the country? Is acquiring power itself the final objective?” Raghavendra asked.

He invoked Mahatma Gandhi’s ethical conception of means and ends, arguing that the means are comparable to a seed and the eventual political outcome to the tree it produces.

Ancient Warning About Political Opportunism

Drawing on Bhartṛhari’s Nītiśataka, Raghavendra said classical Indian thought had recognised politics’ capacity to constantly change its character, becoming truthful or false, harsh or pleasant, compassionate or violent depending upon expediency.

“In such circumstances, any claim of bringing qualitative reform to Indian politics risks becoming empty rhetoric if principles are compromised merely for electoral advantage,” he said, directing the question particularly towards the Congress.

Raghavendra concluded with a literary reflection, invoking Mirza Ghalib’s celebrated description of the world as a children’s playground where spectacles unfold day and night.

For him, the Delhi episode represents a larger and more uncomfortable question confronting contemporary Indian politics: Can political parties credibly promise ethical and ideological change if the pursuit of power persuades them to compromise the very principles they claim to defend?