Clash with modernity: Andhbhakti and the politics of obedience

By Dr. P.K. Gupta* 

Andhbhakti literally means blind devotion. In present-day Hindi it is often used, sometimes pejoratively, for uncritical loyalty to a religious teacher, political leader, party or ideology. The term should be used with care. Deep devotion is not necessarily blind, and unquestioning obedience is not unique to Hinduism or India. It becomes dangerous when loyalty silences evidence, conscience, reasoning and accountability. Modernity challenges this submission wherever it requires denial of factual claims that cannot withstand reasoned examination.

Vedic and later traditions linked the ruler to dharma, protection and social order. The Arthashastra treated government practically, expecting protection of the realm and welfare of subjects while permitting surveillance, punishment and calculation, and demanding a father-son relationship between king and ruled. The Prayaga Prashasti praises Samudragupta through divine comparisons and presents victories as proof of virtue; it is a court panegyric, showing how praise could place a ruler above criticism. 

Sacral kingship developed across regions: Nepal’s Shah kings were associated with Vishnu; Odisha’s Gajapati was foremost servant of Jagannath. In the Delhi Sultanate, Balban elevated the throne through Persianate kingship, with the ruler as shadow of God and court rituals of prostration. In medieval Karnataka, retainers called garudas or velavalis pledged extreme loyalty, including suicide after a master’s death. Political office could thus be surrounded by sacred symbolism and ceremony that discouraged dissent.

Power attracts agreeable speech. Courtiers, officials and beneficiaries may tell a ruler what protects their position rather than what he needs to know. Ronald Wintrobe called a version of this the dictator’s dilemma: repression may suppress visible opposition while depriving the ruler of reliable information about genuine support. A court filled with praise can make power less informed even as it appears more secure. Accountability weakens because no one wishes to be first to state an unwelcome fact.

Digital media have enlarged the reach of religious and political personalities. Repetition, edited images, devotional music, staged crowds and constant forwarding create intimacy and authority without personal knowledge. A preacher or leader may be seen as sole protector of faith, nation or community. Once that belief is established, mind control becomes easy. 

Followers may disregard medical evidence, consumer protection, crowd-safety rules or judicial findings because acceptance would disturb loyalty. Political organisations may value a religious figure as a ready-made voting constituency. The relationship becomes mutually protective: influence produces votes, patronage preserves influence.

Neoplatonism is not an Indian religious school. Plotinus emphasised the soul’s return to the One; Iamblichus gave a larger place to theurgy, ritual acts and sacred symbols through which the practitioner sought divine power. A direct descent from Neoplatonism to Hindu ritual cannot be asserted, but the comparison identifies a recurring structure: an intermediary claims privileged knowledge of rites through which divine assistance may be obtained. This becomes dangerous when ritual is converted into a contract. 

Payment for a priest’s time, materials and learning is legitimate. Contract ritualism begins when payment is represented as guaranteeing a wish, relief or reward. Andhbhakti then protects the intermediary from scrutiny even after failed predictions, exposed deception or criminal conviction. The point is not to label Hindu practice Neoplatonic but to notice how unverifiable ritual power becomes a source of obedience.

The modern andhbhakt is not necessarily an uneducated villager attached to a hereditary guru. A new class is urban, educated, professionally employed and continuously connected through smartphones, devotional channels and political media. Education may improve technical competence without producing historical judgement, media literacy or courage to question one’s own group. 

Wealth and status do not protect against emotional manipulation, supernatural promises or coercive control. Digital andhbhakti differs from older discipleship in scale and speed: followers who have never met the leader receive identical messages, repeat coordinated claims, attack critics and reinterpret adverse evidence within minutes.

Indian criminal law does not formally create a separate category for seers, gurus or preachers. The weakness appears in enforcement. Followers, administrators and political leaders may avoid confrontation with a religious figure who commands donations, crowds and votes. 

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has received repeated parole and furlough while serving sentences for serious offences. Asaram has received interim medical bail subject to judicial conditions; such relief may be compared with treatment of similarly placed prisoners. In the Hathras crowd crush, the charge sheet named organisers but not the preacher Suraj Pal; criticism must distinguish moral influence from criminal liability and follow the inquiry record. The larger concern is institutional hesitation.

A large devotional following can become an organised vote bank. Its political value lies not only in numbers but in message discipline. A religious leader can communicate a preference to thousands or millions through sermons, private meetings, digital channels or symbolic appearances. Parties may seek blessings, attend congregations, offer access or soften criticism in expectation of coordinated electoral support. 

The benefit operates both ways: politicians receive mobilised voters, volunteers and social legitimacy; religious leaders gain proximity to power, administrative attention and public importance. The democratic problem is not that citizens sharing a faith vote similarly. It arises when political support is exchanged, expressly or tacitly, for protection from investigation, regulatory indulgence, preferential release or silence about abuse.

Indian traditions also contain strong resources against andhbhakti. In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha advises the people of Kesaputta not to accept a teaching merely because it rests on oral tradition, lineage, scripture, abstract reasoning, a teacher’s apparent competence or reverence for a guru. The discourse asks the listener to examine whether teachings lead to harm or welfare and to consider the judgement of the wise. 

Materialist schools grouped as Charvaka or Lokayata privileged perception and criticised claims not established through ordinary experience. Bhakti traditions do not support one compulsory model of submission. Kabir, Ravidas, Basava, Tukaram, Guru Nanak and many others challenged hollow ritual, caste pride and the monopoly of intermediaries. Their paths differed, but they joined faith to moral criticism. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century reformers tested inherited practice against equality, compassion, education and public reason.

The Constitution gives this critical inheritance a civic form. Article 51A(h) identifies scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform as a fundamental duty. Scientific temper does not require hostility to faith. It requires that claims about medicine, public policy, history and conduct of leaders remain open to evidence and correction.

Denial of scientific evidence, promotion of mysticism and theurgy, and unquestioned ritualism are common in many Hindu families. Multiple deras and sects have built structures upon such mass psychology. Devotees’ misplaced faith in seers and sect heads has given masters a free hand to exploit wealth, honour and to commit sexual exploitation of family members and children. The persistence of these family traditions contributes to political stability when voting happens on gurus’ directives.

The family is often the first place where reverence is learned. It can also be the first place where respectful questioning is protected. Children should be free to ask why a ritual is performed, whether a forwarded claim is true, how a donation is used and whether the same moral standard applies to one’s preferred leader and to an opponent.

Modern Hindu society does not need less devotion. It needs devotion joined to conscience. Andhbhakti begins with the surrender of judgement; its remedy is the disciplined use of reason, ethical responsibility and equal standards.

---

*Contact: guptapradeepkumar698@gmail.com