![]() |
| Illustration by Gemini |
Six decades ago, Kerala’s beloved poet Vayalar
Ramavarma sang about gods that don’t
open their eyes, don’t know joy or sorrow, but are mere clay idols. The movie
that carried the song was a hit in Kerala in the late 1960s. I was only seven
when the movie was released. The impact of the song, like many others composed
by the same poet, sank into me a little later as I grew up. Our gods are quite
useless; they are little more than narcissists who demand fresh and fragrant
flowers only to fling them when they wither.
Six decades after Kerala’s poet
questioned the potency of gods, the Chief Justice of India
had a shoe flung at him by a lawyer for the same thing: questioning the
worth of gods. The lawyer was demanding the replacement of a damaged idol of
god Vishnu and the Chief Justice wondered why gods couldn’t take care of
themselves since they are omnipotent. The lawyer flung his shoe at the Chief
Justice to prove his devotion to a god.
From Vayalar of 1967 to the lawyer of
2025, India has come a long way: from liberal secularism to emotive fanaticism.
If Vayalar were to write today, he would be killed by the country’s right-wing
riffraff.
When North India silenced the
shoe-flinging incident because the lawyer who committed the atrocity was high
caste and the Chief Justice a Dalit, another far more bone-rattling case
emerged in Vayalar’s own Kerala. Half a kilogram of gold
went missing from the most famous temple of the state: Sabarimala. The
deity was incapable of protecting his own property! What use are such gods?
Chief Justice Gavai would wish to ask.
B R Ambedkar, father of India’s
Constitution, declared a century ago that “God is a useless thing for the
purposes of the human life.” B R Gavai, the Chief Justice of India today, is an
Ambedkarite. On multiple occasions, Gavai has publicly reaffirmed Ambedkar's
vision of an inclusive and just India. He has emphasized that the Indian
Constitution, as a living document, continues to uphold the values of liberty,
equality, and fraternity that Ambedkar championed. Constitution, not the 33 crore
gods of the country’s pantheon.
Ambedkar’s portrait was removed from
the Delhi Chief Minister’s office soon after BJP’s Rekha Gupta assumed office
in February 2025. This lady had the audacity to state that the Brahmins who “ignited the flame of knowledge in the country” also worshipped weapons. “Only through
weapons and scriptures can we protect society and the country today,” she said reinforcing
the obsolete caste system.
Unnikrishnan Potti, a Brahmin, was
stealing Lord Ayappan’s gold when Rekha Gupta was proclaiming the glory of
Brahmins.
Helpless Ayappan. Do our other gods fare
any better?
Gods who can’t open their eyes, who
can’t laugh or cry… the poet laments. And the politicians laugh all the way to
their respective thrones.
When a politician kneels publicly, check your wallet—and your rights. They're usually reaching for one or the other.
PS. This post is a part of Blogchatter Half
Marathon 2025


Great and Deep Reflections for the morning. I like the Chief Justice's attitude of non-chaklance, over the incident. " Let us carry on with the work. Things like this do not bother me.. " Perhaps, if he had penned the Babari Masjid Judgement and owned it by signing it, Indus's secular Face would stood out better. Far cry from Chandrachud's cryptic but blatant Brahminism.
ReplyDeleteThe CJ displayed greatness of personality with that nonchalance. The lawyer didn't deserve any attention but that solemn indifference. Chandrachud pretended to be liberal.
DeleteVery true. Your wallet or your rights. Or both.
ReplyDeleteBoth, very often, right?
DeleteA blogpost worth reading. Anyone with a little common sense can judge what is right and what is wrong. But the ones with common sense are being scarce now a days in our country (and in the world at large)
ReplyDeletePolitical sense is the opposite of common sense!
DeleteHari Om
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts went along the same lines as Haddock's... and clearly the shoe thrower cannot see himself as observers do... as nothing more than a toddler having a tantrum. YAM xx
That's why I suppose the CJ just ignored it. The best he could have done.
DeleteAn amusing read I must say ! Common sense has left the room in the current times I would say.
ReplyDeleteThat lawyer is an old man, however!
Delete