This was written many months ago but I procrastinated publishing it. I am publishing now, even though it is a fairly outdated matter because I don’t like my good writing gathering dust in the drafts folder. Also, fyi, I had earlier written Sadhguru’s CAA Video #1: should spiritual leaders give their views on political matters?

Disclaimer: While I volunteer with the Isha media team, it is not like I am privy to everything Sadhguru does, even if it is related to a major online backlash. So, this article is only my understanding of the matter, not an official statement.

We had a fairly serious backlash to Sadhguru’s CAA video. When I first watched the Youtube video, I realised that it would incite a backlash. What I didn’t expect was that Modi & BJP would rally around it to make it a much bigger matter. There followed a fairly woebegone night where we watched multiple hashtags trending on Twitter against Sadhguru. Lots of name calling, jokes, hate and the works. One aspect that a lot of the opposition mocked was that “he didn’t even read the act”.

It’s fairly late for this post, but I think that is a good thing. People may now be a little more receptive to this piece than when they were fully riled up.

He said in the video, “he hadn’t read the act fully”. But he had “looked up a few things”, “asked around” and so on.

I don’t know whether he actually read the act but then misspoke on the video. Or whether he didn’t read the full act at all. 

In either case, I don’t think it matters. Yes, many of you will want to disagree and throw vile abuse at me. But let me finish.

That’s the good part of writing an article… one gets to finish. Unlike starting a twitter thread where another human (often male) can jump in and take it off on a vague tangent. 

#1 Reading the CAA act is overrated 

On Twitter, everyone is an expert. You must have seen it. During any financial crisis – everyone is an expert in national policy and finance management. During the Save Aarey outrage in Mumbai, everyone was a metro rail engineer and came up with all sorts of “obvious” ways to build the yard somewhere else. Except that they had absolutely no experience of infrastructural engineering or urban layout even. And yes, when legal laws and acts are framed, then we all are legal experts.

Except that we aren’t.

A lot of us who have never read another act, how exactly are we supposed to read the CAA act and take a stand?

In the first paragraph itself this act mentions specific sections of two other acts, the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and Foreigners Act, 1946. So, we would also have to understand those two other acts and their contexts.

When I tried to search for those two acts, it was not easy to procure them. I suspect most other people haven’t bothered. Otherwise, people would have started sharing them on Twitter along with the CAA act.

Moreover, if you are aware of judicial proceedings, you would know that often laws and acts have many nuances. And there are cases where multiple judges will “interpret” them in a certain way. Often different judges will disagree.

These legal matters are so devious and nuanced, how is a lay person like me or, most of you readers, supposed to simply read the act and become an expert on CAA?

The fact is you don’t.

Reading the CAA act is overrated.

But then it begs the question, how then do we take a stand on the matter?

That’s a great question!

#2 How Do We Take a Stand on nuanced matters like the CAA as a non-Expert? 

One line from Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra comes to my mind, pratyaksha anuman agamah pramanani. The three ways to form the right perception. 

Pratyaksha : What we can directly see / feel with our senses. 

This category isn’t applicable here. Maybe someone may consider that we can directly read the act but again it is all based on our interpretation. Thus, questionable.

Anuman: Gauge the situation by understanding the character of people involved

Some things to consider in this situation are the highly outrage prone online junta, proliferation of fake news, media bias, Sadhguru’s other views on myriad matters, BJP aggression and so on. We need to look at all these signs and gauge the overall situation.

For example, if I see Mamta Banerjee going against BJP and supporting CAA, then I won’t put any value to it. Because she could simply be opposing her political rivals. Unless there is any supporting reason that suggests something different.

This may sound difficult, but you could imagine detective stories. In the beginning, a particular person seems to be the most obvious criminal. But soon the character of different people unravels and the story slowly unfolds. Similarly, invest some time into observation and studying of people without judgement. Understand how things work. Based on that, over time you can gain deeper insight into the world and then with a bit of delving you can gauge the situation.

On a small tangential note, this is also the reason why people who are non-experts, but have a better perception and vision than us, are respected. And we tend to give value to their opinions. Because gauging the situation well requires a deep sense of the world. 

Agamah: Listen or Read an ACTUAL expert

We all privileged folk do have some lawyers, judges and even government folks in our contact circles. It is fine even if you haven’t spoken to them in ages. Break the ice and get their views. They will probably feel flattered that you thought of them. Plus, you get some really good insight into matters.

You will realise, as I have, that they have their political leanings too. And it affects their opinions. It is good to be aware of this. There are expert views and detailed analysis available online as well. Check for inherent biases though.

So this is where I am coming from when I say reading the act is overrated.

Sadhguru mentioned he “looked some stuff up”, “spoke to a few people” but didn’t read the act fully. And that is fine because,

‘Looked some stuff up’ could be really deep analysis from authors he trusts and follows for years. ‘Spoke to a few people’ could be Harish Salve (I have an amazing impression of him!) for all I know. Sadhguru sure has some very high reaching connections of this kind around him! 

“But He expected all the student protestors to have read the act” 

Another grouse folks were trolling him on this was because he later said in the video that “the student protestors should have read the act”.

How can he expect students to have read it, when he himself hadn’t read it?

Because of how invested one is into the matter.

Sadhguru would have done a fair bit of research as required for any citizen of India on the matter. When a devotee asked him a question on it, he gave his views. It was a 15 minute interaction for him. And whatever other time he spent researching on it. And yes, he is a public figure with much influence, even then his personal involvement into this matter is fairly limited.

The students who are protesting, have left everything they were doing, they are out on the road risking police brutality and more. For sure, they would have delved into the matter completely including reading the act & understanding all its nuances, isn’t it? And yet in multiple media coverage we see that when asked detailed Qs about the matter, the protestors don’t have a clue.

There have even been cases where the protestor doesn’t know what the protest is actually about. They were simply supporting the group, in good spirit (kudos on that). 

Refer: https://twitter.com/knowthenation/status/1208050057729036289

A more recent one: https://twitter.com/tweettokarishma/status/1221306767537106944

So in this way, I thought his rhetoric was OK. Maybe he could have worded a few things differently, but I have made too many public speaking gaffs to point a finger at anyone else. He overall does an amazing job of things. So that’s that. 

In Summary,

I see the online culture where it is easy to fall into a mocking and disdainful rhetoric. “He didn’t even read the act but is giving his views”. Especially when the person in question has criticised something you are passionate about. But when we really think about it, the logic is flawed. Because there are very reliable ways to know the act without actually reading it.

Whatever our stand on CAA, I believe it is in our best interests to look at things intelligently and not run amok with emotions. To mock and disdain him may seem like a good option. But it doesn’t help us intelligently gauge the truth. And that must be our core purpose at all times.