In recent years, India has seen its spiritual leaders thrust into the limelight of controversy, often under the guise of investigations or judicial scrutiny. One such figure is Sadhguru, also known as Jaggi Vasudev, a globally recognised spiritual leader and the founder of the Isha Foundation.
While I cannot claim to be an ardent follower of his teachings, I have watched a few of his videos and can appreciate the intellectual rigour with which he approaches discussions on spirituality. His ability to field complex questions, both in India and overseas, with clarity and depth speaks to a sharp intellect and a nuanced understanding of human nature.
Yet, the recent ‘raid‘ on his Isha Foundation by 150 police officers, ordered by the Madras High Court, appears to reek of judicial bias and a troubling trend of targeting Hindu spiritual leaders.
The case against Sadhguru and his foundation seems particularly flimsy when examined closely. Two women, the Kamaraj sisters, have voluntarily chosen to adopt a monastic lifestyle under the guidance of the Isha Foundation. They have openly stated that they are there by choice, even going as far as shaving their heads as a symbolic gesture of their commitment to a spiritual life.
Yet, allegations of ‘brainwashing’ continue to be levied against the foundation.
Where, one might ask, is the evidence of coercion or undue influence? In a democratic society that prides itself on individual freedoms, are these women not entitled to make their own life choices? The media and judicial apparatus, however, seem bent on painting a narrative of victimhood.
One of the more baffling criticisms levelled against Sadhguru is the fact that his daughter is married and living a comfortable life abroad. This, for some, seems to contradict his advocacy of a monastic lifestyle for others. But this argument falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. Is there some unwritten rule that a spiritual leader’s family must adhere to the same strictures that he advises for his followers? It is worth noting that Sadhguru has never claimed that everyone must adopt a monastic life. He merely offers it as a path for those who seek it.
Moreover, this type of critique exposes the glaring double standards at play. Would any court or media outlet dare to question a religious leader from another faith about the lifestyle choices of their children? Would they interrogate a mullah, moulvi, or priest on why their offspring enjoy the privileges of private schooling or overseas education while other children are sent to madrasas? The selective outrage is galling and underscores a deeper bias against Hinduism and its spiritual leaders.
A significant part of the problem lies in the role of the media, particularly outlets like The Indian Express, which have consistently exhibited a clear bias against Hinduism. The newspaper has gone so far as to label Sadhguru a ‘godman,’ a term that carries pejorative connotations in the Indian context. It is a term designed to diminish and delegitimise, invoking images of charlatans and fraudsters rather than spiritual leaders with a global following. To my knowledge, Sadhguru has never identified himself as a ‘godman,’ and the use of the term seems like a calculated move to discredit him in the eyes of the public.
The double standards in media coverage are stark. The Indian Express prides itself on being the ‘Journalism of Courage,’ but one has to wonder: would this same courage extend to labelling leaders of other faiths as ‘godmen’ or ‘godwomen’? Would they ever dare to refer to an imam or a Christian priest in such a derogatory manner? The likely answer is no. In certain instances, heads would roll — perhaps not literally, but certainly metaphorically, as people would lose their jobs, and the outcry would be deafening.
To fully understand the nature of the bias against Sadhguru, it is essential to examine who he is, both as a man and as a spiritual leader. Born in 1957 in Karnataka, Jaggi Vasudev was an ordinary boy with a deep connection to nature and a relentless curiosity about the world around him. His transformation into Sadhguru came after a profound spiritual experience on the Chamundi Hill in Mysore, where he described feeling one with everything around him. This realisation led him to start sharing his insights with others, ultimately culminating in the creation of the Isha Foundation in 1992.
What sets Sadhguru apart from many other spiritual leaders is his emphasis on inner engineering — a process of personal transformation that focuses on achieving mental clarity, emotional balance, and physical health through practices like yoga and meditation. His teachings are rooted in the ancient wisdom of Indian spirituality but are presented in a way that resonates with modern sensibilities. He speaks not just to the spiritual seeker but also to the rational mind, blending philosophy, science, and personal experience in his discourses.
His global appeal is undeniable. Sadhguru has spoken at prestigious forums like the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and numerous academic institutions around the world. His Save Soil movement, aimed at addressing the global soil crisis, is an example of how he transcends the traditional role of a spiritual leader to become an advocate for environmental and humanitarian causes.
As India grapples with its identity in the 21st century, the treatment of figures like Sadhguru raises uncomfortable questions about the nation’s commitment to pluralism and free expression. The raid on the Isha Foundation is not just an attack on one man or one organisation; it is part of a broader pattern of judicial and media bias against Hinduism and its spiritual traditions. In a country where the Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu can call for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma without fear of reprisal and where a priest smugly claims he wears shoes to avoid defiling his feet by touching the earth — an earth that Hindus revere as Bharat Mata, it is time to ask why the same level of scrutiny is not applied to other religious communities.
Instead of indulging in judicial excess against Sadhguru, perhaps our courts and media should reflect on their own biases. Maybe, it is time for an unbiased judicial system to take suo motu action against those who incite religious hatred — regardless of which faith they belong to.