Heal the Swadhyay Parivar

The recent developments in the Swadhyay Parivar are a telling case study of the challenge of transitioning leadership in spiritual organizations, particularly as the power to mobilize millions begins to trump the very purpose of such institutions. The controversy surrounding the murder of Pankaj Trivedi and the preceding battles related to the growing fractionalization of the Swadhyay Parivar has no doubt done irreparable damage to the mission and reputation of Swadhyay. As in most social organizations, public perception is paramount: the future of Swadhyay is at a critical juncture – one between continuing its meteoric organic growth and that of fading away as an obscure sect of the 20^th Century.

Swadhyay, like many social movements, was built on the charisma and impeccable character of its leader, Rev. Pandurang Shashtri Athavale. Post Dadaji’s passing, the events that characterize Swadhyay have suggested desperation in attempts to preserve and propagate such a large spiritual movement built on faith and energy that was more often than not dependent on Dadaji’s presence. In recent years, perhaps in an attempt to prove Swadhyay’s continuing adaptability and attractiveness as a philosophy, far more energy has been spent on the numerical growth of the Swadhyay Parivar and in fighting the bitter critics that resulted from a messy shift in power than in building on the very principles that rendered the movement as a revolutionary contribution to human spirituality.

Its troubles, or more constructively coined as ‘challenges’, are squarely a product of the circumstances surrounding Dadaji’s ailing health for years before his passing and the turn of events that ignored previous strategies for a power succession as defined by Dadaji; towards the end of his life, he made a controversial gamble in choosing to empower his daughter as Swadhyay’s leader rather than adopt a long-planned decentralized and balanced governance structure. On the surface, the Parivar was supportive of the succession plan, but trouble began to boil underneath. A group of Swadhyay old-timers made an untimely objection to the change in succession, some speculate that it was in the interest of their own power to rule, and gave rise to a major rift in the psychology of the Swadhyay Parivar. The string of events and name-calling since Dadaji’s passing has unintentionally, and unfortunately, led to a dynastic and often authoritarian power structure that has bred a growing community of disgruntled Swadhyayees.

With Dada’s death, it seems, so died the phenomenal trust relationships that defined the foundation of the Swadhyay Parivar. The downward spiral of distrust has led to a messy pseudo-public fight; the fear of being ostracized has silenced the critical thinkers that continue to go to Swadhyay, and the desire to preserve Dadaji’s lesson has given rise to a fundamentalist splinter that undermines the very essence of Swadhyay’s compassionate philosophy by dealing with dissidents through violence and spiritual intimidation.

As an outsider, it is important to recognize that the Swadhyay Parivar has two major general constituencies: the poor/underclass villages where Swadhyay practices have transformed communities and provided the empirical basis for its philosophy, and the spiritually hungry middle and upper classes/castes that dominate Swadhyay’s governing structure and global reach. For the most part, the pureness of Swadhyay philosophy remains visible at the village level; although recent interference in the governance structure of the trusts that manage village projects has centralized control over the hundreds of previously independent institutions that constituted the Swadhyay Parivar. Many critics are skeptical of the motives for assuming singular control of Swadhyay’s vast network of cash-rich institutions. However, providing a singular vision for such a large movement post Dadaji is not a trivial task and may require its leadership to drive such structural change.

As Swadhyay picked up momentum in the 80s, the urban and foreign followers brought great prominence to Swadhyay, connecting it to the elite circles of religious tradition around the world and served as a resource-rich community that contributed generously in kind and cash to catalyze Swadhyay’s global growth, leading to the Magsasay Award and the prestigious Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. Unfortunately, this community of critical thinkers with great potential also drives the intellectual struggles that have blotted the organization’s reputation and questionable future.

For NRIs and much of urban Maharashtra and Gujarat, Swadhyay was an attractive institution for its time: it understood the frustration of the intellectual classes and aimed to take money out of the equation of spirituality by ensuring equitable access to powerful concepts of Hindu philosophical systems. The entire Swadhyay structure, no rules, no monetary incentives, no hierarchy was an example of idealistic governance and human organization. In a great irony, these very things that made Swadhyay a powerful mobilizing force are precisely what is creating so much controversy today. Accusations of financial impropriety, unethical behavior, and ego-driven power structures have broken the trust relationships that built the backbone that balanced Swadhyay’s structure. Many Swadhyay participants have gone from being blindly faithful in the Swadhyay method to vocal questioning of financial accountability and responsibility within the Swadhyay structure. In many ways, Swadhyay is a victim of predictably unpredictable factors of human nature: Ego, Greed, and the old adage ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

Why is this such a big deal?

If Swadhyay was a family-run business, few would criticize the succession of power that led to Dhanushree/Jayashree Talwalker’s (Dadaji's adopted daughter, affectionately known as ‘Didi’) leadership; but it is an institution entrusted to society and its followers. As a spiritual institution supported by its vast faith-based community of followers, there is great emphasis on ensuring the ethical continuance of its Charitable Trusts – which, by definition, are empowered with resources for a collective mission and responsible to society at large.

The emotional anguish that is illustrated through its critics, particularly highly-placed insiders who believe they have been unethically banished from the institution to which they gave much of their adult life, is based on the enormous amount of affection for the Swadhyay “Karya” (work) and the innovative thought process that Dadaji embodied. The criticism of Swadhyay has focused on the uncharacteristic change to heavy-handed governance and stylistic changes in matters related to money entrusted to Swadhyay to continue its mission in the same pure spirit that built Swadhyay from the ground up.

As a Swadhyay participant, it has been interesting to see the movement transform from an institution for all to a religious tradition of its own. In the early years of Swadhyay’s urbanization, it created a needed space for critical thinking and personal commitment to non-denominational spiritual progress. The sense of self-improvement led many to progressively withdraw from other social circles and immerse in the growing social and community structures that evolved from the Swadhyay method. An entire economy, of sorts, developed from this phenomenon: the production and sale of pictures, the copyright of Swadhyay symbols, the limited distribution of Swadhyay musical composition, the enormous resources involved in running and attending Swadhyay’s massive programs around the world. In recent years, there have been subtle attempts to suggest the deification of Dadaji – perhaps is a sign of a major strategic shift from open-minded spirituality to dogmatic religious constructs.

In the process, Swadhyay developed an insulated social structure. It became a family affair, and a community of literally thousands of families. In the NRI community, the major driver for Swadhyay attendance often was the desperate need to provide cultural and spiritual exposure to children living in a western context. After a decade, the interdependence of the Swadhyay community for everything from babysitting, to medical care, to computer repairs built a social network that served to glue Swadhyayees together as an ethnic enclave of their own. These vast social networks may be one of the largest reasons that recent controversies have had little effect on the immediate Swadhyay community. While new members may not be keen to join an organization clouded by major leadership challenges and a spotty record of intimidating tactics, the older folks will not leave because their lives, friend circles, and sometimes even livelihoods are hopelessly intertwined with Swadhyay. Bluntly said, many people who have gone to Swadhyay for years wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if they stopped going now.

With such a devoted following, the Swadhyay Parivar has amassed a great amount of “impersonal wealth”: money donated to operate and support the Swadhyay cause often with no questions asked or demands made. Some estimates suggest that the numerous trusts hold more than 1,000 crore rupees (US $200 million) among them, much of it from the sweat of villagers contributing their time and skills to God and pursuant income generated to these community trusts. This idle collection of funds came as a surprise in an organization that was known to take only the money needed to operate and whose charities were created to spend the money collected in decentralized trusts on local village upliftment. The combination of such a large amount of unrestricted funds entrusted to the Swadhyay institutions, changes in governing power structures to give centralized control, and followers that are scared into no longer asking critical questions suggests a ripe environment for the vices of human nature to emerge. Swadhyay’s critics venomously spout circumstantial evidence to suggest that the institution is already violating the trust of its constituents, but the more alarming concern of such an unaccountable governance structure is the obvious potential for impropriety in an institution whose foundation is based on a perception of purity with monetary issues.

However, it is important to note that the trusts, charities, and Swadhyay leadership do not seem to have criminally misused any funds to date.

What happens next?

No one knows. It is likely that all parties in the Swadhyay struggle share similar motivation and love for the Swadhyay concept. Most could be commended for their intentions, despite their wild differences in approaches to the philosophy. However, it is clear that the Parivar needs to take a deep, introspective look at possible solutions to heal the family from the conflict that is tearing it apart. In light of disproportionate emphasis on dealing with critics in a inherently spiritual organization, Swadhyay needs a reality check to refocus on their compassionate mission. The use of violence, intimidation, and fear are classic reflections of a crisis of governance and may be the driver of Swadhyay’s recent heavy-handed strategies for control. To get out of the current controversies with its integrity intact, Swadhyay needs to actively purge itself of rogue elements that thrive on power, fear, and intimidation in the name of faith. It might be useful for Swadhyay organizations to renew their commitments to transparency and accountability. In many ways, it would be an essential public relations exercise for Swadhyay to take this opportunity to stand on the side of justice and its inherently spiritual mission rather than one narrow side of its own political conflict.

If Swadhyay does not take this chance to embrace everyone, including its critics, or at the very least re-center itself on the powerful philosophy that it embodies, the fear shared by all sides of the fight is that the institution will cease to have the mass appeal that characterized it as a transformational movement - the end of Swadhyay as we know it - and a great disservice to its noteworthy univeral philosophy.