— Dr. Satyawan Saurabh
Whether you light a lamp or choose not to is a personal decision. Following a religious tradition, maintaining distance from it, or observing it in your own way is a matter of individual freedom in a democratic society. However, when personal preference or political disagreement reaches the point of publicly ridiculing a religious symbol or cultural tradition, the issue is no longer merely about a lamp. The question then becomes how much respect we show for the faith and cultural sentiments of others while expressing disagreement.
The lamp has held a deeply significant place in Indian culture. The very essence of Diwali is associated with light, hope, and the triumph of light over darkness. The tradition of lighting lamps in homes, temples, and on various auspicious occasions has continued across generations. Even today, the practice of lighting a lamp at dusk can be seen in many Indian families. Therefore, for many people, a lamp is not merely an object made of oil, a wick, and clay; it is also a symbol of devotion, auspiciousness, knowledge, and positive energy.
This sentiment is expressed in the famous Sanskrit prayer:
“Deepo Jyotih Param Brahma, Deepo Jyotir Janardanah.
Deepo Haratu Me Papam, Sandhya Deepa Namostute.”
The prayer offers reverence to the flame of the lamp as the supreme light and expresses the wish that ignorance and negativity may be removed. This is why, in a Sanatani family, lighting a lamp may not simply be an ordinary household activity but a ritual associated with religious and cultural faith.
Therefore, lighting a lamp should never be imposed upon anyone, but neither should the faith of a person who lights a lamp be mocked. Individual freedom means not only the freedom to make one’s own choices but also the responsibility to respect the choices and faith of others. At the same time, when a religious symbol is associated with a political event, questions about that event are naturally legitimate. A person may ask what role a political programme should have in public institutions, whether participation is voluntary, and to what extent the use of public resources is appropriate.
This is where it becomes important to distinguish between criticism of a political event and disrespect toward a cultural symbol. If someone objects to lighting a lamp at an event, the criticism should concern the political nature of the programme, the administrative role, expenditure, or the manner of participation. Targeting the lamp itself, worship, or the Sanatan tradition takes the debate in a different direction. Similarly, if someone opposes a political event, it would also be inappropriate to label that person as anti-Indian culture or anti-religion merely on that basis.
Today, social media has given every individual a platform to express their views. But this has also created a challenge—the boundary between satire and criticism often becomes blurred. Certain words or images may appear to some people as ordinary political satire, while the same content may be perceived by others as an insult to their faith. Therefore, freedom on social media must be accompanied by social sensitivity.
The practice of blowing out candles on birthdays also arises in this context. Today, cutting a cake and blowing out candles on birthdays has become widely popular. On the other hand, people who regard the lamp as a symbol of auspiciousness and light within Indian religious traditions may view the practice differently. The cultural contexts of the two traditions are different. Therefore, choosing one practice or distancing oneself from another should not, by itself, be treated as proof of a person’s patriotism or loyalty to a particular culture.
Nevertheless, there is certainly a question worth considering: Are we as sensitive toward symbols associated with our own culture as we expect others to be toward symbols belonging to different cultures? If someone does not wish to light lamps during Diwali, they have the freedom to make that choice. But if another person lights a lamp with complete devotion, why should that person’s faith be mocked? Similarly, if someone participates in a political programme by lighting a lamp, criticism should focus on the political aspect of the programme rather than on that person’s religious faith.
In political debates, examples are also sometimes cited involving birthday celebrations of former prime ministers or other leaders and alleged government expenditure. To substantiate such allegations, the relevant year, expenditure details, and official documents must be presented. Making accusations of misuse of public funds against an individual or a former government without evidence is inappropriate. For today’s political debate to be meaningful and strong, facts are required—not merely old allegations.
The real question is not about the few rupees spent on oil and a wick. The real question is what our priorities should be in public life and what kind of language we should use. Should political differences become so intense that even cultural symbols become targets? Is it right to equate religious faith with political support? Does a person who lights a lamp necessarily support a particular political ideology? And does a person who chooses not to light a lamp automatically become opposed to culture? The answer to these questions is that a person’s faith and political preferences must be understood separately.
For some, a lamp represents worship; for others, tradition; for some, culture; and for others, simply light. Its interpretation may differ, but it is possible to express disagreement without insulting it. The strength of our culture lies not merely in the fact that we light lamps; it also lies in our ability to maintain dialogue among diverse viewpoints. A lamp’s flame removes darkness—in the same way, wisdom, restraint, and facts can remove the darkness surrounding public debate.
Therefore, whether you light a lamp or choose not to is your decision. Whether you support or oppose a political event is also your right. But before making fun of someone’s faith, and before hurting another person’s sentiments while expressing opposition, pause and think—disagreement is the strength of democracy, but respect is its dignity.
(Dr. Satyawan Saurabh, PhD (Political Science), is a poet and social thinker.)
(SDNA)