That the fanatical propagators of the Hindutva menace invoke Hindu pride and heritage to aid their petty arguments has been a constant source of irk. I recently read a well researched book called "Being Different" authored by a startlingly bold thinker called Rajiv Malhotra. Hindutva and Hinduism are actually poles apart. (In this entire post, I refer to Hindutva as the fanatical, extreme right wing movement associated with it in the present day.)
What is ironical is that Hindutva proponents end up mirroring the acts and the agendas of the extremists of other religions, whom they hold out as their adversaries. The Hindutva approach has always been one of fighting fire with fire. They counter aggressive conversion with aggression and violence. They raise the whole façade of "Hinduism in danger" and call all faithful Hindus to arms, in several walks of life, ranging from politics to mindless rioting on streets. Most importantly, the history centric nature of the Hindutva debate really stands out.
History centrism is a feature that is characteristic of Abrahamic religions. As defined by Malhotra, it is the unwavering and unquestionable faith that is placed on certain historical events, like the resurrection of Christ or Moses' rendezvous with God on Mt Sinai where he was given the ten commandments. History in the traditional Hindu schools has always been a mutable story which can be amended as per the views of the author who chooses to write it. The authenticity of a historical document doesn't play as significant a role in Hindu thought as the relevance of its interpretations to the times in which it is authored. The factual particulars mentioned within these texts are never given any authority. For instance, there are three renowned versions of the Ramayana, authored by the ancient sage Valmiki, the 13th century Tamil poet Kamban and the 16th century bhakti saint Tulsidas who wrote in Awadhi. These versions are so vastly different when considered factually. However, each version was relevant to its time and fit perfectly into the social milieu of its authorship. Which version is more factually correct is entirely irrelevant.
This brings me to the primary bone of contention that the advocates of Hindutva place before the Indian populace: The Ram Mandir issue. Starting from the destruction of the Babri Masjid, moving on to the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 and the 5 years of power that the BJP enjoyed, all of these events hinged upon the manipulation of the sensibilities of the Indian masses using the Ayodhya issue. Ironically, it is entirely irrelevant to the Hindu school of thought as to whether Rama was born in Ayodhya of the present day or if his temple really existed there. Rama, who is held out as the exemplary Uttama Purusha in Hindu tradition, has had to lend his name to revolting organisations such as the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.
Hindutva has all the despicable elements to leave true followers of Hinduism shame faced: several irresponsible youth groups, a fanatical body that twiddles the strings of its political party, armed militants and a history of mindless religious violence among several other unspeakable agendas. Hinduism has a history of mutual respect for other religions. Two other dharmic religions have taken birth in the lap of Hinduism without any opposition: Jainism and Buddhism. It has been a faith that is always accommodative of alternate paths to God. Never in the Vedas is it written anywhere that only a specific path leads to Moksha. I've grown up reciting prayers like the one below.
This prayer roughly translates to "Just as all the water that pours out of the sky ends up flowing into the same ocean, all the obeisances offered to the various gods find their way to the supreme being."
It is this legacy of Hinduism that Hindutva seeks to tarnish. In the face of their aggressive tactics not working, these "Kar-Sevaks" merely resort to more aggression. All this is perpetrated in the name of a religion that doesn't, by any stretch of imagination, lend their arguments any credibility. Hinduism is in danger mostly from the manner in which Hindutva is carried forth in the present day. We will never truly be a free nation until we see the eradication of the Hindutva menace.
What is ironical is that Hindutva proponents end up mirroring the acts and the agendas of the extremists of other religions, whom they hold out as their adversaries. The Hindutva approach has always been one of fighting fire with fire. They counter aggressive conversion with aggression and violence. They raise the whole façade of "Hinduism in danger" and call all faithful Hindus to arms, in several walks of life, ranging from politics to mindless rioting on streets. Most importantly, the history centric nature of the Hindutva debate really stands out.
History centrism is a feature that is characteristic of Abrahamic religions. As defined by Malhotra, it is the unwavering and unquestionable faith that is placed on certain historical events, like the resurrection of Christ or Moses' rendezvous with God on Mt Sinai where he was given the ten commandments. History in the traditional Hindu schools has always been a mutable story which can be amended as per the views of the author who chooses to write it. The authenticity of a historical document doesn't play as significant a role in Hindu thought as the relevance of its interpretations to the times in which it is authored. The factual particulars mentioned within these texts are never given any authority. For instance, there are three renowned versions of the Ramayana, authored by the ancient sage Valmiki, the 13th century Tamil poet Kamban and the 16th century bhakti saint Tulsidas who wrote in Awadhi. These versions are so vastly different when considered factually. However, each version was relevant to its time and fit perfectly into the social milieu of its authorship. Which version is more factually correct is entirely irrelevant.
This brings me to the primary bone of contention that the advocates of Hindutva place before the Indian populace: The Ram Mandir issue. Starting from the destruction of the Babri Masjid, moving on to the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 and the 5 years of power that the BJP enjoyed, all of these events hinged upon the manipulation of the sensibilities of the Indian masses using the Ayodhya issue. Ironically, it is entirely irrelevant to the Hindu school of thought as to whether Rama was born in Ayodhya of the present day or if his temple really existed there. Rama, who is held out as the exemplary Uttama Purusha in Hindu tradition, has had to lend his name to revolting organisations such as the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.
Hindutva has all the despicable elements to leave true followers of Hinduism shame faced: several irresponsible youth groups, a fanatical body that twiddles the strings of its political party, armed militants and a history of mindless religious violence among several other unspeakable agendas. Hinduism has a history of mutual respect for other religions. Two other dharmic religions have taken birth in the lap of Hinduism without any opposition: Jainism and Buddhism. It has been a faith that is always accommodative of alternate paths to God. Never in the Vedas is it written anywhere that only a specific path leads to Moksha. I've grown up reciting prayers like the one below.
आकाशात् पतितम् तोयम् यथा गच्छति सागरम् ।
सर्वदेव नमस्कारः केशवम् प्रति गच्छति ॥
This prayer roughly translates to "Just as all the water that pours out of the sky ends up flowing into the same ocean, all the obeisances offered to the various gods find their way to the supreme being."
It is this legacy of Hinduism that Hindutva seeks to tarnish. In the face of their aggressive tactics not working, these "Kar-Sevaks" merely resort to more aggression. All this is perpetrated in the name of a religion that doesn't, by any stretch of imagination, lend their arguments any credibility. Hinduism is in danger mostly from the manner in which Hindutva is carried forth in the present day. We will never truly be a free nation until we see the eradication of the Hindutva menace.
ओं शान्ति शान्ति शान्ति हि|
4 comments:
what you say is true... however i feel hindutva politics is more of a reaction against the fanaticism of the abrahamic traditions (which donot follow the Ekam Sat Bahudha Vipra Vadanthi philosophy and have Exclusivity claims towards divinity, culture etc) than as an action towards fundamentalism!!! Coz in the 80's shaha bano case, North Eastern countries turn towards christianity(in 1947 they were hindu majority) and hence a demand towards a seperate country for Jesus, 2 lakh and more Kashmir pandits(kafirs) being refugees in their own motherland, continuous bomb blasts all over the country etc terrorist attacks funded by islamic countries etc, silence on bangladeshi immigrants, these kind of things are not even criticized in the general media and public sphere.. so a vacuum is created where BJP , RSS kind of organisations find sympathy from the public against the well funded missionaries and Dar-ul-islam jehadis.. its just an action-reaction phenomenon... if all intellectuals(media political bloggers celebrities etc) in bharatha stand up and criticize the arrogant exclusivity claims of abrahamic traditions, just like how they critsize caste system etc then BJP RSS will cease to exist is what i humbly feel.
Check out this article ..
http://www.mediacrooks.com/2011/01/why-liberal-media-is-scared-of-religion.html#.T-3OzBdo2BY
chk out this Rajiv malhotra's views on Left and Hindutva
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&catid=26:debate-with-vijay-prashad-trinity-college&Itemid=34
Well, it is the duty of the followers of every religion to make it progressive from within. I'm trying to do my bit with Hinduism. Since I'm not completely aware of the tents of other religions, I am not in a position to point out to their fundamentalists where they err. That, I leave to the people of their own religion.
Reactionary is true, but still not justified. Besides, Hindutva had its origins in the writings of Savarkar and the exhortations of RSS supremos Hedgewar and Golwalkar. There was no islamic terror at that time. No Kashmiri pandits were harassed. Instead, there was a cult that prided itself on the assassination of Gandhi. The roots of Hindutva itself are malignant.
While I appreciate his scholarly approach, I get this feeling that Rajiv is generally a tad too strongly against the Abrahamic religions. Only on looking more deeply at their philosophies can I comment confidently on their exclusivity claims.
Anupam,
Your comments about Hindutva as propounded by the radical & extreme right wing group is correct.
However, dont you think a a sane & just alternative is required to counter the psuedo secularists? Or do you think hinduism is strong enough to withstand all onslaughts by its own strength.
A person like Sankaracharya saw the threat to hinduism and did his best to save it in his own inimical way. While your criticism of Hindutva activists is well placed you have offered no alternative to those who doggedly strive to decimate it.
CK Chandrasekharan
Post a Comment