Hinduism, Hindutva and the ‘Secularist’

Hinduism, Hindutva and the ‘Secularist’ The ‘secularist’ is worse than the religious fundamentalist. For, the religious fundamentalist works on an already established fundamental while the so-called secularist creates a fundamental by collecting and concocting lies

Bikash Sarmah

Hinduism is essentially a way of life. In fact, no one is Hindu if he does not appreciate Hinduism as a way of life, and only as a way of life. Agreed, there are countless gods and goddesses in the Hindu ritualistic scheme of things, and there are Hindus who have wasted their precious time in propitiating these deities. But the fact of the matter is that all this is just ritual, not the religion that Hinduism is emblematic of. Hinduism, as religion, seeks to define itself as a way of life or dharma — a word that you cannot translate to English because there is no English word to mean what ‘‘dharma’’ actually is. In other words, Hinduism is not about gods and goddesses; Hinduism in the true sense of the term cannot be about any ritual. It is just a way of life, a philosophy to be practised, an approach to life without any rigidities and compulsions because there is no founder to preach anything. It is self-preaching.It is this radical way of life that Indian politics has condemned in its ‘secular’ practice. Call yourself a proud Hindu without describing yourself as a devout Hindu, and even then you are branded ‘communal’. Call yourself just an adherent of the great Hindu philosophy as enunciated in the Vedanta — that, do not be surprised, inspired the likes of Werner Heisenberg and David Bohm, giants in quantum mechanics that has revolutionized physics — and even then you are pilloried as ‘fascist’. Our so-called secularists have ragged the soul of Hinduism absolutely, just because they think the policy of appeasement of Muslims for electoral gains does not jell with glorification of Hinduism. The Indian secularist is out to cheat his Muslim vote bank, mostly illiterate and impressionable, by demonizing Hinduism in the land of its own birth. What could be more detestable?In How I Became a Hindu, David Frawley harps on what made him embrace Hinduism: ‘‘Hinduism is a pluralist tradition. It teaches that there are many paths, many scriptures, many sages, many ways to come to the Divine to gain self-realization and it should be free for the individual to find and follow whatever way he or she thinks or feels works best.’’ How brilliant, and yet so simple, analysis of Hinduism, this. Frawley ‘‘reads’’ a statement from ‘‘The Coming of the Third Millennium’’ — as ‘‘issued by the Pope’’ at the time of writing of his book — ‘‘in relation to the situation in Asia’’: ‘‘The Asia Synod will deal with the challenges for evangelization posed by the encounter with ancient religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. While expressing esteem for the elements of truth in these religions, the Church must make it clear that Christ is the one mediator between God and man and the sole Redeemer of humanity.’’ Frawley writes: ‘‘This is a direct quote. Now, what is it saying about religious tolerance? Christ is the only way. The Pope is saying that we accept what is true in these religions, but we do not accept them if they do not follow Jesus as the only way. We still have to convert them. That is the message. This is not a message of tolerance and live and let live. It is not a message of let Hindus have their own way and we have ours and both are good. It is not a statement that Buddha or Krishna is equal to Jesus. It is a statement of exclusivism and my contention is that such exclusivism must breed intolerance...’’Readers must be wondering why I am dragging David Frawley here, and with him, Christianity. This is just to point to what a real Hindu, like Frawley, will realize in Hinduism: that any path is good so long as it is virtuous, that is, without vice; that all are equal, whether Buddha or Krishna or Jesus; and most significantly, that Buddha or Krishna cannot be greater than Christ if one is to talk of gods because gods, if they exist, must be equal. It is the courage to say this which is Hinduism, as Frawley appreciates. And he has the courage and honesty to talk about his background too: ‘‘I was raised as a Catholic. My uncle was, and still is, a missionary. We were told that he was going to South America to save the souls of the Native Americans, people we were told were non-Christian and without conversion would suffer eternal damnation. This is the background that I came from.’’ Remember, Frawley is not a ‘‘convert’’ from Christianity to Hinduism as one generally understands. No Hindu organization lured him into Hinduism. Frawley, as practitioner of the Hindu way of life, is still free to pray to Christ because in the Hindu scheme of things, which is absolutely non-absolutist, his worshipping of Christ will not interfere with his Hindu pursuit — that of understanding life and its spiritual dimension, that of decoding the secret of human existence at the psycho-spiritual level beyond the mundane rituals of life. Indeed, Frawley, as an enlightened Hindu, is even free to be an atheist. This is Hinduism, its kernel. And it is against this spiritual tradition that both proselytizers and jehadis have launched their respective wars — one covert, the other overt. Worse, it is this religion that the ‘secularists’ of the country are afraid of glorifying because then they cannot play the nasty political game of minoritism to get votes and wield power.Having said this, there is a need to differentiate between Hinduism and Hindutva. Hindutva is political Hinduism; it is not a way of life. If anything, it is a political way of life. Hindutva has an absolutist tendency because its practitioners — mind you — tend to emulate what their counterparts in absolutist religions do. For instance, Hindutva is a response to jehad at the political level; fortunately enough, there are no Hindu terrorist organizations — it is another matter that an obscurantist fanatic, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, has in recent times called upon the Hindus to form terror outfits. Hindutva is bound to fail because Hinduism is bound to succeed — as it really has by igniting minds all over the world, especially those who have understood both material and spiritual life, whether artists or scientists.This naturally brings us to what the Indian ‘secularist’ plays with, and how. For this champion of ‘pluralism’, a proud Hindu is ‘communal’ — the argument is that he will naturally play into the hands of Hindutva forces. The ‘secularist’ works overtime to prove that Hindutva is Hinduism or its most potent manifestation without, of course, trying to prove the contrary — that Hinduism is Hindutva. Of course he cannot prove this. And here lies the catch. This secularist is also a fundamentalist because he thrives — politically — by concocting a bizarre fundamental and propagating it: that Hindutva alone is Hinduism and, therefore, the non-Hindus (read ‘‘Muslims’’, as they are the ones who matter electorally) must vote for only those who have vowed to fight Hindutva. This secularist is in fact worse than the religious fundamentalist. For, the religious fundamentalist works on an already established fundamental while the so-called secularist creates a fundamental by collecting and concocting lies and giving them the hue of truth for cheap political mileage — and in fact to cheat those of whom he declares as their sole saviour. Will not the Muslims of West Bengal ruled by the most vocal exponent of ‘secularism’, the Left, agree? The Sachar Committee report says they are one of the most backward among the Muslims of the country. And how many sensible Muslims will argue that all these years the Congress, another powerful ‘secular’ force, has approached the Muslim community not with fake but genuine concern for their uplift?Had the Congress not ridiculed Hinduism, the BJP would not have happened. And had the BJP glorified Hinduism without bothering about what the Hindutva advocates would say or, rather, dictate, the Congress would have been a spent force. I am just pointing to the possibility of a truly secular, progressive political front. Everything else will be great governance. source: sentinel assam editorial 04.07.08