Religion: Of the Bygones and Amnesia

Consider the following statements:

1. "Let us not get into the muck of the past lest we become the very thing we hate."
2. "Fundamentalists/fascists [...] will provide "lessons" from "history" as reason and justification for inhuman actions. So did Adolf Hitler and his crew in their Final solution to the Jewish question."
3. "If we do the same thing to those who have wronged us, what is the difference between us and them? Revenge is a very negative feeling and will not do anyone good."

These three statements are often heard among the moderate majority of Bhaarateeyas. So what is the common thread binding these three statements? History.

One fine day, something happened and because of that one thing, a whole population was asked to abondon some of its core values that it had been carrying for millennia together. Crores and crores of people had to wake up to something new called "secular India". Well, things dont quite work that way. People dont change suddenly.

In this context, lets consider a section of the urban middle class youth. These people have not yet realised the fact that the mindset and perspective of a people are formed as a result of centuries of interactions with the nature, with other peoples and within. Though these people have access to all kinds of information, they have not yet tried to access it. This new idea of "negativistic-secularism" (also called pseudo-secularism) foisted upon us is so much ingrained in them that they feel that it is the reality everywhere. Well, if its not, they simply extrapolate the current trend back into the past and dump every incident that doesnt concur with their thought into something very handy called "remote history".

They need to realise that their current pleasant conditions did not exist, say, a hundred or even fifty years ago, when there was hardly any urban middle class to speak of in the country. So is the case with this pseudo-secularism. It didnt exist before too long either. One can see that this kind of negativistic secularism goes well with the current trend of globalisation and reckless consumerism. It also goes with this urban middle class. So we can see that there is synergy among the three-- the urban middle class, consumerism, and pseudo-secularism.

Could it be that this pesudo-secularism is just a ruse by these people to avoid following those inexplicable, inomprehensible, and tedious religious practices? Or is it that they fell for that altogether predictable "political correctness" ? Or it may be that they are aspiring for that Utopian society that they suddenly see is possible when they look at similar people coming from different populations around them. There is no need to be sermonizing here, but these urban youth need to realise that they are, even now, only tiny islands in a sea of what is still good old Bhaarat as it has been in the last thousand years.

Each incident in the history of a people leaves its timestamp and does its bit in moulding the perspective of the people. In this sense, different peoples are always changing in their collective character over centuries and millennia. It is in this sense that studying history so important. It is not to take revenge but to understand the each population's current mindset, the origin of this mindset,the recent events that impacted this mindset, and the impact of this mindset on the rest of the country.

But those pesudo-secularists who do know some history, or the official (read concocted) version of it, find, to their immense profit, that dragging in Hitler automatically confers legitimacy on their argument of (pseudo-)secularism and the opponent is forced to first denounce Hitler and his deeds before making any argument to counter the initial argument. But then, we must pause here see if there is a similarity in what Hitler said and what Hindutva is all about, and whether we want to do same kinds of things to our alleged "enemies" that Hitler did to his. Blindly believing in those naive media campaigns has led us to find it obvious that there is a direct analogy between Hindutva and pogroms such as the Jewish one in Europe and other ethnic cleansings elsewhere in the world.

Let us consider each of the three statements in the beginning:

1. The first statement altogether ignores the role of history in the process of "perspective-building" of a section of people. It gives a whole new meaning to the adage "ignorance is bliss", just like how Tom (of 'Tom and Jerry' fame) blindfolds himself when he suddenly finds himself in front of an oncoming train that cant be stopped.
2. The second one implies that either we have taken wrong lessons from the right history, or that the history in question itself is not totally "kosher" (had to bring in the Jewish angle :)) or both. This statement is offered by folk who use incorrect analogies at unsuspecting and unlearned audiences to push forward their own arm-chair arguments. They are excellent theoreticians and great crowd-pullers, but probably have no idea on whats going on in their own backyard. And they see everything through their own (pseudo-)secular-tinted glasses to interpret plain facts as complicated conspiracies.
3. The third one actually accepts that injustice has been committed, but gives a totally negative connotation called "revenge" to any attempt at setting things right. Adherents to this one are deeply suseptible to general opinion about most things and dont bother to dig the facts for themselves. These are either too weak to bear the burden of injustice, or too shy to be pro-active in protecting the respect of our country's heritage and culture, or too busy in minting their own currency to bother about other things.

Hence, none of these three statements can be considered legitimate and such statements hold no logic for the Sanaataneeya.

Religion: Just a Personal Opinion

In the debate that we had on this blog, an interesting remark was offered to me:

"...religion is something personal, a set of practices followed by an individual(s). The moment people bring it to the streets, use it as an instrument to win votes,discriminate,divide,kill people,the essence of their religion is already lost.In short,religion should be kept at home/temples etc,not at government offices."

Well, the statement was no doubt intended in a well-meaning sense and one has to agree wholeheartedly that
a) religion should not be used for petty gains and violence, and
b) religious bias should not have a place in governance.

So what is the interesting part then?
"...religion is something personal, a set of practices followed by an individual(s). "
That is!

It is unfortunate that religion has been relegated to being just another "personal opinion". Anything I say about dharma is just "what I feel is right". Of course, it is partly true but then, one has to realise what does it mean being and thinking like a "Hindu", or a"Muslim" or a "Christian". It is not my own intellection completely. It is a result of thought process originated and developed over many centuries or in our case, many millennia ago. It is still developing in our own minds even at this very moment, provided we give it a chance. In a way, it is like the computer called "Earth" in Douglas Adams's "The Hitchhikers' Guide to Galaxy".

Firstly, the very core of any religion deals with "sanghatan" and "samithi"-- organisation and assembly--to bring people together and hold them in a common bond, provide for their sustenance, and give them a purpose and something to live for and cherish. It is this very core that has helped civilisations to grow, architectural marvels to be built, and elevate arts--music, dance and panting to heavenly heights. Here, we quickly realise that this exactly is both the final purpose and the very beginning of an ideal "nation-state" as well. The idea of a nation state and patriotism towards it comes only when its adherents are one in thought, speech and action at atleast some basic level (even when there is no external aggression, mind you!!). So the said remark plainly goes against the very idea of forming a nation state.

Secondly, it is naive of an individual who restricts his religion to his "dev-ghar" (or "devuni goodu" in telugu) to expect the same from others. Even now, after centuries of Muslim, Christian & secularist dominance which obliterated not just a part of our heritage, history, and culture, but much of our identity as well, most people in Bhaarat share a common bond mostly because of our Sanaatana Dharma. Will they leave their mother, the deity of Dharma, who has been sustaining them all along, without causing any disharmony to the rest of the world, through countless generations? It is even more stupid of us to believe that people belonging to Abrahamic religions, each of which insists that its way is the only right way as its core motif, will keep their religions to their homes.

Having voiced my concerns over the comment, I must emphasise that I am only describing a current trend and not ridiculing any individual.

Lastly, I must point to one more thing-- what our Bhaarat has come to mean in recent years among a section of the "new and emerging India":
A rising enterpreneurial giant confronted by
1) a geographical area with redundant internal divisions,
2) a dysfunctional governing body and corrupt administrative and policing bodies, and
3) a set of common threats and dangers to the citizens to be lived with.
The rest is personal life.

This, I feel, is the problem. All of the three points above do offer a kind of bonding with neighbours, but one that is born out of negative feelings of fear, hatred, apathy, and helplessness.

When personal life includes our Dharma itself, how can we form a healthy bond with fellow countrymen at all? Dharma was never meant to be kept locked inside homes. The successive failure of governments in achieving the expected "good-governance" or "Dharma-rajya" is matched by our own lackadaisical perspective towards bonding with our neighbour using a positive approach. Come external invasion and we can easily see how a country can be mobilised into one single unit. But need we wait till such an act happens to be united under one banner?

The governing body-- either the legislature, or the executive cannot help the nation until the nation itself has a strong undercurrent in a positively directed manner. Do not forget that whoever sits in those legislative or executive chairs is not too different from you or me. The national feeling has to come from bottom up. If we ourselves change, we can expect people like us in those positions.

So how to cause this change? Clearly, you cannot move a whole nation that is so ancient and young at the same time, without regards to Her history, for therein lie the switches of Her awakening. We just have to tap the resources within ourselves to effect this change. For once, if we just give heed to what our grandparents used to say about how our country was once in the Golden Era, it is enough to cause a chain reaction.

We have to realise our proud history and awaken to the reality of what we were. There is a need for us to become ourselves again. There is no other feeling that can move our country forward.

I would like to see the current of our Sanaatana dharma pervade our nation and each person envisages herself/himself as a part of our nation, and we can proudly step up to the altar of the world and reclaim our place and pride as Bhaarateeyas.

If Not "Hindutva", then what?

A comment by a blogger Ashish to this post :

If not Hindutva, then what?

1. Abrahamic (Jewish-Christian-Islamic)tattva?
That I am right, and you are wrong, and you must sign up to be in my club or else..?
That everything has been put on earth to serve man, so let the enjoyment begin?

2. Rationality tattva?
To a degree, yes, but that “degree” is already built into Hindutva.

Most of these “pure rationalists” have no problem destroying cultures that have benignly held together the masses. These “rationalists” assume that everyone but themselves is a fool, and even a Way of Life that developed over 12000 years ago (at least) and has a huge chunk of the world’s scientific discoveries to its credit, is nothing but a collection of rituals and superstitions.

3. Capitalism tattva?
To a degree, yes. But we all know what unabated money-mongering will do.

—

You must have something to guide you, and notice that I have not just stopped at the usual suspects (religions), but am willing to include other principles too..

Hindutva is the answer.
----------------------------------

The point is put across very succintly. This comment serves well as a continuation of my previous post.

Equality of religions

"One should not kill in the name of religion."

"All religions say the same thing."

Does anyone notice what is wrong with the above two statements? Well, on the surface nothing seems wrong here, but then people will notice that Sanaatana Dharma is invariably included in the list of religions (generally first in the list for that matter).

Why?

Is Sanaatana Dharma a religion?

What book says so?

Do we in Bhaarat even have a word for religion?

Of course, these are just rhetorical questions. But these are just rhetorical questions. Not unjust. These are questions that every Sanaataneeya needs to ask himself from time to time.

There is a uniqueness about Sanaatana Dharma that is missing in other religions. It is the term "other religions"! It is a direct outcome of social and cultural evolution of Man in the subcontinent. In this sense Sanaatana Dharma is a "natural" phenomenon , not a "reactive" one-- something that was formed against an already existing order. We showed the world more than 1500 hundred years ago how to bind all the existing "internal" faiths (such as Shaivism, Shakti-ism, Vaishnavism, etc), and form a super-religion that is capable of
i) satisfying the spiritual, social, and cultural needs of all of its adherents (no matter how disjoint they be in their opinions),
ii) evolving continuously into future with many new developments, and most importantly
iii) fostering a strong national identity among Bhaarateeyas.

So when Sanaatana Dharma is not 'a religion' at all, how can one include it among the religions of the world? The mistake is not new in making. I am not sure when did it begin exactly, but the idea of "sarva-mata samabhaava" is definitely not new. Though the idea might have been used initially in relation to the internal faiths, it is entirely upto our discretion whether we still want to use selected quotes from rigveda such as "ekam sat, vipraaha bahudaa vadanti" (The truth is one! The learned say it in different ways) with respect to the world religions now.

And then, we have also continuously and consciously tried to assimilate even invading faiths into our super-system of Sanaatana Dharma and some were even ready to eschew some of our core beliefs (such as Vedas) and give the whole super-system a new shape. People such as Kabir Das, Shirdi Sai baba, etc had sought the very same thing. But in vain. To be assimilated would have been exactly opposite to what these religions aim to do. That would never work. These great men should have realised that.

But there is a greater grievance of mine against these great souls-- By equating, or comparing, or even juxtaposing Sanaatana Dharma with a religion means denigrating our entire super-system to the level of a mere "religion", a narrow word coined by the west. The ploy, though unknowingly set by us, works brilliantly against Sanaatana Dharma. The whole playing field is set where the rules are already biased against us since we dont even fit into their definition of a "religion". And naturally, its a losing game. And we have been losing since many centuries.

So,
I plead to all my fellow Sanaataneeyas to
i) stop seeing our Sanaatana Dharma as just a religion, and
ii) stop comparing our Sanaatana Dharma with any religion.

Then you will realise that we, the Bhaarateeyas, are all one and the same.

You see, all religions may still be equal. But please dont include Sanaatana Dharma in the list. We have suffered enough because of this "unfair equality".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kedar.
Please point out any grammatical errors and other factual mistakes. It is your duty. Disagreements, of course, are always open to discussion.

A Menace is what it is!

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/08guest.htm
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2008/01/offensive-proselytisation-is-problem.html

What is the solution to this menace?

Well, here is one:
http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2007/12/29/orissa-violence-incendiary-entitlement-not-communalism/