Let’s also adjourn Ayodhya to the week-after, a la, the Apex Court. In the meantime, let’s excavate the Hindu mind, from the surface to the subconscious. If it is true that everyone is a religious person at the core, let’s find out what kind of a ‘temple’ lies buried deep in the Hindu psyche.
A tall order, because this requires unravelling several layers of secularism and servitude that had settled and solidified over ten centuries and also negotiating amaze of deities, rituals and customs that can confuse and confound even a sympathetic critic. And we are dealing with a reluctant protagonist, not quite forthcoming on matters of faith in public. Still, the Hindu can do well to direct some of these queries inwards starting with the quintessential question: Does he pass off weaknesses as virtues?
First to the Hindu’s famed tolerance. The term may be taken to mean putting up with something that one does not agree with. Tolerance pre-supposes knowledge of the thing tolerated. Now India is one of the few countries that have withstood the onslaught of proselytising faiths and retained its civilisational Hindu character. At 80% majority, Hindus still share space with those ‘tormentor’ faiths which however are seeking to expand their girth at the former’s expense. Now, does this tolerance stem from awareness of these motives and methods? Or from ignorance of them? Or is it sheer indifference? Why does a Hindu still put up with an intruding faith that incites his own kith and kin to ‘cross’ over? Or blow them up to satisfy an angry God? What is the tolerance limit? The answer lies in seeing how those faiths react if their flock is lured or otherwise targetted!
What is the Hindu’s understanding of secularism? Apart from the obvious universal inference that the State has no religion, a Hindu imputes an added codicil of equi-distance from all religions including his own to the point of even deprecating it. But what is the world-wide reality? Britain, the self-appointed civiliser of humanity, is proudly protestant. So is the US, the torchbearer of modernity and freedom. Europe is divided between Roman Catholic and Protestant, but is Christendom, all the same. Islamic nations are just that, oozing religion in every pore. Industrious Japan is Buddhist to boot and so is tiny Lanka. Yet most of these countries profess secularism. So what’s the difference? These nations talk of secularism with a firm footing on their religious identity. The moment that foundation is sought to be shaken, their secularism scoots. The Pope and his parivaar have made it a point to rue over secularism wherever he goes. The Ground zero controversy in New York is another proof of the pudding. Now is something wrong with secularism or a Hindu’s understanding of it?
A Hindu prides himself on being peace-loving and non-violent. But this has always been a violent world with history itself being written in blood. Much of this strife has been wrought by expansionist and exclusivist religions out to conquer the rest of humanity for the sake of their sole ‘true’ God. Such violence is a continuing phenomenon with terror and proxy wars replacing pitched battles. Whither non-violence in the face of such onslaught? Now, if non-aggression is non-violence, and I think that is the true meaning, Hindu India can be truly proud, for it has never invaded another land to spread Hinduism. But is impotence in the face of blatant aggression non-violence? Or is it just cowardice? Do the Saviour’s children show the other cheek in deference to their mentor? Do the mullahs and their minions take even imagined slights lying down? Aah, the so-called ‘saffron terror’ is actually a joke on Hindus!
In Hinduism, the individual is not a sinner, but is divine, albeit, with some karmic baggage. The jivatma adds or reduces that load with its limited freewill over successive births and when the LHS equals RHS, the soul becomes one and stays put with the paramatma. Indeed, achieving that bliss is the goal of all Hindus, with a slew of rituals, mantras and sundry other software available for them to avail. A Hindu has the freedom to choose his own path and pace in that direction. In short, Hinduism is individual- centric, unlike the congregational or brotherhood kind of approach of other faiths. Yes, Hindus too do mass up, say for temple festivals or spiritual speeches, but each one resides in and is preoccupied with his own self even in that crowd. At best, er, worst, there are caste rallyings which are for securing State benefits, not in exaltation of culture or religion. Clearly, mobilisation of Hindus as Hindus for a political or public cause is a far cry. The freedom struggle was not a civilisational uprising though Jinnah made it one for his co-religionists. The Ayodhya movement was perhaps the only such mobilisation, but its momentum too could not be sustained. That’s probably because those who rode the rath to Ayodhya for the sake of Rama soon rode on the road to Delhi for their own coronations leaving Rama in exile. But is it not also because Rama’s subjects feel their Lord can take care of Himself just as they are all busy taking care of themselves? Well, suffice to say that this is in sharp contrast to many nations with far lesser antiquity, which all still sought out their civilisational roots upon gaining political freedom!
A Hindu cherishes colonial vestiges in all glee. Is it because he is forgiving or just forgetful? He indulges imperial impositions which were actually intended as insults. Is it owing to supreme sanguineness or servile stupidity? He swallows without a hiccup the history written by his conquerors. Is it because he has lost the faculty of inquiry or is just not interested? He pats himself for pluralism; But does this plurality actually refer to the many streams within Hinduism or should it be extended to non-inclusive faiths? He is always the pacifist, rarely the activist, even when his all is at stake; ever the spectator, never the player, even when his own motherland becomes the playground. Has this mute-mode made Hindus morally superior or more miserable? Is his resort to pujas and prayer only to escape pragmatism? And that brings us to a key question: Is his Bhakthi, the prime mover and motivator of his life, a lofty pursuit or just an excuse to laze?
Well, it seems a sound idea to call off the excavation, stop the soul-search and as usual outsource the Hindu’s fate, this time to the Courts!
e-mail the writer at [email protected]