Rss 360° Read online

  The word ‘secular’ along with another ‘use-and-throw’ term ‘socialism’ was inserted in the constitution with the help of steam roller majority that Mrs Gandhi enjoyed at the time during emergency in 1975; further helped by absence of opposition ranks who were then held in prisons.

  Secular in India has come to mean an irreligious state which translates into ‘adharmi’ or ‘nidharmi’ (non-religious) state, as the term ‘secularism is translated as ‘dharma nirapeksha’. This is against Hindu or Indian ethos. Dharma as per Hindu tradition is ‘rule of law’ or ethical conduct. The RSS has only affirmed that India cannot be an irreligious state in the name of secularism. The other suggested term, ‘sarva panth samabhaav’ (equal respect for all faiths) is more close to Hindu or Indian ethos, and should ideally be the conceptual framework for the country.

  I can do nothing better than quote highly respected scholar and the second Indian President S Radhakrishnan, quoted in the Times of India, 27th June 2009, on this aspect: “It may appear somewhat strange that our government should be a secular one while our culture is rooted in spiritual values. Secularism here does not mean irreligion or atheism or even stress on material comforts. It proclaims that it lays stress on the universality of spiritual values that may be attained by a variety of ways. Religion is a transforming experience. It is not a theory of God. It is spiritual consciousness. Belief and conduct, rites and ceremonies, dogmas and authorities are subordinate to the art of self-discovery and contact with the Divine. Even those who are the children of science and reason must submit to the fact of spiritual experience that is primary and positive. We may dispute theologies but we cannot deny facts. The fire of life in its visible burning compels assent, though not the fumbling speculation of smokers sitting around the fire. While realisation is a fact, the theory of reality is an inference. There is difference between contact with reality and opinion about it, between the mystery of godliness and belief in God. This is the meaning of a secular conception of the State though it is not generally understood. This view is in consonance with the Indian tradition. The seer of the Rig Veda affirms that the Real is one while the learned speak of it variously. Asoka in his Rock Edict XII proclaims: “One who reverences one’s own religion and disparages that of another from devotion to one’s own religion and to glorify it over all other religions does injure one’s own religion most certainly. It is verily concord of religions that is meritorious.”

  The endless breast beating of secular-Marxist parivaar about RSS wishing to impose a Hindu theocratic state is nothing more than a falsehood repeatedly propagated over decades to deride Hindu philosophy of ‘many paths – one truth’ that is truly pluralistic and republican.

  Composite Culture vis-a-vis Dynamic Culture

  Another oft-quoted term is ‘composite culture’. The argument is that Indian culture is not essentially a Hindu culture but made up by contribution of many other elements. My simple submission is, Ganga remains Ganga even as hundreds of streams merge into it. It doesn’t become a ‘composite’ river. A silk coat remains a silk coat though it may be embellished with golden embroidery in a few places. English remains English even as it absorbs hundreds of foreign words, because the inherent spirit of the language remains English.

  Thus, the essential innate quality uniting Indians is the deeply running sense of Hinduness, and is shared consciously or unconsciously, knowingly or unknowingly by all Indians. It, in no way, deprecates the contribution of other cultures and traditions that embellished it later on.

  Ideal word for the Indian society should be ‘dynamic culture’, rather than “composite culture”. Composite denotes a patchwork, howsoever colourful. Dynamic denotes culture that is always on the move in a positive sense, not holding back fossilised ideas, or not open to new knowledge. A culture that is open to assimilating new ideas and thoughts, shown dynamism in moving with times, reinvented itself based on changing times. While going through this process, the core essence doesn’t change. The rainbow becomes more colourful, more inclusive. This dynamism is the inherent Hinduness of our culture.

  Some Distinguishing Features of Hindu Thought

  Hindus believe that all roads lead to absolute truth and that they have no monopoly over this route. None of its belief systems, avatars or gurus say that unless you follow my path you will go to hell nor do they enjoin their followers to save the ‘non-believers’ from hell by converting them. There is no concept of ‘non-believers’ and their deliverance through either conversion or elimination. It does not say, ‘my way alone’ but says ‘your’s too’. Such a frame of mind rules out any chance of bigotry or hateful persecution of ‘others’.

  Osho (Rajneesh) points out that Hinduism is the only belief system in the world that worships not just the God of creation but also the God of destruction. It has created a symbol of a Supreme Being as Trimurti (an image with three heads) signifying different aspects of the Divine: Brahma – the creator; Vishnu – the sustainer; and, Shiva – the destroyer. It believes that destruction is an integral part of creation; just as death is the other side of birth. There is no separate concept of ‘Satan’ who disrupts the scheme of things created by God. Good and bad are part of human life. Osho also points out the inherent problem with the logic of God and Satan. If Satan succeeds in his schemes to misguide people or commit sin, then, is God weaker than Satan?

  In prophetic monotheist religions born in Abrahamic faith system, the understanding is that God creates human beings in his own image, while in Hinduism the belief is that human beings create God in their own image. Since God has no form, a Hindu tries to see him or her as per their inner nature. So, someone sees the supreme being in the calm continuance of Bhagwan Buddha, some see it in the dancing Krishna or others see it in the just and moral king Ram; while, a devotee sees that supreme being in fiery Goddess Durga. Interestingly only in pre-Abrahamic era do we find women worshipped as Goddesses. In India, Goddess Durga and her different forms is the most powerful God. Any stone can be consecrated as God because God is basically formless and the ‘murti’ which is consecrated as God is the representation of that Supreme Being.

  Hindu sages and gurus never force their opinion onto their disciples. They encourage questions and give answers till the doubts of the disciple are removed. Take the example of Geeta where Lord Krishna himself goes through an elaborate exercise to satisfy Arjun in as many ways as possible and finally tells him “I have tried to address all your doubts, now you decide what is the best path for you. And then, Arjun says, “All my doubts are cleared and I am ready to fight for dharma.” In all the Upanishads, the most complex knowledge is passed onto the disciples through question and answer. God himself doesn’t ordain blind faith; skepticism and questioning is welcome. Compare this to monotheist Abrahamic religions brought up on a single “Book”. One is supposed to follow it totally and not question any of its premises. Any criticism becomes blasphemy. This is one of the reasons why the Hindu philosophy stands up to newer discoveries of modern scientific age much more easily and does not have to get into convolutions of explanations to get out of tight situations created by science. Nor did its followers or religious leaders ever have to apologise for persecuting scientists for heresy when their discoveries went against a ‘Book’.

  The Vedas and the Bhagwad Geeta speaks of millions of brahmaand (universe) eons back when it was a blasphemy for others. Now it is an accepted fact. Hindu scriptures tell you ‘Though art that’ (Tat twam Asi) and guide you to become ‘I am Supreme Being (Aham Brahmasmi). The spiritual journey begins from “You are that Supreme Being” and ends with “I am Supreme Being”.

  It would surprise readers if I were to suggest that the famous shloka, ‘poorna midah, poorna midam, poornaat poorna mudachyate, poornasya poorna maadaay, poorna mevaavashishyate, which translates to: ‘That is Absolute, This is Absolute, Absolute arises out of Absolute, If Absolute is taken away from Absolute, Absolute remains, is the best possible enunciation of Einstein’s famous formulation, E=mc2, w
hich is “total of energy in the universe remains constant, whatever you produce, transform or destroy.

  Fritjof Capra in his book ‘Tao of Physics’ notes with amazement, the similarity of experience of ancient sages at micro level and the experience of scientists studying both at the sub-atomic level and the level of the universe. He says, “Later came the experience of Dance of Shiva which I have tried to capture in (a) photomontage. It was followed by many similar experiences which helped me gradually realise that a consistent view of the world is beginning to emerge from modern physics which is harmonious with Eastern wisdom.”

  In a book published in 1990, Prof Klaus Klostermaier wrote: “Hinduism will spread not so much through the gurus and swamis, who attract certain number of people looking for a new commitment and a quasi-monastic life-style, but it will spread mainly through the work of intellectuals and writers, who have found certain Hindu ideas convincing and who identify them with their personal beliefs A. fair number of leading physicists and biologists have found parallels between modern science and Hindu ideas. An increasing number of creative scientists will come from a Hindu background and will consciously and unconsciously blend their scientific and their religious ideas. All of us may be already much more Hindu than we think.”

  A philosophy so much in tune with scientific thinking cannot be anti-modern, nor can an organisation which strives to strengthen such a society can talk of going back to medieval times. Medieval times are a gift of our history of enslavement, not of Hindu civilisation. We need to move away from the dominant thought that being modern is being ‘western’ and that a critique of ‘western way of life’ implies that one is ‘orthodox’ in a negative sense.

  Some thinkers have drawn together a few strands of thought that run through all the faiths born in Bharat. These are: theory of karma; immortality of soul; principle of re-birth; worship of nature in all its elements; remembering and worshipping elders and forefathers; the belief that all paths lead to one God, and that God is beyond gender (God can be He, She or even It)’ and finally, ultimate goal to achieve nirvana, moksha, state of shunya, and treating entire world as one family.

  A seer in Atharva Veda declares: “Maataa prithvih, putroham prithvyaah”(The earth is my mother, I am her son). On the same lines, an ancient Dakota tradition in America proclaims, “mitakuye owasin” (All are my relatives, that is, we are all related.)

  The worship of nature logically means that one must preserve the environment, using it only to the extent that is necessary for self preservation. This alone can lead us to sustainable development based on sustainable consumption. This is, a more practical model that can preserve both nature and mankind. This thought leads to chanting of shaanti mantra or mantra of peace at the end of any prayer which proposes not only peace for the mankind but animal kingdom (dwipaada and chatushpaada – two legged and four legged creatures) other elements of nature too, that is, environment as well as mother earth.

  I would like to add at this juncture that all pre-Christian and pre-Islamic traditions and cultures, dismissed as animist and pagan religions, also have similar philosophy about nature, integral view of human beings and nature, sanctity of nature and forefathers. They too do not have tradition of conversions or proselytisation like Hinduism, because of their firm belief that ‘all roads lead to one supreme truth.’ This universality of enlightened ancient traditions needs a separate treatment so I conclude this part of the discussion, though incomplete, and leave it to the readers to explore it further.

  This stress on self-restraint has led to the model of consumption unique to India where every item is recycled to its last fibre and not thrown away. We all have enough examples to it in our own homes, right from recycling a packing thread to each and every thing that can be reused till it simply gives way. This principle goes against the avowed consumerism of the West. The fact that eight per cent of world population in the US consumes nearly thirty three percent natural resources, tells us its own story of bottomless hunger for consumption, driven by capitalist thirst for profits and more comforts. This endless longing for more is the source of ‘green house gases’ and ‘global warming’. We are now well aware what happens when there is unbridled avarice to acquire things at any cost. The collapse of US economy and the domino effect on other economies has reminded us that there is still time to go back to our own traditional model of living life satisfactorily with only sustainable consumption.

  At personal level, Hindu philosophy talks of four fold aspect of a successful and fulfilling life, called ‘purushaartha chatushtaya’, viz. dharma (living moral life as per one’s innate nature and duties); arth (economic wellbeing); kaama (personal desires); and ultimately, nirvana or moksha or liberation by following the path of dharma. It talks of four phases in an individual’s life. The broad division of a human life in brahmacharya (period of learning and personal discipline and restraints); grihasth (worldly duties, raising the family); vaanprasth (getting detached from the family affairs even as one follows worldly affairs and moving one’s attention towards outer society and God); and, sanyaas ashram (giving up worldly affairs and focus totally on one’s spiritual life). It is very difficult to find such a clear enunciation about one’s progressive path to live life to the fullest as a normal family and social person in any other culture or religion.

  When a Hindu uses word like ‘dharmic’ or ‘adharmic’ it is not like religious or irreligious. It means a person who follows just laws of the society or his own duties as ‘dharmic’ and a person who acts contrary to what is his duty as per his nature of social customs is ‘adharmic’.

  At a personal level, the dharma is that which is as per his or her nature or duty. So we talk of ‘pitri dharm’ (duties of a father); ‘matri dharm’ (duties of a mother); or ‘putra dharm’ (duties of an offspring). At a societal level dharma is that which holds society together with just laws and ethical behaviors. Dharma of fire is to burn, dharma of a tiger is to attack a prey for satiating his hunger and dharma of a merchant is to provide products and services honestly. Conduct at social level as per set norms and laws of a particular society are dharma at social level. It helps create systems that would allow a person to attain his full potential. Word ‘dharma’ in social context is more close to ‘ethics’. Raj dharma is the rule of law. So, the dharma of a school is to impart good education, dharma of government is to provide righteous rule of law in which citizens can live a dignified life.

  These are just a few illustrative ideas with which we can easily identify, and at the same time feel happy and proud that we belong to such an enlightened culture born on this land. Hindu society is comfortable even with an atheist philosopher like Chaarvaak and calls him ‘rishi’. One of his shlokas (paraphrased) says, “You should drink ghee, even take loan for it if required. Who has seen next birth?” It can adjust deviants in its society much more easily than other civilisations. It may be the only place in the world with a district named ‘Kinnaur’ denoting a place where ‘kinnars’ (people of alternative sexuality) resided. It adopted the path of foster motherhood or fatherhood, thousands of years back without any stigma attached to it. There are many Puranic and Mahabharata stories that mention such practices quite openly.

  There are volumes written on this subject by learned sages and scholars. When a Hindu says that India is a Hindu nation, it encompasses all the above thoughts and ideas, which in no way can be compared to the theology driven nations like Islamic nations, where any person not following Islamic religion has a secondary status. The way a professed Islamic country suppresses or oppresses non-followers is well known right from Saudi Arabia to newly Islamised countries like Malaysia.

  Thus, Hinduism and Hinduness connotes national identity of Bharat not merely religious faith – but identification with national mainstream – that is Hindu. Hindutva means policies and practices based on this spirit of Hinduness.

  Addressing the Ills of Hindu Society

  Hindu society is facing lot of problems and lot of self
correction is waiting to be done. It is a society split on basis of regionalism, sects, castes and languages. There still are social ills like untouchability which plague us. Some community specific customs like child marriage also must end. The inhuman customs of dowry is common to all communities in India, whether it is Uttar Pradesh or Kerala, irrespective of the religion they follow. Casteism deeply rooted even in the Christian and Muslim communities. It is well known that ‘high caste’ (ashraf) Muslims do not easily marry into ‘artisan’ (azlaf) castes. Many people who convert to Christianity hoping to get out of this vicious cycle often complain that they cannot get away from the discrimination even after conversion. There are separate churches for different groups, just as there are separate gurudwaras, if not overtly. Stratification of society is not just based on economic conditions but also on political power of various groups in the society. This division of societies is common world over, in different names and different guise. Koenrad Elst proposes that “castes and caste systems have developed in very divergent parts of the world. For example, ethnic division between the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, or the endogamous hereditary communities of blacksmiths, musicians and other occupational groups in West Africa. The European division in nobility and commoners was a caste system in the full sense of the term: two endogamous groups in a hierarchical relation. When the Portuguese noticed the Indian jaati system, they applied to it the term casta, already in use for a social division in their homeland: the separate communities defined by religion, viz. Christians, Jews and Muslims. In practice, these were virtually endogamous, and there was a hierarchical relation between the top community (first Muslims, then Christians) and the other two.”