Hindu Dharma Newsletter Issue # 9

30th July ‘05
Issue # 9

Dear Friends,
Namaskar,

In this issue, I have included some excerpts from an essay that looks at Islam and Hinduism from a History-centric perspective, some thoughts on the recent decision by AP government to introduce reservation for Muslims and a short piece on how the Vedas have been misinterpreted and distorted to justify the caste-system.

But the first essay is the one that addresses an issue close to my heart – the question of a “Hindu Identity” and having a symbol that would help us feel proud of our roots.
As always, let me know if you do NOT wish to receive this OR send a reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject.

Dhanyawaad and Jai Hind,
Shantanu
hindu_dharma@yahoo.com

***********************************

WEAR A RED THREAD – TODAY

Back in Dec ’04, I had written a short essay on developing a “Hindu Identity”. At that time, my motivation was more to do with developing a sense of pride rather than anything else.

However, the events of the past few weeks made me think again.

In these times, it is perhaps even more important to carve out an unambiguous, visible and clear symbol of our identity so that as Hindus and Indians we are not mistaken for what the police and the government euphemistically call “Asians” (but in reality mean Muslims).

The consequences of mistaken identity were tragically brought home with the shooting of the innocent Brazilian last week – whose only “crime” was perhaps that he “looked” like an Asian (several news-reports used this description) and acted suspiciously (which, I daresay, a lot of us would, if chased by 6-7 armed, burly plainclothesmen).

So, more than ever before, we need a symbol that would clearly identify us as “Hindus”, regardless of our skin colour, features & appearances. And this brings me, again, to the idea of a “red thread”. Below, excerpts from the original essay in Issue # 4.

********

…. (from the original essay titled,” A HINDU IDENTITY – REVISITED”)

But first, why is a symbol important?

• A symbol is the most overt way of reflecting an identity
• A symbol can be a powerful differentiator
• A symbol can be a very potent aid in trying to create a feeling of community and belonging.

Indeed, I would argue that it is very difficult (generally speaking) to identify with something or someone unless we have a manifestation of what we believe in or what we want to represent.

Not surprisingly, military units have had their insignias since thousands of years and court seals have been found in the excavations of ancient civilizations.

In a socio-cultural context, *symbols* (in the form of brands), create a feeling of community amongst the owners/ wearers and at the same time, distinguishes them from the rest.

If one delves deeper into Hindu philosophy and thought, although we find ample (and widespread) evidence of symbols in tradition and history (think the swastika, “Om”, the tilak), the nature of modern life have made most of these irrelevant or inconvenient (although, even to this day, the first thing that most people will do with a new car or machinery for instance, will almost always be drawing a “swastika” on it).

So while symbols are still very strong in our subconscious, their outwardly manifestation has become less and less conspicuous and in many cases, for perfectly good reasons.

…. It is a shame that in spite of rich repertoire, we are left with hardly any external manifestation of our belief or our identity….

What could this simple, external, visible manifestation be? Thus was born the idea of a *red thread* around the wrist.

The idea had (has) several virtues. It was:
§ Simple
§ Universal
§ Distinctive
§ Convenient

Why were(are) these important?

1. Simple: An identity needs to be simple – so that it is easy to adhere to and does not make strenuous demands on the believer.
2. Universal: A red thread can serve to unify our fragmented beliefs. It can transcend the intrinsic diversity in Hinduism. Instead of debating whether a Shaivite “vibhuti” (a tilak applied horizontally) is a true act of piety or whether a red tilak mixed with sandal paste applied vertically is more correct, a red thread around the wrist (which is almost universally considered to be religious amongst Hindus) does not conflict with any other beliefs one may have.
3. Distinctive: The colour red (to be precise, saffron), amongst Hindus, has a deeply religious significance. In most other religions (as far as I am aware) red is considered either inauspicious (being the colour of blood) or not having any particular religious meaning.
4. Convenient: By definition, a simple red thread around the wrist can not be considered burdensome or inconvenient. It has the added advantage of not being so overt as to complicate your day to day existence (unlike a tilak for example). By being inconspicuous, it is particularly appealing to several of us who live and work abroad or in societies / professions where overt religious symbolism would be professionally inappropriate.

I would welcome comments and thoughts on this. In the meantime, do tie a red thread around your wrist – and try and persuade other Hindus to do so too.

It is a simple gesture – but symbolically very powerful and may yet go some way in resolving the question of what does it mean to be a Hindu?

***********************************

HISTORY-CENTRISM, ISLAM AND HINDUISM

Next, some excerpts from the eloquently argued essay by Raji Malhotra titled, “Is Hindutva The Indian Left’s ’Other’?” [Outlook India, 15th Jan ’04

In his essay, Rajiv proposes a new perspective (i.e. “History-centrism”) to understand Islam and other monotheistic religions. He starts by describing how History-centric religions promote dogma – and then compares Islam and Hinduism by way of example and to illustrate the contrast.

While discussing “History-Centrism”, Rajiv compares Islam with Hinduism.

“A religion based primarily on a unique Historical Event (typically involving a unique Prophet) is History-Centric…Abrahamic religions tend to have a core of literalist dogma that is their proprietary and non-negotiable History of God’s interventions.

Absolute History becomes the main property of the institution, which derives its power by interpreting it, and by having the exclusive franchise to preach/distribute it, and it does this in the name of protecting and propagating God’s Truth.

Any challenge to the official account of History is seen a threat that would dilute or undermine the institutional authority. Hence, History fuels fundamentalism and conflicts.

History-Centrism needs to be included in the taxonomy for studying religions. It is an important factor in making religion normative and rigid. All the problems with Grand Narratives that are found in postmodern critiques get amplified one hundred-fold when God is the Grand Narrative’s central protagonist, and especially when this is to be God’s only appearance, or the most authentic appearance recorded, or the final one “

Hinduism has not in the past been History-Centric for its most part, and hence has remained pliable and accommodative…As Rajiv points out this means that “the legitimacy of Hinduism is not contingent upon “revising” or “correcting” any account of history”.

Further in the article, he provides a very interesting analogy to understand the impact of history-centrism. To quote, “…let’s think of software for an analogy: A new release comes out, but many consumers continue using prior releases. In fact, the new release might explicitly allow for old releases to function alongside.

This is the Indic way of change. Old and new co-exist without discontinuity, because there is no “One True Canon From God” with fresh covenants ordering the replacement (destruction) of the software and old user manuals.

Now consider an entirely different kind of policy from God (as owner of the rules/software): Each new release mandates that everyone must convert to it, that old releases must get destroyed, and that whatever useful stuff there might have been in the old releases is understood to have already been incorporated into the new release by the developers (who control the intellectual property).

This latter way is how the Abrahamic changes have been:
(i) Release 1 said there was Adam/Eve’s Original Sin that caused Eternal Damnation upon all humans thereafter.
(ii) Release 2 gave the Jews a special escape clause for Salvation, because they were “chosen” by God. Note that Release 1’s narrative got subsumed in Release 2 and ceased to have its stand-alone legitimacy.
(iii) Release 3 came when God wanted to extend his offer to “save” everyone (from Eternal Damnation) and sent his only son (hence it cannot happen ever again) – i.e. Christianity was installed.
(iv) Release 4 came when God realized that humans messed up the old releases (i.e. too many viruses got in), so he sent Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) to install the latest and final release. Being final makes it impossible to change without calling God incompetent, and that would be blasphemy. Hence, Islam has remained stuck in a literalist interpretation of Koran (God’s latest and final release) .“

Hinduism, in contrast, has always had a very liberal, tolerant, open and assimilative belief system. Thus religious authority has been sucessivley and simultaneously been derived from Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and religious leaders such as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Along the way, several successful challenges from withiin the deprived sections of the community (e.g. Sant Kabir, Mira Bai) maintained the capacity to reform and regenerate.

Rajiv concludes by stressing, “That all these old releases from Hinduism’s past still survive and thrive today demonstrates continuity of change and the voluntary nature of upgrading to any new release. There has never been any central authority to mandate all Hindus to upgrade to the latest release. Hence, you find Hindus practicing all vintages of releases.

Unfortunately, this has often been denigrated as the mark of primitiveness, when it deserves to be seen as the epitome of tolerance, religious freedom, and as the world’s pre-eminent on-going laboratory for creative new releases to emerge.

Once you approach comparative religion in terms of History-Centrism or lack of it (which no teacher to the best of my knowledge does), it also becomes clear why Sufis and certain Hindu sects got along perfectly: these were non history-Centric individuals on both sides and their boundaries were blurred because History took the back-seat.

Hindu Grand Narratives are too many to cause any one to try to erase all others, and they got intertwined over time to syncretise into fused narratives. The non-literal interpretation of narratives has always been available to Hindus (for instance, the adhyatmika Ramayana) and is often considered a “higher” level of understanding. All this makes Hinduism non History-Centric “

I believe this History-centrism is the core “problem” that religions like Islam need to address and find an answer to.

Closed creeds that come with an air of “finality” will always generate friction and find it difficult to co-exist with other belief systems or religious beliefs. As Dr Koenraad Elst says in one of his essays in “Ayodhya and After”, “The moment you begin to believe that you are the chosen ones and responsible for spreading the word and the sole recipient of divine knowledge and wisdom – you are sowing the seeds of intolerance, hatred and extremism.”

I highly recommend the article to anyone who wishes to know more about the comparative aspects of religions and how Hindusim has survived by constantly adapting and amalgamating elements that would have otherwise been considered threathening and disruptive in other religions.

While reflecting on this, it occurred to me that in the Hindu concept of “Dasha-Avatar”, we have an inbult future-proof mechanism to absorb new thoughts, ideas and philosophies. As most of you would know, the tenth “Avatar”, “Kalki” has not yet appeared and in this sense is open to interpretation and future amalgamation of a new creed/ belief system.

***********************************

RESERVATION FOR MUSLIMS

Last month (June ‘05), the AP Cabinet approved five per cent reservation for Muslims in government jobs and educational institutions and thus made the whole case of reservations for deprived communities stand on its head.

The decision soon came under judicial review, [See “AP HC refers petitions on reservation to larger bench,” Outlook India June 29 ‘05] although this may be irrelevant if the government decides to go ahead anyway and brings an ordinance [See “YSR firm on Muslims quota”, Deccan Herald, July 25, ’04]

This in fact looks increasingly likely. As YS Reddy told a delegation of the Delhi-based Shahi Imam of Fatehpuri Mosque recently, “This is a humble beginning to achieve our major goal of social justice,” [See “Reservations for Muslims commitment to social justice: Reddy“, Jul 3, ’05]

I will leave the full ramifications of such a policy for a later issue but this quote from a recent article sums up my feelings:

“…Thus, a part of the genesis of the present state of things lies in the pre-partition British policy of appeasement of Muslim separatism.

Today, with the renewed demand for reservations for Muslims, history has come a full circle. Taking us back to the days when the deadly seed of partition was sown. To a time before the post-Independence generation and of a time which the pre-Independence generation has chosen to forget. Were the voices raised then any different from the noises being made now? No.

Let us not ignore the grim lessons of history”

[See “Towards another partition?”, By Poonam Kaushish in]

Against this backdrop and amidst the controversy, came another decision on “reservations” that was mostly ignored by mainstream media. In June ‘05, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) got the “blessings” of the HRD Ministry to reserve 50% of its seats (in post-graduate courses) for Muslims.

Interestingly while the under-developed castes and communities /STs have reservations in every institution that is funded (even partly) by the government, the AMU seems to be an exception.

Not only does it not have any reservation for the under-developed castes/communities, it is now attempting to reserve 50% of the seats for Muslims.

K K Ragesh, commenting on the move, in the Jun 19 ’05 issue of “People’s Democracy” [(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)), Vol. XXIX, No. 25] wrote

“THE controversial decision of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) authorities and the ministry of human resources development (MHRD) to reserve 50 per cent of the seats in postgraduate courses in the university for Muslims invited extensive opposition from the academic community.

This 50 per cent reservation has been effected for 36 different postgraduate courses and involves 2000 seats. Under the existing rules, 50 per cent of the postgraduate seats are reserved for ‘‘internal candidates’’ (read: AMU graduates) who clear the test and 50 per cent for students from outside. All admissions are on merit and are irrespective of faith.

According to the new decision, the admissions based on common entrance tests would be limited to only 25 per cent of the total seats. While reserving 50 per cent seats for students belonging to the Muslim community, another 20 per cent has been reserved for the graduates from the same university. The vice chancellor will give direct admission to the remaining 5 per cent of the seats. No reservation has been made for the SC- ST students.

The university officials and the MHRD justified the decision by quoting section 5 (c) of the AMU (Amendment) Act 1981, which empowers the university to ‘‘promote especially the educational and cultural advancement of the Muslims of India.” At the same time, however, they ignore section (8) of the same act that categorically says that admission to students should be given irrespective of religious considerations. The decision has been questioned by about 65 teachers from the university itself, which includes noted historian Professor Irfan Habib.

It is for the first time that reservation on the basis of religion is being given in the history of Aligarh Muslim University since its inception in 1920.”

Interestingly, the article cites several instances where both the Congress and Janata Party brought in several amendments to the AMU Act for narrow political gains:

“…in 1981, the Congress government brought another amendment to “promote especially the educational and cultural advancement of the Muslims of India,” which is now being interpreted in favour of giving reservations to the Muslim community in the university. While giving this interpretation, the university and the MHRD ignored the latest amendment, which states that admissions will be done irrespective of religious considerations.”

And although reservations, based on religion, in institutions that are fully funded by the government is a violation of the Constitution, this point has either been lost on the HRD Ministry (as well as the AMU authorities) – or worse, they have chosen to ignore it.

While commenting on the decision, Poonam Kaushish [“Towards another partition?”] wrote:

“Muslim appeasement is the Government’s up-to-the-minute fashion statement. In the garb of meting out social justice and upliftment, the Congress method of wooing the minority community is to grant it 50% reservation in the post-graduate courses of the Aligarh Muslim University. 

In one fell stroke, turning turtle the 140-year-old University’s tradition of being renowned as one of India’s top seats of learning. In fact, it was exemplary in its refusal to discriminate on religious grounds.

P.S. Has the BHU ever considered (or will it ever consider) doing something similar for Hindus?

***********************************

VEDAS, VARNAS etc

While researching this subject of castes and reservations, I came across this interview of Dr Shastri, a former Member of Parliament and currently Chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, titled “Political Game Against Dalits” [Interviewed by Suresh Varghese].

Some of the points he made in the interview resonated with the arguments that I had made in a previous newsletter emphasising the need to integrate the “Dalits”, Harijans and other under-developed communities with other Hindu communities.

When asked the following question, “Will society permit learned priests or pandits of a Dalits or OBCs background to perform pooja in a temple…?”, Dr Shastri interestingly made the same point that I had made earlier, saying that “…these practices (of not allowing Sudras to perform rituals) are not based on Vedas. There is no such restriction for ‘Sudras’ to perform rituals in worship places. Vedas do not prescribe a social system based on Varnas. Vyas, a Sudra, collected all these Vedas”. (emphasis mine)

Some more excerpts from the interview:

“When I was in Parliament, I raised one question in March 1999:why can’t we get the copyright of Vedas which contain abundant knowledge of universe and life? Many parliamentarians laughed at me. But it is very shocking news that four months back a German got a copyright on the Vedas.

Two Sudras, Ved Vyas and Valmiki, created two legendary figures of our life — Krishna and Ram. This is the contribution of Sudras to Hindu philosophy and culture. Entire Atharva Veda is written by Sudras.

In Manusmrithi there is a mention that Sudra cannot read Vedas. If a Sudra can collect and codify all Vedas and write the full text of Atharva Veda, why can’t he go through these scriptures? These are all some fictitious logs inserted into the Manusmrithi later.” (emphasis mine)

These points need to be more widely publicised so that mis-informed political propaganda against the Vedas can be rebutted

Separately, I believe the emancipation of Dalits, Harijans and other under-developed communities needs to be one of the central planks of “Hindutva”. Savarkar and Gandhi both recognised this as a necessary pre-condition for bringing about national integration and unity within Hindus and I believe this is critical if we are to become a nation of proud Hindus and retain our identity.

***********************************

LAST WORD

A recent issue of Newsweek (July 4 ’05) had a small mention of Vaastu Shastra in one of the features. Interestingly, it mentioned that the trend is on the rise in the United States where there has been $500m spent in Vedic construction over the past 10 years.

It also mentioned that “One of America’s top “green” developers, the Tower Companies, is even designing the world’s first Vedic office building in Rockville, Maryland. The 18,000 square-meter, $72m project “is designed to influence the success and productivity” of its future workers.

I predict that like Yoga, Vaastu Shastra will also catch on in India (in a big way) once the West has embraced it – another 5 years, perhaps?

***********************************