Gurudev Tagore on being a “Christian Hindu”..
Courtesy the indefatigable Sh SV Raju, editor of Freedom First, comes this excerpt re. the recent controversy triggered by Goa Dy CM’s statement about his being a “Christian Hindu”. Read on (emphasis added)…
Francis D’Souza will be glad to know he is in good company, in fact distinguished company!
When I read this I was reminded of an article..first published in…Quest in 1961 on the occasion of the 150th birth Anniversary of Rabindranath Tagore. In his article Atma Parichaya -(Introducing Oneself)–(written in Bengali and translated by Buddhadeva Basu) Tagore said something similar to what the Goa’s deputy CM is quoted as having said and for which he refused to say ’Sorry’ and thereby has incurred the wrath of a padre.
Gurudev Tagore said inter alia “…I was born into the Hindu society and have accepted the Brahmo sect; if I wish I can go over to another sect, but to another society I cannot belong… With the history of no other society would I have this sense of identification? We can transfer a fruit from one basket to another, but on a different branch we cannot grow.
“Do I than claim that I remain a Hindu even if I become a Christian? Certainly I do, and to me this is quite beyond dispute. No matter what the orthodox Hindus may say about it, Kali Charan Banerjee was a Hindu Christian, and so was Jnanendra Mohan Tagore before him and Krishna Mohan Banerjee as well. These men were Hindu by nation and Christian in faith. Christianity was their complexion, but in substance they were nothing but Hindus. There are thousands of Bengali Muslims whom Hindus perpetually label as non-Hindus, and yet the truth about them is that they are Hindu Muslims.
… “The words “Hindu†and “Muslim†do not have a similar connotation. Islam is a particular religious creed. But Hinduism is not. “Hindu†is a term for the consummation of the Indian nation... From long ago has it come down to us , passing through centuries and the same sunlit horizons, carrying along with it the same rivers and forests and mountains, and saturated with that sequence of attacks and responses which constitute the history of our mundane and spiritual lives. In that word is contained all that we are in our bodies and our souls. From this deep flowing stream no one is cast aside simply by virtue of his having become a Christian – neither a Kali Charan Banerjee nor a Jnanendra Mohan Tagore.
“The nation is larger than the creed and goes much deeper too; changing one’s beliefs involves no change in one’s nationality. The nation to which I belonged when I believed in the mythological story of creation is still mine, although I believe in the modern and scientific version of that story.…“It will be argued that a Muslim is a Muslim for all that, whether in China or Persia. Not that I know much about the Chinese Muslim, but I dare say that he is in many ways quite different from his Indian counterpart, although there is a certain agreement in religion. …
And so goes on Tagore with his Atma Parichaya, which I found an absolute learning experience. Having read Tagore I could understand what the Goa CM was trying to convey. If you wish to read the full article reprinted in two parts, please visit www.freedomfirst.in , select archives and click Nos. 530 and 531 to read “ Introducing Oneself (Arma-Parichaya)†by Rabindranath Tagore. The text excerpted above is from FF No. 531.
Somewhat Related: A nationalism rooted in Sanatan Dharma
Amartya Sen’s Identity framework could be useful (as discussed in his book … Identity and Violence)… it goes in the same direction I think as Tagore … and provides a nuanced systematic framework.
There typically are multiple overlaping identities one is carrying at any time …. of various types … religious, cultural, national, … professional …. around hobbies, causes and interests …. family related … regional … age, gender related …. etc And the mix – or one’s perception of the mix and relative weights … about ones own identity or identities …. as well as those of others …. is dynamic ie keeps changing in time … sometimes fairly quickly … in matter of days or hours … depending on the context and setting.
Then there is the issue of vocabulary language and meanings of words … which is itself dynamic and different for different individuals ..
What do the words Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Indian mean …. for different people … if we do a statistical survey, how much divergence are we likely to find …. we could then look at the largest clusters with similar meaning or expression ….
What would the results of such a survey look like 100 years in future … and in past ….
For example, simplistically perhaps, I am likely to respond to such a survey today by saying that I understand the words Hindu, Muslim, Christian as primarily denoting religious identities, and the word Indian as primarily denoting a National identity.
I know and value the fact that Indians and Hindus claim to be secular and tolerant, and that is largely true. However we cannot be all things to all people. This Christian Hindu concept is bizzare to me. This sort of khachiri causes more confusion, in an already complex religion.
I have lived in the UK for 40 years, and we also have over the years followed some of the traditions of England eg at Christmas- the children (and adults sometimes) get presents, they sing hymns at School etc etc. I do not, however pray to Christ and think he is my Saviour . I pray to my Ista Dev who is from the Hindu tadition. I am tolerant and open to other religions, but living in the UK I would not claim to be a Christian Hindu, or a Hindu Christian.I could possibly get away with calling myself an English Hindu, or an EU HIndu. There are huge differences between these 2 belief systems, as there are even within Hinduism itself, within and outside of India. The process of unification goes a bit too far when the converted Christians claim to be Hindus as well. I appreciate that many keep their Indian/Hindu names and many of the Indian/ Hindu practices and traditions. But that is not the point. It allows people to keep a foot in each camp, and get ‘benefit’ from both sides. I also understand it stops alienation from the dominant religion of the land.
If the Christians claim to be Hindu, then why not go the whole hog and just be Hindu, and have one less label to argue about. There are obviously advantages to being a Christian… especially if one is looking to go abroad, or work the reservation system.
The Church has promoted an Indianised form of Christianity in India, and that will continue to an extent. The Church knows there would be more success in doing this.
I personally think Hindus need to stop claiming almost everything as ‘part of Hinduism’, as they do on a regular basis. Yet paradoxically there is not enough unity within the Hindus, so how do they think they can align with declared Christians. Also a lot of Christians in India are actually Macualy’s and St Xaviers children,and carrying on their ‘good’ works, IMO. Even many of the Hindus themselves are Macaulay’s children.
Those who worked to largely convert Hindus to Christianity have been named as saints in India eg Motehr Teresa, yet in recent times the Hindu saints have been portrayed in a very negative light in the media, and some have been put in prison. When was the last time you heard of a non- Hindu ‘ man of God’ being harrassed and vilified, and being put in prison.
My motto would be to ‘Keep it simple and unified’… I personally think some of the names that are used , almost in a reverant way are overdue a change.. I mean what is the message being sent when educational and various other institutes continue to carry the name St Xavier, Oxford books etc etc.