Wake up, BJP! Admit how intolerance is settling in

Just get out and eavesdrop on a conversation at your local teashop or on a bus: you will know how anti-Muslim hysteria spreads.

POLITICS | Long-form | 07-11-2015

Rishi Majumder @RishiMajumder

Mr X: “You girls speak your mind. If this were a Muslim country this wouldn’t have been tolerated.”

Ms A: “Even those leaving Syria are going to Europe, not other Muslim nations.”

Ms B: “That’s true.”

Mr X: “They don’t want to educate their children.”

Ms A: “They only want to send them to madrassas.”

Ms B: “True.”

Mr X: “We Hindus have only one or two children. But Muslims keep having so many.”

What better to interrupt you from a reading of Chris Hedges’ Death of the Liberal Class on a train journey?

Here is a conversation you’ve probably heard before. If you follow the thread you’ll notice how an unsubstantiated set of beliefs and an apparent concern for women’s rights and education begins to teeter on Islamophobia.

The last month could easily be termed the “Month of the Indian Intolerance Debate”. Almost everyone has weighed in and they continue doing so. After the writers came artists and musicians, scientists, filmmakers, historians and other academics — some of India’s most eminent names. Awards have been returned, positions resigned, statements made. The RBI governor has spoken. So have two well-known entrepreneurs and philanthropists. The most recent voices have been an international research and ratings agency, one of India’s biggest film stars, a Booker-winning writer and another group of acclaimed filmmakers. Like those before, powerful voices that say, ‘Yes there is intolerance. Yes, it is increasing.’

This is being contested by some, including members of the central government and ruling party. Their standpoint, to put it simply, is: ‘Intolerance isn’t on the rise’.

But you needn’t listen to the country’s intellectual giants, industry leaders, icons or the government to resolve this. Just get out and eavesdrop on a conversation at your local teashop or a bus. Or, as in my case, a train compartment of people traveling from Jodhpur to Delhi.

I didn’t interview my co-travellers, nor ask them their names, but here are brief profiles gleaned:

Mr X is a heavy set man with silver hair. He wears a plain shirt, trousers and sandals. He appears to be in his late fifties or early sixties. He used to manufacture and trade in silver vessels but then that stopped being profitable so his new business is taking sick factories on contract from the government, breaking them up and selling parts for a profit. He lives in North West Delhi’s Model Town. He says he has always been a BJP voter, except for the 2013 Delhi elections when he voted AAP, got disappointed and then went back to voting for the BJP. He hails from Churu originally, the station from where he boarded. Back in Churu, many of his family members are either actually affiliated with the BJP or its voters. He is proud that his family has, in an incremental way, done away with following Rajasthan’s ghunghat tradition. “I told my wife she doesn’t have to wear the ghunghat,” he says. “And then I told my daughter-in-law she can wear jeans if she wishes to.”

This conversation began because Mr X and Ms B got into an argument about what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has done for the country.

Ms B, dressed in a salwaar kameez looks as if she is in her late twenties. She is a PhD student, studying in Rajasthan currently, but born and brought up in East Delhi’s Karkardooma. She argued that, though she had voted for Modi in 2014, he has hardly implemented any new policies, instead merely rebranded older ones. Mr X said that schemes like Swachch Bharat and the Jan Dhan Yojana would lead to a sea change in attitude upon which Ms B replied, “Maybe, but let them show results first.”

Ms A, another PhD student born and bred in Rajasthan wears a pair of jeans and a sweatshirt. She is researching the persecution of women for alleged witchcraft. She and Ms B are Jains. We know this because Mr X asked them their caste, then stated he was a “banya”. Ms A backed Mr X in his support for Modi and, with Ms B questioning their claims, the conversation may have delved deeper into their perception of governance but at some point Mr X said, “80 per cent of Indian Muslims don’t like Modi.”

No one asked Mr X where he obtained this random statistic. It seems to be something he has arrived at arbitrarily, upon noticing: “most of my Muslim friends aren’t Modi voters”. This was how the conversation turned to Muslims.

Now, let’s come to the crux of it. Here is what Mr X said at the end of the conversation: “Since Modi became Chief Minister in 2002, there have been no riots in Gujarat. This is because the Muslims wouldn’t dare to do anything after 2002. When you have a majority and a minority in the country, the majority must suppress the minority. Otherwise the minority will eat it up.”

He went from speculation to rhetoric. And the rhetoric isn’t new. “I warn the Hindus that the Mohameddans are likely to prove dangerous to our Hindu nation,” VD Savarkar had said while presiding over the 1937 session of the Hindu Mahasabha. “Let us not be stone blind to the fact that they as a community continue to cherish fanatical designs to establish a Muslim rule in India.” Also: “India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems in India.”

What was new is embedded in what followed. Uncomfortable silences began to fill the conversation as the speakers noticed I wasn’t joining in. Finally, Mr X asked me, “Aap Mohameddan toh naheen hain naa (I hope you are not a Muslim)?”

“What if I were?” I asked.

“It makes no difference,” he said. “Nowadays I say all of this to my Mohameddan friends as well. I say: I know you hate Modi, but this is how things are, how things should be.”

“Nowadays”.

Those who claim intolerance is not on the rise today make two points mostly.

One, statistics.

“The number of incidents of communal violence hasn’t increased,” they say. As if intolerance can only be gauged by the number of communal clashes or killings. In fact, intolerance, like any other intangible noun can never really be calculated, only indicated. As stated many times over by those protesting its rise, it is a culture. As implied in the writings and speeches of Savarkar, it’s an ideology.

Read Savarkar on the establishment of the Indian nation state, for instance, and it will be difficult to pinpoint immediately where the intolerance lies.

“The Moslem minority in India will have the right to be treated as equal citizens, enjoying equal protection and civic rights in proportion to their population. The Hindu majority will not encroach on the legitimate rights of any non-Hindu minority… The Moslem minority in particular has not obliged the Hindus by remaining in minority and therefore, they must remain satisfied with the status they occupy and with the legitimate share of civic and political rights that is their proportionate due… The Hindus do not want a change of masters, are not going to struggle and fight and die only to replace an Edward by an Aurangzeb simply because the latter happens to be born within Indian borders, but they want henceforth to be masters themselves in their own house, in their own Land.”

To discover the intolerance in between these lines, read Dr BR Ambedkar’s critique of the above:

“It must be said that Mr Savarkar's attitude is illogical, if not queer… If he claims a national home for the Hindu nation, how can he refuse the claim of the Muslim nation for a national home?”

And,

“One can justify this attitude only if the two nations were to live as partners in friendly intercourse with mutual respect and accord. But that is not to be, because Mr Savarkar will not allow the Muslim nation to be co-equal in authority with the Hindu nation. He wants the Hindu nation to be the dominant nation and the Muslim nation to be the servient nation.”

Coming back to the present, Mr X’s intolerance seems to have “increased” only in terms of him now being comfortable in letting “Muslim friends” know that they are the “minority” which “must be suppressed”. And while sticks and stones may break your bones, words will never harm you.

But this isn’t always the case. Mohammad Akhlaq’s family in Dadri witnessed more than words on September 28. There, intolerance resulted in murder. Communalism culminated in criminality. Likewise, most likely, with the killing of Prof MM Kalburgi on August 30. Definitely so with the Gujarat riots in 2004 and the Babri riots of 1992. And, yes, with the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 as well.

These incidents have been the biggest blemishes on our nation’s recent past. To prevent more of the same, what indicators should we look for to determine whether intolerance is on the rise?

For starters, since we’re speaking of a “culture” of intolerance, let’s examine what the official mascot of Indian culture – our Culture Minister – has to say.

On Dadri, a complete dismissal: “This (incident) should be considered as an accident without giving any communal colour to it.”

On APJ Abdul Kalam, “Aurangzeb Road has been named after such a great man who, despite being a Muslim, was a nationalist and a humanist”.

On holy books: “I respect Bible and Quran but they are not central to soul of India in the way as Gita and Ramayana are. As India's cultural minister, I recommend that Ramayana and Gita should be part of our school curriculum and I am working extensively with HRD minister Smriti Irani towards this.”

What about the party ruling our nation currently? Here is a list of some of the outrageous things other members of the BJP said immediately after the Dadri episode.

Among them:

“Why responsibility to keep peace and maintain calm is always put on the Hindus alone? Be a victim and maintain silence in face of assaults!!!” —BJP MP Tarun Vijay.

“The police have arrested innocent people. We also demand legal action against those people, who are engaged in cow slaughter as it is hurting Hindu sentiments,” —BJP leader Vichitra Tomar.

More was to follow:

“Agar nirdoshon ke khilaaf karyawaahi ki gayee, to munh-tod jawaab humne pehle bhi diyaa hai aur abh bhi denaa jaante hain (If action is taken against ‘innocents’, we have given a befitting reply earlier and know how to do so again).” —BJP MLA Sangeet Som, who was an accused in the Muzaffarnagar riots, commenting on people being arrested after the lynching at Dadri.

Words which may not harm anyone directly, but which, coming from representatives of the party and the state, can easily be interpreted as signal for what goes.

It is for this reason that politicians from the BJP often recount Rajiv Gandhi’s reprehensible words – “When a big tree falls, the earth shakes” – in the aftermath of the Sikh riots.

Rajiv Gandhi is not with us today but how, pray, are the same speakers – who never tire of accusing opponents of “selective amnesia” – not appalled at similar statements by serving ministers, MPs and members from their own party?

There has been many an appeal, by now, for the prime minister to speak strongly and decisively on the issue. But, the question to ask is: Has he done so already?

Watch Rakesh Sharma’s Final Solution and you will come across a clip of an 2002 election speech by Modi after the Gujarat Riots, around 50 minutes into the film. 

“Who are the culprits of Godhra? You tell me!” he says, in response to criticism of the riots that shook the nation after a train compartment was torched in Godhra. “If nothing had happened at Godhra, would anyone have hurled even one stone?”

During the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, Modi refrained from making any statements insinuating a Hindutva agenda. Yet, if you examine the speeches made by others at his rallies before he spoke, especially those in UP and Bihar, you will find them full of such references.

Now, read what Sharma said to the Times of India in a recent interview:

“I am a soldier of the Modi government. I cannot go beyond the Prime Minister's line of action. I only remark within my capacity and on those matters that are related to my ministries.”

Also: “From time to time, we receive directions from the party high command about commenting on political issues. I do not cross boundaries drawn by the high command.”

Do you still believe you don’t have the PM’s views on rising intolerance in the country?

Truth is, there was no need for many BJP party men who did so to make a statement after the killing at Dadri in the first place. The primary responsibility to react fell upon the state government, run by the Samajwadi Party. Similarly, the initial responsibility of reacting to the murder of Kalburgi fell upon the Congress government in Karnataka. Yet BJP politicos rushed to make themselves heard.

And now for the second flawed argument by those claiming there has been no increase in intolerance. At the centre of whataboutery surrounding the debate lies the question: What about the Sikh riots?

Here’s the thing. The Congress wants to shake off the ghost of 1984, but it can’t do so without successfully prosecuting the guilty who are alive.

Still, a question we need to ask is: Does the Congress conduct its campaigns on a majoritarian agenda that would make Sikhs uncomfortable today? Secondly, Manmohan Singh has been a Congress prime minister as well as prime ministerial candidate. Can we imagine the BJP, in the foreseeable future, having a Muslim as their prime ministerial candidate?

The BJP, rather, seems to want to wear the ghosts of 1992 and 2002 as badges of honour. The protection of Hindu cultural identity wasn’t a cornerstone for the foundation of the Congress party, but it was so for the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, the BJP’s predecessor. And while the BJP tried to be more inclusive in its early years as a new party, moderating its Hindutva stance and emphasizing its links to the socialism of the Janata Party instead, it has reverted to a clear majoritarian agenda since the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Any hope for this agenda to be whittled down with the arrival of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government was dashed with the Gujarat riots of 2002. 

Hence, despite what the Union finance minister Arun Jaitley believes, Modi has not been a “victim” of “ideological intolerance” “since 2002”. He is more likely to have been either the victim —  or merely an ambitious adopter — of an intolerant ideology.

No one underlines this better than the Prime Minister Modi’s prime confidante. BJP national president Amit Shah wrote his maiden blog on September 26, two days before the incident at Dadri. Here is a translated excerpt:

“If the leading political leaders in independent India had drawn from Savarkar's life and philosophy to build the nation, then the country would not be passing through such difficult times. Come and pledge with me that we will be partners in making an India of his dreams.”

Once again, read between the lines. Intolerance is rising, most definitely. But it’s also beginning to settle in.

Source: dailyo

Blogger's Comment: An EXCELLENT MUST READ article!!

Mythology of conversion

Why Hindus never converted but now want to reconvert

POLITICS  |   Long-form |   29-12-2014

Devdutt Pattanaik @devduttmyth

Observe how you react when you read the word "mythology". You are conditioned to believe it means "falsehood". Where did this conditioning, and meaning, come from? It comes from Christianity and secularism and science, the Western kind. And this has been accepted as "the" truth by many educated Indians – from the cult leaders of the liberal Left, to the gurus of the conservative right, even scriptwriters of Bollywood. Reveals how much of education has become indoctrination.

The word "mythos" means stories in Greek. Stories construct a worldview that is transmitted from generation to generation, shaping cultures. It is this story that binds people, turns them into a community. Every community in the world, from the Kalahari bushmen of Africa to the investment bankers of Wall Street, from aborigines of Australia to the brahmins of Varanasi, from the bishops in the Vatican to the Arabs of Mecca, has a worldview, a myth, about the nature of the world. Everyone in the community views their story as the truth. They have to. It is the glue that keeps their people together. The outsider finds these stories strange – weird, fantastic, absurd, stupid. Hence the twin meaning of myth – truth and falsehood. It is the assumption of the insider, and the judgment of the outsider. In other words, subjective truth.

For the Christian, Jesus is the saviour. For the Muslim, Muhammad is the last prophet. For the Buddhist, life is suffering. For the older Thervada Buddhist school, there was only one Buddha. In the latter Mahayana Buddhist school, there were many Buddhas. For the Hindu, there is rebirth. For the Shaivite, Shiva can break the cycle of rebirth. For the Vaishnavite, Vishnu is the cycle breaker. For the Jain, the world has no beginning or ending. For the secularist, religion is bad. For the capitalist, money is good. For the communist, the haves oppress the have-nots. For patriarchy, heterosexual men are superior. For the atheist, god is fiction. For the scientist, that which is measurable is real.

Notice how "myth" stretches from religious world to the non-religious world. For everyone tells stories, incredible stories, that some want to believe and some don’t. Storytelling is human. Story believing is human. Myth making is the indicator of humanity.

This poses a problem: how to distinguish the truth from falsehood? Reportage from propaganda. Ideology from reality. Ontology (knowledge independent of the mind) from epitemiology (knowledge created by the mind).

To understand this, we have to study the mythology of Abrahamic religions.

Why Abrahamic religions? Two reasons. First, Abrahamic religions have a profound political power, shaping Western/modern/global discourse, in more ways than we can imagine. Second, from Abrahamic religion we have our conventional understanding of "there can be only one truth!"

Abrahamic religions speak of "false gods" and "one true God". This idea is rather unique to Abrahamic mythology. There is the jealous god who does not like false gods, the god who refuses to be contained within a form and is formless, though is represented in language and art using the masculine form. Those who aligned to this mythology rejected all other gods. To prove their faith, they actively toppled other gods. Thus, when Christianity spread to Northeast India in the 20th century, the older tribal religions were wiped out. Memories were erased. Rituals forgotten. Exactly what happened in Arabia and Persia after the rise of Islam in the eighth century.

The Greeks did not have the concept of the "false" god. They had many gods. New gods kept coming in and old gods kept losing ground. The strong Olympians overpowered the earlier Titans. Eventually, the all-powerful god of the Christians kicked every god out when the Roman empire turned Christian. This was important to control the empire. The cacophony of many was replaced by the directives of the One. Notice this trend in recent times in India – where many clamour for dictatorship, and reject the vast diversity of languages in favour of a single language.

But then Greek mythology resurrected itself - not the gods, but their story. The dominant theme of Greek thought is about oppression and rebellion. To stay oppressed is to be in hell. The point of life is to fight back such authoritarian oppression, take a stand and be heroic. Greeks loved individualistic heroes and the polis (the city center) where rule was by consensus of individuals. With Greek thought came the European Renaissance of the 15th century, which challenged the church, and the idea of god, the idea of King, and gave rise to the Protestant movement (where the church is rejected but not god) as well as the relatively recent atheistic movement (where both church and god are rejected).

In its purest form, science does not judge. Science says: I know what I measure; the rest I don’t know. But science emerged in Christian Europe and so like the Abrahamic God, science became a judge. Science started to say: What I measure is true; the rest is falsehood. Thus the division of true and falsehood, spread into philosophy and science. Earlier, the Greek differentiated between two kinds of truth: that which is created by stories (mythos) and that which is created by reason (logos). Under Christian influence, mythos became falsehood and logos became truth, the truth, and nothing but the truth. Thus the Abrahamic God, overthrown by the Renaissance, fought back and made its way right into the speeches of the most radical militant atheists. This Christianised Science, where truth and falsehood were repeatedly demarcated, made its way to every corner of the world through missionary schools and the modern education system that adopted the missionary method.

Hinduism is not based on the notion of "false" gods and "true" gods. Hinduism has no concept of "judges". Truth is seen very differently. There is limited truth or mithya and limitless truth that is satya. The finite human mind can never appreciate the infinity of the world. But the mind can be expanded – by practices of propagated by hermits such as yoga and tapasya and tantra. Only the sage can see all. He is therefore Buddha, he whose intelligence (buddhi) is fully formed. He is therefore bhagavan, he who sees all parts (bhaga). In Jainism and Buddhism, the sage is a great teacher. In Hinduism, the sage is god, who defies the mortal body. God of Hinduism is limitless (ananta). This limitless god can "contract" himself and "bring himself down to the level of mortals". From here comes the concept of "avatar" (he who descends). From his mountaintop, Shiva sees all. But he is isolated up there. So the goddess brings him down to the plains, to Kashi, where the gaze is restricted by the horizon.

God who is "limitless" is very different from god who rejects the "false". The one is accommodating of human limitations. The other cannot tolerate human weakness. The one has no sense of urgency for it sees fear of death as delusion. The other wants to save the world before falsehood claims the world. The one is at peace. The other is always at war. Guess which god dominates the modern world.

Ironically, Hindu Right wing have started adopting the Abrahamic version of God. And the Left wing seems to agree with this definition of god. It has become the only definition of god, endorsed even by atheists and Bollywood.

The limitless god is too passive – it does not indulge cult leaders. Cult leaders want to be admired as heroes, and so they need villains. So they construct "false gods" – missionaries and secularists. They reject post-modern definitions of mythology. For them myth is "falsehood" not "subjective truth". The latter definition does not serve their ambitions. There is an epidemic of cult leaders in the Right wing, desperate seeking power, each one a jealous god. They don’t care for any truth but their own. So they tell stories, of how Hinduism is under threat and how everyone needs to be alert and fight back. But there is one key clause in a cult leaders story that often goes unnoticed: to win the battle against Christian missionaries, you have to recognise only their version of Hinduism with them as its true articulator. This they make themselves the chosen one! Other than cult followers, everyone can see the irony.

We often forget that one of the earliest form of "conversion" can be traced to Buddhism. It did this without force, without violence– through one leader (Buddha), one clear doctrine and set of rules (Dhamma), and through institutions (the Sangha). Buddhist monks did not speak of any "true" or "false" god, but he did offer the "cure for worldly suffering" revealed by his leader. For the common folk, this made Buddha, the source of the solution, a larger than life being, greater than man – a god! So eventually, ignoring earlier practices, gigantic images of Buddha started appearing, and being worshipped, in Central Asia, China and South East Asia. He who did not care for the gods, became a god. And when he became god, the many Gods of the Puranas, from Shiva to Kali to Krishna, ended up overshadowing him.

Many believe that Jesus was greatly influenced by Buddhism in his "lost years" and was inspired to create the "church", an idea that was alien to the earlier Jewish faith. When the church became powerful, the Roman empire adopted it. Instead of conquering tax-paying land for Rome, they new generals began conquering souls for the one true god. Later, with the rise of Science, god became secular "money" and the age of enlightenment became the age of colonisation. Secular thought propagated itself on the principles of the church – lessons of conversion informed many a marketing department. Brands became the new gods. Rockstars became the new gods.

We forget that stories influence stories. Just as Buddhism can influence Christianity, and Christianity can influence Capitalism and Communism, and the story of the "one true God" can influence truth-seeking scientists. Likewise, the story of the "limitless god" of Hinduism can also influence the limited truths of terrorists and activists.

Conversion believes that only one story will prevail at the end. Re-conversion believes that some stories are under threat. The tangible form of stories – customs, rituals, symbols – may die. The language (vac, in Vedas) may die but not the thought (manas, in Vedas). The intangible form of each and every story is eternal (sanatan, in the Vedas) and ever-changing (a-nitya, in the Vedas). Thus is how Vedic ideas survived despite the rise of Buddhism - reframing ideas locked in esoteric rituals into entertaining epics. This is why the Hindu concept of "history" is "a-historical". The limits of time are broken. The story, or rather idea of the story, belongs not just to the past but also to the present and the future. It recurs always. Conversion and re-conversion, conquest and liberation, follow each other like the recurring battle of the devas and the asuras. So it was, so it is and so it will be. Iti-hasa, even if the Hindu Right wing does not want to believe it.

Source: dailyo  

Knights in saffron armour

The unique feature of Hinduism is its diversity and fluidity.

POLITICS  |   6-minute read |   16-12-2014

Devdutt Pattanaik @devduttmyth

The unique feature of Hinduism is its diversity and fluidity.

It is easy to use diversity as a tool to stifle all positive conversations on Hinduism, and reduce popular Hinduism to "patriarchal, casteist, hegemonic Brahminism", a noticeable trend amongst many left wing, even secular, intellectuals of India.

Many Euro-American academicians have also been arguing for some time that there is absolutely nothing common in the diverse communities of Hindus and that "Hinduism" is a false construct created by the British who used the word "Hindu" for the first time in the 19th century for administrative convenience to bundle together unrelated groups who were not "people of the book".

This naturally angers those who strive to create a united Hindu political force that the world cannot ignore. Explaining how Hinduism is a complex adaptive system (a phrase used by author Sanjeev Sanyal is tough). It seems far easier to stifle all conversations on Hindu diversity and seek construction of a neo-Hinduism rooted to one language (Sanskrit), one book (Bhagavad Gita), one system (jati), one way of living (vegetarian, heterosexual, patriarchal) and "reverse" conversions (ghar-vaapsi). This institutionalised religion (sangha) is protected by missionaries (pracharak) who function as celibate, saffron-robed warrior knights who need to wield, according to the fiery Yogi Adityanath, the "book" (shastra) and "the weapon" (shaastra), rosary (mala) and a lance (bhala). They call this neo-Hinduism, rather ironically, a timeless faith (sanatan dharma).

Timeless faiths need no protection. But knights need dragons (secularists, Christians, Muslims) and damsels in distress (Bharat Mata). And they end up throwing the damsel in an ivory tower, restraining her with new rules and definitions, allegedly for her own good!

The idea of chivalrous knights in shining armour emerged in medieval Europe and was popularised by bards known as troubadours. The chivalrous knights did not fight for glory, or spoils of war, but for goodness and righteousness. They were imagined as selfless men who believed in pure love – who stayed celibate in the service of a woman they loved, a woman of high rank, a queen usually, who was married off to another and so unobtainable.

Eventually, she was identified with the Virgin Mary. She was Notre Dame (Our Lady, in French). Did Notre Dame inspire the concept of Mother India? Are the preachers and defenders of neo-Hinduism inspired by the idea of the celibate chivalrous knight? We can only speculate.

The difference between Hinduism and Abrahamic faiths is rather stark. For example, in Hinduism, there is no concept of "false" god or "true" god. Ideas like "Satya Narayana" (True God) emerged in India only after the advent of Islam. More popular is instead the idea that all gods (spelt in plural and without capitalisation) are manifestations of God. Or that every god can be God sometime. Thus Shiva is God. Vishnu is also God. They are different to look at. Their stories are different. But in essence, they are same. Further, Hinduism has the concept of the Goddess. And Goddess is not a female form of God. She is independent of God, one who enables the divinity of God. Thus Shiva is shava (corpse) without Shakti. And Vishnu exists to serve as go-pala (cowherd) to go-mata (the earth-goddess).

Hinduism's complexity, fluidity and diversity has always been problematic to many Hindus. Unconsciously there was a need to get validation from the West. Nowhere is the desire to stifle Hinduism diversity more evident than in the obsession with Bhagavad Gita. Few realise that it is but one of many Gitas. There is Guru Gita, from the Skanda Purana, in which Shiva sings in response to a query by his consort, Shakti, about the meaning of one who facilitates spiritual growth; Ganesh Gita, which is part of Ganesh Purana, where Ganesha as Gajanana explains to king Varenya the truth about the world; Avadhuta Gita, in which the mendicant Dattatreya, first guru to all tantriks, sings about the nature of reality; Ashtavakra Gita, in which the hermit Ashtavakra, following a question by king Janaka, explores the nature of the soul; Rama Gita, from Ananda Ramayana, in which Ram, king of Ayodhya, consoles his brother, Lakshman, after the latter has abandoned Ram’s wife, Sita, in the forest; Uddhava Gita, also known as Hamsa Gita, from the Bhagavat Purana, in which Krishna, before leaving earth and returning to his heaven, Vaikuntha, summarises the wisdom of his life to his companion Uddhava; Vyadha Gita, from the Mahabharata, in which the butcher sings a song to explain to an arrogant hermit that being a householder, performing one’s duties, and serving others, is perhaps as important spiritually, if not more, than renouncing the world and serving only oneself; Anu Gita, narrated once again by Krishna to Arjun, but after the war, when Arjun’s brothers, the Pandavas, have firmly established their rule after defeating their cousins, the Pandavas; Devi Gita, where wisdom is given by the Goddess, not God.

In the late 18th century, the East India Company decided to publish the English translation of the Bhagavad Gita. Before that the Bhagavad Gita was known to Indians through songs of poet-saints like Dyaneshwara of Maharashtra (13th century) and Balarama Das of Odisha (15th century), which captured the spirit of the Sanskrit text but focussed on the path of devotion (bhakti marga). The Sanskrit text itself was restricted to Brahmins scholars such as Shankara (eight century), Ramanuja (11th century) and Madhava (12th century) who wrote long commentaries on it and focussed on its intellectual side (gyan yoga). When it was put down in writing, 2,000 years ago, the purpose was to counter the rise of monastic orders such as Buddhism by amplifying the value of ritual duty and social obligations (karma yoga).

It remains a mystery what made Bhagavad Gita more popular than the others. Was it more comprehensive? Was it more dramatic as it is takes place on a battlefield between two armies on the brink of war? Did its monotheistic tilt make it popular when Muslim and Christian rulers dominated the land? Internal correspondence of the East India Company reveals publication of this document was justified on ground that Gita’s monotheistic spirit aligned with the monotheistic spirit of Christianity, and was less confusing than polytheistic Vedas. This made Hinduism more comprehensible, and less fluid, enabling even many of India’s founding fathers, lawyers mostly, who went to London for further studies, connect with the glory of their Hindu past, for the first time in their lives. This naturally led to the meteoric rise of the Bhagavad Gita, transforming this Vaishnava document into the "Hindu Bible" with its own "One True God".

The saffron knights will argue, Hinduism was always monotheistic! We did not need the British, or the Muslim before that, to make it monotheistic. They hate the suggestion that theism itself emerged later in Hinduism, that the Vedas seem rather agnostic in many portions, and that the Hindu concept of God, with Goddess, is radically different from the concept of God in Abrahamic faiths. Such historical analysis of Hinduism angers the saffron knight. They want their neo-Hinduism damsel to be static and stagnant, defined by their needs and their limited knowledge and their desire to measure up to the Abrahamic faiths. They cannot handle the idea that Hinduism is a self-sustaining (swayambhu, in Sanskrit) evolving entity, indifferent to all those who seek to control, conquer or rescue her.

Source: dailyo

Modi, conversion is a slap in the face of India

It is a shameless mess of anger, bigotry and coercion which threatens our multi-religious nation.

POLITICS   |   4-minute read |   15-12-2014

Rajeev Dhavan

Conversion, reconversion, counter-conversion and victimisation of Hindu converts to any other faith. What a shameless mess of anger, bigotry, threats and coercion.

On December 8, 2014, there was a havan in Agra, by offshoots of the RSS and the Bajrang Dal, who "reconverted" 200 Muslims into the Hindu fold. Muslims were promised Aadhar cards, IDs and registration as BPL (Below Poverty Line). Amidst chants and priestly ceremonies, vermilion was put on Muslim foreheads as they washed the feet of Hindu idols. Most Muslims said they were lured, and asserted that they were Muslims. Farhan, a poor Muslim put it well: “If 40 saffron-scarved persons stand on your head, you do what they want.”

The Hindutva juggernaut is on the roll. The plan is to have 600 conversion sammelans. After Balarampur and Agra will come Ghazipur and Aligarh on Christmas day. The rest will follow. This unrelenting Hindutva crusade in the name of Hinduism is shamelessly subversive by a religion which does not proselyte.

Legislation

The BJP suggested the remedy lay in passing an anti-conversion legislation. Such anti-conversion legislation has been used in the past to terrorise non-Hindus. Before independence it existed in princely states in Rajgarh (1936), Bihar (1942) Sarguja and Udaipur. After independence, the first round of legislation was in Orissa (1967) and Madhya Pradesh (1968). The Orissa legislation was struck down and its MP counterpart upheld by their respective high courts.

In the Stanislaus case (1977), the Supreme Court upheld the acts without examining them. Its logic was that Article 25 of the Constitution specifically guaranteed the right to “propagate” one’s faith, but not to convert. This clumsy judgment was welcomed by Hindu fundamentalists. Unfortunately in the Satya Narayan case (2003), justice Khare and Sinha showed extreme indiscipline, to affirm Stanislaus without a notice to the other side. After Stanislaus, the legislation was passed in Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Chhattisgarh (2202), Himachal Pradesh (2006) and Rajasthan (2008).

When Rajasthan wanted to make its law stricter, governor Pratibha Patil killed the Bill by reserving it for presidential assent. Gujarat’s anti-conversation laws were passed in 2003; with a later proactive amendment by Narendra Modi that conversions between Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs were not conversion because they were part of the same Hindu faith. Governor Sharma ordered reconsideration and Modi withdrew under pressure.

All these statutes decry conversion by force, misrepresentation or inducement. Fair enough. India’s Penal Code (IPC) treats such conversions as cheating and punishes those who promote enmity and outrage religious feelings (Sections 153A, 295A of the IPC). By this test, the RSS and Bajrang Dal initiative in Agra and 600 planned sammelans are illegal as disturbing communal harmony. Anti-conversion acts are not that simple.

Models

The simple model is to introduce criminal consequences, including making them cognisable (investigation by police) and non-bailable. The second model may be called the surveillance model, followed in MP, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. Here, prior intimation of a conversion has to be given to the magistrate who can inquire into any “complaint or information”. Significantly, Parliament has refused to pass the Indian Conversion (Regulation and Registration) Bill, 1954 and the Backward Communities (Religion Protection) Bill 1960. A 1978 bill lapsed. The response of the Modi government on December 12, 2014 to the recent conversions in Agra is to suggest an anti-conversion Bill. Such statutes are designed to harass Christians, Muslims and other minorities through surveillance and punishment.

Technically, conversion by Hindus will also come under the proposed bill. But we all know there is a huge difference of application. Such laws are inflicted on minorities and reticent in their use on Hindus. Modi’s strategy is brilliant in its deceit. First, his rank and file create Agra and then his government suggest this odious solution as a panacea. Create a crisis and propose a solution which Parliament has resisted for 64 years. Freedom of religion by threats and criminalisation is not acceptable.

Tolerance

Hindutva adherents must recognise that Hindus left the faith because of some aspects of Hinduism which can be considered offensive. Buddhism posed a threat to Hindus over centuries because of the caste system and Buddhism’s innate attractiveness. It took the Shankaracharya to simplify the Hindu faith to some extent even as lapses continue. Even if conversions took place in the Muslim era (1206 -1857) and the Christian era (1700-1947) to curry favour with the rulers, after many generations today’s Muslims and Christians remain steadfast in their faith.

Recent conversions from Hinduism are symbolised by Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism. If Hinduism were to introspect, one would find an apparatus of cruel absurdities in an otherwise creditable faith. What we now have is a political Hinduism backed by arrogance, ignorance and threats. When Gujarat burned, Modi was complicit. Today, he is the prime minister of India. What is expected from him is a severe condemnation of the events in Agra, the one planned in Aligarh and the 600 to follow. Is Modi himself truly a Hindu? I think in name only. The RSS "short pants" brigade was modelled on Nazi lines. Modi needs the RSS and others for political victory, even if at times limits of decency have been crossed.

India is the greatest multicultural, multi-religious nation in the world, with traditions of tolerance and co-existence. Mr Modi — don’t let your electoral supporters spoil this.

Source: dailyo