Part Two
After this digression and my favorite topic of ‘dynastic politics,’ let us return to the original point. Indians not only welcomed every thought from every corner of the world but also made it part of their civilizational view. If any particular faith tried to fight against this tendency to keep its so-called ‘originality,’ it failed, including Islam. It also remains part of this dharmic civilization, following its unique civilizational views like caste and adopting several indigenous rituals as part of its popular faith. However, the reformers of some Abrahamic faiths tried, they cannot eradicate it completely. This happened even to Islam, keeping the Indian worldviews like caste and rituals as part of its Indian version.7 Then what to say about other Abrahamic faiths? It is better if we don’t say anything about Christianity. Almost every Christian remains a Christian only three hours a week as a Christian inside her church and in her birth certificate/passport, and for the rest of the 21 hours, remains Indian, better as a Hindu in every way. All their attempts to imitate their western counterparts, shedding their Indian or Hindu dharmic ethos, only resulted in creating more hybrid Christians, like an ABCD (American Born Confused Desi).
Even if we accept the one-sided perception that Hinduism began after the Aryan migration to India, then this proves that it came from outside India, paving the way to mutual learning from indigenous people. Even if this claim is refuted by the Hindutva camp and they try to prove that they are the original sons of the soil and from here migrated to other parts of the world to become ‘world gurus,’ still they had to ‘learn and gain’ so many things both to survive and expand their Aryan civilization, learning only from the so-called non-Aryan cultures and traditions like Dravidian. So throughout the history of Hinduism (call it by any other name as per your wish and choice), it always remained ‘reciprocal,’ never remained ‘one-way traffic,’ like the present married couple, unlike the past husband-centered and dominated marriage where the ‘faithful wife’ (pativrutha) had to live and move and even die along with him as a sati only to take care of his needs. As this topic of Indo-Aryan migration is a disputed topic and as I have no knowledge about it,8 I cannot say further about it. Whether the origin of Indic9 civilization (a better word than to call any civilization in India with a separate name like ‘Aryan, Dravidian, Aboriginal, etc.) were the Aryans or not, even all their latter development which even began from Vedic times, did not remain purely Aryan, refusing to learn or gain from anyone—both inside and outside. If Aryans were blamed for Sanskriticising native traditions, for example like tribes, the same can be said that, in return, they managed to ‘tribalize’ Aryan tradition.
The best two concepts are Bhakti and Karma. Though scholars like P. V. Kane point out their presence in Vedic literature,10 still, according to my limited learning about Hinduism, in Veda, Bhakti could be defined as a personal relationship with so many deities according to the need and mood of a bhakta. A business-like transaction with mutual reciprocal contribution: ‘dehi me dadaami te’ (give me; I give to you back).11Whereas the unique nature of Bhakti that later became the core of Hinduism is an exclusive personal relationship with a chosen favorite deity (Ishta Devata) that came from Dravidian tradition, as the Bhagavata Purana says that Bhakti originated in the Tamil region and then it went to other parts of India.12 The same is with Karma. Though the word ‘karman’ and its role are part of the Vedic view, still all the later development which alone now remains the dominating Hindu worldview (which also heavily influences other non-Hindu faiths) came from non-Vedic sources.13
Leaving all these inconsistent and non-cohesive arguments in this brainstorm, whether a common Hindu or a Hindutva Hindu, she never said or could say that we have nothing to learn or gain from others. In fact, this Indic Civilization more than any other civilizations, among which most of them now completely disappeared, showed the path on how one needs to learn and gain not only to become a world guru but also to survive as a still living civilization.
Well, my point of view need not convince anyone. I need not convince anyone. However, as I always write only to my need, I shared my view. As I have said in another place, the present Indian scenario is this: If you don’t say anything against Modi and the Sangh family, then you are a fascist. If you say anything against Modi or the Sangh family, then you are anti-national and a traitor. So many choose to remain centrist, sitting always on the fence, not knowing which side to jump. But I believe that there is a fourth place in this category, giving issue-based support to anyone that will make the entire humanity as “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.” Note the context to understand this famous sloka: ‘Discrimination saying, “This one is a relative; this other one is a stranger” is for the small-minded. For those who live magnanimously, the entire world constitutes but a family.’14 This concept of world as a family, give space for the local, regional, and national aspirations not only within a country but in the entire world. Any kind of homogenizing effort to make the entire humanity one entity is doomed to fail as several such experiments anywhere in the world proved this, as pluralism is the only reality in life for everyone. So people like me talk about India and not about ‘for’ one against ‘the other’ anyone or remain neutral.
As long as the four pillars of Indian democracy: Free Press, Independent Judiciary, Vibrant electoral democracy, and Federal system, each region aspiring for its own growth remain stable, Indian political Dharma will be safe. If one leg is severed, then it will manage with three; if another is severed, then it will try to stand balancing on two; if the third one is also severed, then it will start to stumble and fall at any time, paving the way for the death of democracy and creating authoritarianism like Emergency during by Indra Gandhi or that in China, North Korea, and Russia. So there is no point in developing some kind of Modi phobia. Therefore, there is no point in comparing Modiji with other such dictators like Xi, Putin, Kim, etc., as Guha has done first in the Prologue and then in the Epilogue, as he writes:
“The lives and doings of these individuals constitute a morality tale for the world we currently live in. This is a world governed by paranoia and nationalist xenophobia, with the rise of jingoism in country after country, and a corresponding contempt for ideas and individuals that emanate from outside the borders of one’s nation. Narendra Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in India, Donald Trump and the white supremacists in America, Boris Johnson and the Brexiteers in England, Xi Jinping and his Confucian Communist Party in China – all see themselves as uniquely blessed by history and by God. No foreigner, they believe, can teach them anything.
This book tells us that they can.” 15
And in the Epilogue already I quoted in the beginning of this brainstorm in Part I. But what Guha says further on this point in the Epilogue needs to be mentioned to note that sandwiching between these two Modi-phobic statements spoils the overall spirit of this book. As a scholar and prolific writer, he could write another book on xenophobia after the recent Parliament election result which taught one good lesson to BJP and well all other political parties, including Congress. This is what he says in the Epilogue:
“Although this book has not been written for the nativists and xenophobes, I hope that some members of that tribe might read it too. For here are seven quite remarkable individuals, all foreign-born, all white-skinned, who identified so completely with Indian aspirations. In the course of fighting non-violently for India’s liberation from colonial rule, all were interned or deported by the British. Yet it is not merely as ‘freedom-fighters’ that we should remember them. Quite apart from what they did in the sphere of politics, they each enriched and enhanced the life of the Indian nation in so many different ways.” 16
Everyone has some kind of phobia in life. If anyone claims or thinks that he or she perfected the art of life without any phobia, it is a myth and they have to live with it. But considering the changing demographic condition of every country creates some kind of ‘xenophobia’ in people’s minds, particularly among the so-called majority, be it ethnic, religious, economic, etc. Now due to migration from all over the world to one country to another, some for genuine reasons but many for personal and selfish reasons, challenges the settled life of the locals. Who is to be blamed, and who is a victim, and who is a culprit is very difficult to decide and the answer depends on to whom the question is asked and who is giving the answer. Even if it is argued that colonial powers looted several African countries to enrich themselves, now the victims of such colonialism demand their share of the loot from their colonizers, which rightfully belongs to them. Agreed. But what about those countries that never colonized any nation, yet now find themselves the target of migrants seeking a better life? The people of these countries fear potential threats to their security from such migration and take certain steps to stop it for their survival. Can we call this xenophobia?
If the victims of colonialism migrate to their former colonizers for survival, it’s understood. But if countries that never colonized others take similar steps for their survival, is it then labeled as xenophobic? As a famous Tamil film joke goes, ‘If I bleed, it’s blood; if you bleed, it’s tomato sauce.’ Or as a Tamil proverb states, ‘applying butter to one eye and lime to another,’ or another one says, ‘if broken by a mother-in-law, it’s just a clay pot; if broken by a daughter-in-law, it becomes a golden pot.’
There is no universal solution even for this. Each country has to work out its own that best suits its purpose, not violating the human rights of anyone. But this cannot be achieved overnight as Rome was never built in one day. As the famous saying goes, ‘It is very easy to start a war but very difficult to stop,’ the same applies to several areas or almost all areas of life. This being the human reality, when someone blames the other as xenophobic or some other phobic, then it naturally comes out of his or her own phobia that he or she refuses to understand or accept. So knowing my own phobia against dynastic politics, I won’t call anyone as ‘phobic’ and as perfection is impossible in this life unless one believes in a perfect life after death, she or he has to live with all kinds of human imperfection. And ‘phobia’ is one among the many.
So, not only xenophobic tribes but also pseudo-secular and anti-Sangh phobic tribes, including Guha, have something to learn after writing such a scholarly book about what phobia actually is, which is widespread even among those who criticize others as some kind of phobic.17
Notes
7. Muslim poet-saints like Shekh Mahammad and Shah-Muni were canonized as great saints by Hindus on account of their contributions to the bhakti tradition of Maharashtra. While staying within the framework of the monotheistic concepts of Islam, they were willing to accommodate gods of the Hindu pantheon as long as those gods conformed to their conception of God as devoid of definable attributes, indistinct and being one entity. Shah-Muni uses a puranic device to explain the origin of Islam through Mahavishnu, his version of Allah and the Prophet; the Hindu-Muslim differences are explained away by another origin myth. By describing Dilva ‘the founder of the Muslim community’, as a Vedic seer, he is, like the Hindu historians of Maharashtra, making the Muslims acceptable members, rooted in Indian tradition. Shah-Muni and Shekh Mahammad struck at the bases of brahmanical rituals and caste division. Both were aware of the antipathy between Hindus and Muslims. They hoped that this would be melted away through belief in God.—N.K. Wagle, HINDU-MUSLIM INTERACTIONS IN MEDIEVAL MAHARASHTRA, in Gunther D. Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke (eds.), Hinduism Reconsidered, in Heinrich von Stietencron, HINDUISM: ON THE PROPER USE OF A DECEPTIVE TERM, in Gunther D. Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke (eds.), Hinduism Reconsidered, New Delhi, Manohar Publications, (1989) 1991, p.63
Muslim society in India is sharply divided into two sections: the Ashrafs and non-Ashrafs, of whom the latter constitute the bulk. The Ashrafs are the upper caste Muslims who claim foreign descent, and the non-Ashrafs, the lower-caste converts….—The Changing Position of Indian Women. Pp. 279-300, in, M. N. Srinivas, Collected Essays, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, (2002) Paperbacks 2004, p. 288
Also see: C.J. Fuller, Camphor Flame Popular Hinduism and Society in India, New Delhi, Viking, Penguin India.
S.A.A. Rizvi, The Wonder that was India, Part II, Rupa & Co., (1997), Calcutta, 1997, Six impressions
Richard M. Eaton, ‘Approaches to the Study of Conversion to Islam in India’, in David N. Lorenzen, in David N. Lorenzen, Religious Movements in South Asia 600-1800. New Delhi, Oxford, 2004
8. Innumerable books and materials are available on this subject. But one of the best is Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition.
9. Tony Joseph, Early Indians, New Delhi, Juggernaut Books, 2018
10. See P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Kane, Panduranga Vamana (1968). History of Dharmasastra (Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law in India). 5 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. vol.V. part.II. Ch.XXIV, p.951
11. 1 देहि मे ददामि ते नि मे धेहि नि ते धदे।
Dehi me dadāmi te ni me dhehi ni te dhade.
* “Give to me, I give to you; place (your trust) in me, and I place (my trust) in you.”—Chatgpt
12. Here is what Bhakti says:
I was born in Dravida,
grew mature in Karnataka,
Went here and there in Maharashtra,
then in Gujarat became old and worn.
There, under the spell of these awful times,
my body was riven by schismatics.
For long I went about in this weakened condition,
accompanied in lethargy by my sons,
But on reaching Brindavan I was renewed,
I became lovely once again,
So that now I go about as I ought:
a young woman of superb appearance.1—(p. 59)
utpanna dravide saaham vrddhim karnaatake gataa
kvacit kvacin mahaaraastre gurjari jiirnataam gataa
tatra ghorakaler yogaat paakhandaih khanditaangaka
durbalaaham ciram yaataa putraabhyaam saha mandataam
vrndaavanam punah praapya naviin eva suruupinii
jataaham yuvatiii samyak prestharuupaa tu saampratam. (Bhagavata Mahatmya, in preface to the Bhagavata Purana, Gita Press, 1995 [1971], 1.48-50).—John Stratton Hawley, A STORM OF SONGS: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement, London, Harvard University Press, 2015
13. See Karma, Herman W. Tull, for a precise summary from its origin to the modern developments; Karma, in pp. 309 to 331, in Shshil Mittal and & Gene Thursby, eds. The Hindu World, New York, Routledge, [2004], Reprint 2018.
14. “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्) is a Sanskrit phrase that translates to “The world is one family.” This concept emphasizes the idea of the interconnectedness and unity of all human beings. The phrase is derived from a verse of the Maha Upanishad, which is part of the corpus of ancient Hindu texts. The verse is as follows:
अयं निजः परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्।
उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्॥
Ayaṁ nijaḥ paro veti gaṇanā laghu-cetasām
udāra-caritānāṁ tu vasudhaiva kuṭumbakam
Discrimination saying “This one is a relative; this other one is a stranger” is for the small-minded.
For those who live magnanimously, the entire world constitutes but a family.—Maha Upanishad, Chapter 6, Verse 72.—Chatgbt, assessed on 27-6-2024
15, Guha, op. cit., Prologue, p. xix
16 ibid. p. 417
17. After writing this article, though I know and understand the meaning of the word ‘phobia’, still as I wanted to know what actually it means and what kinds of phobias are there, I asked Chatgpt to give a short summary. And its summary helped me to understand it in its context and helped me to realize that almost all the individuals in the world, including Guha, have some kind of phobia with them. See the Appendix Five: Phobias.
Leave a Reply