Hindu Communalism

Hindu Communalism

Note: The main theme of this article is not to criticize, support, or oppose anyone. However, when some Christians, particularly converts, blindly oppose those with whom they disagree due to a lack of historical knowledge, I feel the need to help them understand the issue from the right perspective. This does not mean that I support ultra-nationalism by any means. I have my personal disagreements and reservations with several agendas of the Sangh Parivar. But when they bring up some issues that highlight the seriousness of a matter, we must approach those issues properly rather than blindly opposing them because of our disagreements. This response has limited scope as it addresses the elitist understanding of ‘Secularism’ and ‘Communalism’ in India.

One Christian convert sent the following thought by the RSS Leader Joshi (see the Appendix) on Hindu communalism and sought my opinion on it. In response, I wrote:

Hindus have various caste communities. There exists no Hindu community as such. The same is true for Indian Christians, as they too are divided into various caste communities. Communalism has various definitions. Caste or religion is one among several criteria for communalism.

Then he wrote back: Kindly elaborate on the matter.

But I don’t know what there is to elaborate on, which is well known to all.

Unfortunately, the word ‘communalism’ is now mostly related to religious categories like Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. communalism. I have already shared my views on communalism in my article BBC and BJP. Let me repeat what I shared there:

Communalism believes in a particular ideology/theology/philosophy and not only tries to preserve it as one’s community identity but also propagates it to others, expecting them to accept and join them. But in India, according to my understanding, this community identity has mostly remained as ‘casteism,’ as we find its counterpart, ‘racism,’ in the West.

As I often say, instead of asking ‘what is Hinduism,’ it is better to ask ‘who is a Hindu’? A Hindu is a member of a particular community, irrespective of their faith. Though Hinduism includes a religious aspect, it is still more of a social identity than a religious one. If this definition is accepted, then no Hindu promotes their casteism to others. In fact, one can never change their caste. Of course, one promotes their religious (sectarian) idealism and never expects anyone to convert to their caste. And even if one wishes to, it is not possible according to the Constitution, I think. This being the Hindu reality, where is the space for Hindu ‘communalism’?

Anyhow, as politics is ‘communalized’ in India, several caste groups not only have their own associations to promote their interests but also launch political parties to achieve it through power. Even the so-called minorities also have their own political parties for this purpose. But even these caste-based political parties never remain together under one party or one leadership. Each group or regional caste group has its local parties trying to gain power locally. This being the Indian reality, even this caste-based ‘communalism’ cannot be called Hindu communalism. Maybe we can say, if one wishes, Dalit, Yadav, Reddy, Kappu, etc., ‘communalism’ with their own regional and local versions. This view is endorsed by the fact that ‘jati’ or ‘kula’ dharma is mostly translated as ‘communal dharma.’ It is also important to note that in the various divisions of dharma, there is no separate term for dharma as ‘religion.’

Another example is ‘Dalit Christian theology.’ Dalits have every right to create their own theology that addresses their needs. But this also demonstrates that, at least in India, communalism is based on caste and not on religion, though a religious category like theology is used to serve its purpose. I am not sure whether one can compare this with racism in the West, as they have separate ‘racial theology.’¹ This caste-based identity of Hinduism can be endorsed by another fact: reservation is arranged based on caste and not on religion. Though in a few states, some political parties (I think like Congress) attempted to have separate reservations based on ‘religious minority,’ it was rejected by the Supreme Court.²

When I sent my initial response to that Hindu convert, he sent me a book review by J.N. Manokaran on a recent book: Majoritarian State: How Hindu Nationalism is Changing India. (ed.) Angana P. Chatterji, Thomas Blom Hansen, and Christophe Jaffrelot, Noida, HarperCollins Publishers India, 2019.

But such kinds of books questioning an imagined ‘Majoritarian State’ and ‘Hindu Nationalism’³ are not new. Almost every year, a few books on this topic are published. Even back in 1996, I read one such book: Making India Hindu: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India, edited by David Ludden, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1996.

Such writings by the elitists are not reaching the common Indians. These elitists, both in India and from the West, repeat the same theme book after book, which we call in Tamil ‘grinding the same dough again and again’ (arachcha maavaye araikkaradu). The average Indian, particularly a Hindu, is not paying attention to these writings. Though these writings remain rhetorical, they still raise some natural questions:

Tell me, where is the place for a religious minority in a SECULAR COUNTRY? When India is not a Hindu Nation, every citizen living in this country, irrespective of her particular religious faith, should never feel that she belongs to a minority or majority religious community. And when anyone feels or claims that she is a minority because of her faith, then she is ‘communalizing’ her faith. But this is an Indian fact that cannot be denied. Ever since Independence, for various political reasons and merely for vote-bank⁴ politics, minority appeasement became a norm in India. Special privileges were given to them in the name of ‘religious minority.’ For example, if they wanted to go on their religious pilgrimage as part of their religious duty, their travel was subsidized by government money. Now, though abolished by the present Central government, some States still continue to provide it. In the past, they could start their own educational institutions and claim government aid. For example, a Christian could open an aided school in which they could appoint teachers from their own community (also from their own caste) and get their salary from the government, keeping one or two seats for other communities as it was mandatory. But I think, thankfully, this is also stopped by the government. In this process, education was ‘communalized.’

In Tamil Nadu, during the month of Ramzan, the government gives free rice to every local mosque to make ‘rice porridge’ (called ‘kanji’ in Tamil) for them to break the fast. Nothing is wrong with it, and we appreciate it. Similarly, during the month of ‘Margazhi’ (December 15 to January 14), most Hindus do bhajans in every ‘Mutt’ and temple and prepare ‘Pongal’ as prasad to distribute to the participants. That ‘Pongal’ (a kind of kichidi) will be very tasty. Several times, boys will go at the end of the bhajans only to collect that tasty prasad. Then they will be rebuked by the organizers as ‘gluttons’ who come not for bhajans but only for ‘pongal.’ To my knowledge, the same government is not giving rice to the Hindu temples to make this prasad, and Hindus never complain about it. Similarly, in several leading Hindu temples, ‘midday meal’ called ‘annadhanam’ is given freely to the votaries. For this, that particular temple has to spend from its own income and can collect donations from the public.

Politicizing religion and communalizing politics began very early by the British, which all our political parties inherited happily to promote their own ideology and interest. They never think soberly or rationally. For example, the main political party in Tamil Nadu is DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam = Progressive Dravidian Party). It is known for its atheistic ideology from the beginning. But when it comes to Hindu festivals, they won’t greet Hindus on that occasion. Because it not only goes against their ideology but also their ‘minority appeasement formula.’ But the same party leaders not only greet both Muslims and Christians on their festival occasions but also organize official party functions to celebrate. For example, it is an annual ritual for every political party in Tamil Nadu to organize an ‘Iftar Party’ in which these ‘secular’ (and also atheist) leaders will wear the Muslim ‘cap’ and drink the ‘kanji.’ It is important to note here that, ‘…Being an atheist (nastika) was outside the pale of acceptability in Mughal circles… atheism as one nonnegotiable limit of Mughal toleration of cultural and religious differences.’⁵

Does this mean that the Muslims who organize and participate in such Iftar parties by these Pseudo-Secularists do not know their vote bank agenda? They know very well. But as it serves their purpose to gain political power through alliances, they have to tolerate these kinds of Pseudo-Secularists. In this way, both become partners in politicizing religion and communalizing politics.

It is also arranged by National level parties like Congress at the Central level.⁶ For them, greeting Hindus on their festival is ‘communal,’ but greeting minorities on festival occasions and also arranging and participating in those ‘religious’ parties is ‘secularism.’ No DMK party leader will join Hindus even to celebrate the secular Pongal, which is nothing but a Harvest festival. But it is interesting to note that the ladies in their family go to the temple and even arrange special pujas and organize yajnas for their husbands to win the election. Similarly, most of the party members from Hindu communities continue to celebrate their festivals, not agreeing with the atheistic ideology of their party. I think recently when the West Bengal Chief Minister Ms. Mamata Banerjee announced cash support for several important ‘Durga Puja’ pandals, it was opposed and even the matter was taken to the court. I don’t remember what the court verdict was. So this Indian secularism is not uniform in India. And it has its regional version according to the ideology and agenda of each political party. But the credit goes to the British who inaugurated it during their rule in India, as well said by Khan:

…The British did set about eradicating individual religious practices when they found them unacceptable. On the other hand, they left alone practices such as the passage of Hindu musical processions by mosques at the hour of prayer, and never prohibited the slaughter of cows by Muslims. Allowing such practices gave them an additional lever to put Indians into opposition against each other, giving them an opportunity to arbitrate. Indian secularism, therefore, has tainted and shady beginnings: it served to keep the Indians apart, playing them off against each other.7

There is no point in multiplying these kinds of examples to show how, in the name of ‘Secularism,’ the so-called Hindu majority is forced to adjust and pay to appease ‘religious minorities.’ And when any SECULAR HINDU questions it, she will be branded as ‘communal.’

I don’t know much about other countries. I think America is also a secular country. I am not sure whether Hindus living there ever call themselves ‘religious minorities’ and claim any special status and privilege from the government based on religion. I came to know that there are special privileges given to ethnic minorities in education, etc. But I am not sure not only in America⁸ but also in any other secular country OTHER THAN INDIA whether any so-called ‘religious minorities’ can claim special status and privileges in the name of their faith.

So I think Sri Joshi is correct when he said that ‘Hindus can never be communal because Hindus are not a community. “Those who worship one God, have one manner of worship, and believe in one book are considered a community.” Since Hinduism doesn’t fit into this description, Hindus are not a community. Hindus, therefore, cannot be communal.’

When a Hindu violates his or her caste norms, there is a possibility for him or her to be excommunicated. Now this is also not legal, and the expelled person can complain against such caste panchayats to the police. Similarly, no Hindu can be expelled for her faith by any religious leader or guru when he or she violates the doctrine of that particular sect. Of course, some staunch sampradayas like Sri Vaishnavas, Lingayats, and others have their own methods to address this issue. In general, as no religious doctrine binds any Hindu, he or she cannot be expelled in violation of any doctrines of a particular sampradaya.

In the case of Christianity (Roman Catholic), the Pope has the ultimate authority. Therefore, under his authority, a Catholic can be expelled from her church locally. Thankfully, in Protestantism, there exists no such authority, though they give authority to the Bible. But each denomination among Protestants has its own method to excommunicate a member from its ‘church’ in case of violation of their code of conduct or doctrine. However, as the expelled member will easily join another church or create his own church (‘of excommunicated’), such expulsion does not affect a member much. Whether Catholic or Protestant, as most Indian Christians belong to their respective caste groups, their social life is not much affected by their affiliation with any church.

However, when Christians call any convert a ‘Hindu convert’ or when the convert herself calls herself a ‘Hindu convert,’ then they create a ‘Hindu communalism’ based on religious criteria. To put it another way, even this ‘Hindu communalism’ is created by others and not by Hindus. When Hinduism is communalized this way, only the religious aspect of Hinduism is considered the criteria. Adding insult to injury, if the convert is called a ‘Brahmin convert,’ then her caste is also ‘communalized.’

Unlike Christianity, which has mainly ‘religious’ criteria as its main identity,⁹ Hinduism does not have ‘religion’ as its main criteria for its identity. For example, when an atheist Hindu becomes a Christian convert, the religious category does not apply unless we accept atheism as another form of religious conviction within Hinduism. As Christianity became a religion, Christians superimpose these criteria on Hinduism and try to communalize it.

The natural question that might arise in a Christian’s mind is: when a Hindu becomes a ‘Christian’ through ‘conversion,’ naturally, we have to call her a ‘Hindu convert.’ Though one may claim that Hinduism is not a ‘religion’ but only a way of life, still, for common people, Hinduism is another religion. Then why are we blamed as if we have communalized Hinduism?

This is a genuine question, and we need to address it. Unfortunately, this ‘religious’ criterion for Hinduism is imposed by others, and now we have to accept it. I need not dwell here on how ‘Hinduism’ became a ‘religion’ because of the tireless efforts of Oriental scholars. Of course, the concept of Hinduism as a religion like that of other religions was also introduced by some Hindu thinkers in the past, which is well recorded.10 However, according to my limited understanding, I am not sure whether our Constitution agrees with it. Before addressing the issue, let us remember that though Hinduism is called ‘Hindu dharma,’ still this is a wrong translation as noted by Badrinath:

“Just as the word dharma is untranslatable, and the word ‘religion’ conveys no substantial part of its meaning, the word ‘religion’ is similarly untranslatable into any of the Indian languages, for the (p.41) concept of ‘religion’ is altogether absent from Dharmic language. As a consequence, ‘religion’ is translated invariably as dharma. This leads to a total misunderstanding and to wrong formulations. For example, derived from the notion that secularism can mean, in the field of public policy, neutrality to all religions and not necessarily anti-religion, it is translated officially in Hindi as dharma-nirapekshata, which perverts the meaning of dharma. If dharma is the foundation upon which all life is based, then nothing can be neutral or indifferent to the very thing in which it is grounded.” 11

Even the important point that while ‘dharma’ has various divisions, there exists no separate ‘dharma’ as a ‘religion.’ Note, for example, what Prof. Kane said explaining various dharmas:

“Another and more comprehensive classification says that dharma is sixfold, viz. dharma of varnas [injunctions based on varna alone such as ‘a brahmana should never drink wine’ or ‘a brahmana should not be killed’], asramadharma [such rules as ‘begging’ and ‘carrying a staff’ enjoined on a brahmacari], varnaasrama-dharma [rules of conduct enjoined on a man because he belongs to a particular class and is in a particular stage of life, such as ‘a brahmana brahmacari should carry a staff of palaasa tree’], gunadharma [such as protection of subjects in the case of a crowned king], naimittika dharma [such as expiation on doing what is forbidden], sadharana dharma [what is common to all humanity, viz., ahimsa and other virtues.] This classification appears to have been an ancient one…”12

So, though dharma never divides life as ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ into two watertight compartments, still, inheriting the dichotomy of separating ‘secular’ from ‘religion’ from the West, we gave a ‘communal’ color to religion when it served our purpose. As a digression, I want to bring one important point here, particularly to the Christians, that even their ‘Bible’ never supports ‘Secularism.’¹³ Several so-called ‘secular’ values like ‘democracy,’ which is now used in the churches in electing several committee members and other officials for the governance of the church (mostly its property), are purely unbiblical. Someone well said that ‘while God put the church in the world, the devil put the world in the church.’ The way all kinds of unethical and sometimes immoral tactics are used to win elections in churches will even shock several political parties. Even Bishop Elections are not spared from such activities. In most churches where one caste dominates, they will see that all the key posts go only to their community. Even those who have conflicts of interest will be persuaded to vote on caste lines by saying, ‘only our people should be in all the key posts.’ In Tamil, it will be very clear where ‘our people’ stands for ‘namma aalunga,’ which means candidates from our caste.

Interestingly, when a Hindu converts to Christianity, according to my understanding, he changes his ‘personal law.’ Now a Hindu who converted to Christianity and so far remained under the ‘Hindu Personal Law’ opts to come under the ‘Christian Personal Law.’ I am not sure whether any ‘religious’ aspect is included in this by the Constitution. I have to consult some constitutional experts or lawyers on this point. If it is there, then even this ‘religious communalism’ is introduced by Western Law, which India adopted from British Law.

Therefore, there is no space for communalism in Hinduism if we keep ‘religion’ as the main criterion to decide communalism. Other religions that have ‘religion’ as their main identity, like Christianity, for example, could be communal. Not realizing this fact, when they impose ‘communalism’ based on religious criteria, we have to object to it.

I would like to ask the following question to the Christian convert:

Every sincere and serious (evangelical) Christian in India would like to see India become a Christian country by converting all other non-Christians.

Every sincere and serious Muslim would like to see that every Indian should become Muslim and that India should become an Islamic country by converting all other non-Muslims.

Though some Ultra Nationalists want India to become a Hindu Rashtra (Nation), the majority of Hindus are happy to see India remain a Secular Country. Though some sects like Hare Rama Hare Krishna convert several Christians to their sects, still, most Hindus never want to convert anyone to Hinduism.

Now tell me, who is communal and who is secular?

It is important to note that most of the Hindus living both in urban and rural areas do not even know what ‘secularism’ actually is. They know about their faith and caste but not about this clash between ‘secularism’ and ‘communalism.’ This mostly remains an elitist entertainment.

I think the main problem for this misunderstanding comes from the dichotomy between ‘secular’ and ‘sacred.’ Though both ‘Secularism’ and ‘Nationalism’ are Western imports,¹⁴ they are highly contextualized in India and took on new avatars,¹⁵ thanks to the politicians. And caught between a rock and a hard place, Indian democracy is suffocating. But common people, not minding about it, live their life as per their ‘sadhana dharma’ [spiritual disciplines] and ‘samajic dharma,’ [social identity] keeping the former as a private affair and the latter as part of their social norm. But they also become clever by ‘commercializing’ their franchise for temporary gain of some freebies and sell their vote to these politicians, thereby losing their moral right to question them. Realizing this fact, several Hindu apologetics suddenly began to use ‘dharmic values and dharmic civilization’ to defend Hinduism and India, forgetting the fact that even this ‘dharma’ never remains neutral. In India, even this dharma is mainly a ‘varnashrama-dharma.’ And forgetting this, if we try to project some ‘Imagined India,’ then it is nothing but self-deception.

Many scholars have written extensively about ‘secularism, nationalism, communalism, etc. etc.’ At the same time, one should be aware of these scholars’ personal agendas in giving their final verdict on these topics. They too write keeping their ideology brushing it under the carpet of objective scholarship. Though, thankfully not a scholar, I have my own aspiration in writing this article.

So when I think or read all these issues, only one image comes to mind. Finally, Indian democracy (what we call in Tamil) ‘becomes a garland in the hand of a monkey.’ At least the monkey, after tearing the garland, will throw the string and walk away. But our Indian politicians, along with the public, proudly wear barren the string without any flowers on their necks for the world to see the ‘wonder that is India.’¹⁶

Dayanand Bharati 

24-6-2020 

Notes for Hindu Communalism

1…There I learned the theological basis for racism. The pastor taught that the Hebrew word Ham meant: burnt black,” making Noah’s son Ham the father of Negro races, and that in a curse Noah had consigned him to life as a lowly servant (Genesis 9).  That is when I heard my pastor explain why black people make such good waiters and household servants…. (p.22) No one bothered to point out that the curse was actually pronounced on Noah’s grandson Canaan, not Ham.— Philip Yancey, ‘Recovering From Church Abuse’, Soul Survivor, New York, Galilee Doubleday, 2001, pp. 1-10,  pp. 22-23

…Mississippi’s Baptist Record published an article arguing that God meant for whites to rule over blacks because “a race whose mentality averages on borderline idiocy” is obviously “bereft of any divine blessing.”….—ibid. p. 23

2 …A Presidential Order in 1950 restricted Scheduled Caste reservations to Hindu Scheduled Castes but was later amended to include Sikh Scheduled Castes in 1956 and Buddhist Scheduled Castes in 1990.  Christians and Muslims have argued that they too face caste discrimination in India, but the Supreme Court has postponed considering whether Christians or Muslims of Scheduled Caste origins should benefit from reservations. There is no such religious restriction on Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class status.— ‘Contemporary caste discrimination and affirmative action’,  Laura Dudley Jenkins, in Hinduism and Law: An Introduction, Timothy Lubin, Donald R. Davis, Jr. and Jayanth K. Krishnan,(eds.),  New Delhi, Cambridge University Press, 2010 p. 224

3 Though there is difference between ‘patriotism and nationalism’, still I cannot understand what is wrong in Nationalism?  According to my understanding nationalism is the local expression of patriotism in every country which is a universal virtue.  For example, we have only a ‘National anthem’ and not ‘Patriotic anthem’.  Indian National Congress and not Indian Patriotic Congress? Not knowing English properly, still I cannot understand the negative connotation attached with Nationalism.  While Nationalism is opposed, several times Internationalism is welcomed.  If Nationalism is wrong, then why not Internationalism.

4…Indian secularism, however (at least that version of it that I am here outlining), while avoiding the aggressive and anti-religious hubris of militant secularism, attempts to sit on the fence.  This, of course, has led to problems in modern Indian politics. Some have argued that it is precisely the ‘slippery’ pragmatism of Indian politics that has fuelled communal unrest in contemporary India, as well as a widespread feeling that politicians are opportunistic chameleons, changing their colors to suit the particular voting community to whom they are appealing for support….— Richard King, Orientalism and Religion, Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘The Mystic East,’ New Delhi, Oxford, 1999p.51

5  Audrey Truschke, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit At the Mughal Court, Gurgaon, Haryana, 2016, p. 45.

6 I think now it became a worldwide trend in several democratic countries like America and England where political parties will participate in Hindu festivals keeping their vote in mind.

7 Ansar Hussain Khan, The Rediscovery of India A New Subcontinent, Orient Longman Limited 1995, Hyderabad, (A.P.) India, 1995, p. 255.

8 …While the United States formulates programmes keeping mind (p.235) efficiency and public policy, the Indian approach is based on the defense of rights and the pursuit of justice…. The Indian and American examples also differ from each other because of the difference in social conditions in the two countries.  In the United States, there are individual problems concerning race while in India there are communal problems related to caste.  Reservation policies applicable to groups have been adopted in India but they are treated with scorn by the Americans because they do not conform to their philosophy of ‘self-made men’.{D. Gupta, Interrogating caste—Understanding hierarchy & difference in Indian society, Delhi: Penguin Books, 2000, pp. 96-115}.– Gilles Chuyen. Who is a Brahmin? The Politics of Identity in India.  New Delhi, Manohar,  2004, pp. 235-36

9 In A Prehistory of Hinduism, (Berlin, De Gruyter Open Ltd, 2016) Manu V. Devadevan, quotes Fuller on this point:

“Hinduism” as a term for that indigenous religion, became current in English in the early nineteenth century and was coined to label an “ism” that was itself partly a product of western orientalist thought, which (mis)constructed Hinduism on the model of occidental religions, particularly Christianity….That linguistic development significantly reflects the impact of modern Hindu reformist thought and the Hindus’ own search for an identifiable, unitary system of religious belief and practice.  Nonetheless, “Hinduism” does translate any premodern Indian word without serious semantic distortion, and it still does not correspond to any concept or category that belongs to the thinking of a large proportion of the ordinary people….Yet that is not a decisive objection against employment of the term…That “Hinduism” is not a traditional, indigenous category, concept, or “cultural reality”—albeit an important negative fact—in no way nullifies an analysis that demonstrates that Hinduism is a relatively coherent and distinctive religious system founded on common structures of relationships. { Christopher John Fuller, The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India, revised and expanded edition.  Princetorn. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004, 10}

Then he points out how this Hinduism was created:

          How was Hinduism crated?  We may bring our study to a close by making a set of preliminary remarks that address this question. The theory and history of Hinduism, and its practice, were brought into existence by the upwardly mobile, literate, and mostly male intelligentsia of the nineteenth century. This intelligentsia consisted of the upper class and the white collared sections of the middle class.  The lower class and the lower rungs of the middle class were not privy to this historical enterprise. The peasantry was also conspicuous by its absence.

          This class character informed the histories of Hinduism that came to be written. It was a largely text-based history, in which religious works of antiquity in Sanskrit, like the Vedas, the Upanisads, the Puranas, the Ramayana, and the Mahabharata, occupied the central place….—ibid. p. 178

10 …The idea of Hindu unity is neither a timeless truth nor a fiction wholly invented by the British to regulate and control their colonial subjects.—p. 2

          The thesis of this book is that between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries CE, certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachings of the Upanisads, epics, Puranas, and the schools known retrospectively as the “six systems” (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.  The Indian and European thinkers in the nineteenth century who developed the term “Hinduism” under the pressure of the new explanatory category of “world religions” were influenced by these earlier philosophers and doxographers, primarily Vedantins, who had their own reasons for arguing the unity of Indian philosophical traditions.  Before the late medieval period, there was little or no systematic attempt by the thinkers we now describe as Hindu to put aside their differences in order to depict themselves as a single unified tradition.  After this late (p.2) medieval period, it became almost universally accepted that there was a fixed group of Indian philosophies in basic agreement with one another and standing together against Buddhism and Jainism.(p.3)

…None of these unifiers would have described themselves as “Hindus,” a term that was still uncommon in sixteenth-century Sanskrit usage.  But it was their unification of astika philosophies that nineteenth-and twentieth-century reformers drew on when they sought to enunciate a specific set of beliefs for a world (p.5) religion called “Hinduism.”  While some recent scholars have argued that the vision of Hinduism as a single, all embracing set of beliefs is wholly a modern fabrication, such assertions ignore the historical developments of the late medieval period.  In unifying the astika philosophical schools, Vijnanabhiksu and his contemporaries made possible the world religion later known by the name Hinduism.— Andrew J. Nicholson.  Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011.  pp. 2-6

11 Chaturvedi Badrinath, Dharma, India and the World Order, Saint Andrew Press, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993, pp. 41-42

12 P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, vol. II. Part. I. Ch. I. The Topics of Dharmasastra, pp. 2-3.

13…Man, his image, was created to live in the harmony of personal equality but with social organization that required functional structures of authority.  The ordering of social relationships and structures, locally, nationally and globally, is of direct concern to our Creator God, then.  But that is precisely the stuff of politics.  The Bible, therefore, makes no unnatural separation between `politics’ and `religion’, though neither does it identify them.  Both are essential dimensions of what it is to be human.  Man the worshipper is also man the political animal, for God made him so.— Christopher JH Wright, Living as the people of God. (The relevance of O.T. ethics), IVP, 1983, p.105

14…this word [secular] is also a foreign import.  In the West it has a negative connotation: it refers to that which is against religion.  But, says Badrinath, classical Indian understanding of the human condition was secular but not anti-religious.— Chaturvedi Badrinath, Dharma, India and the World Order, Saint Andrew Press, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993, Foreword, Lesslie Newbigin , p.xi

15      It is therefore a profound error to assume that ‘secularism’ is a common word in political use in the West that has simply been transferred to India as an ‘imported idea’.  In reality, the term has a political weight in India that it has never had in the West, and it has acquired a deep meaning and significance in India that many Europeans simply don’t understand. Thus, ‘secularism’ has become almost as Indian a word as ‘preponed’ or ‘denting’ (removing a dent in a car).— ibid. Secularism and the Happy Indian Village. Pp. 20-31, in Sanjay Subrahmanuyam, Is ‘Indian Civilization’ a Myth? Fictions and Histories, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, 2013, p. 22

16.  Borrowing from the title of A. L. Basham’s famous book: The Wonder that was India, Delhi, Rupa & Co., (1954) 1990,

Hindu Communalism—Part Two

A response to the review

The following is the response from one person as I requested him to read and give his views to my response to ‘Hindu Communalism’.  As he raised several genuine questions, I thought better let me first address these issues which he raised before sharing my thoughts on ‘Hindu Communalism’.

• You have made a deep and exhaustive study of the subject. 
• You have included too many points and sometimes one gets confused on the point that you want to drive. This also could be due to my own limitations.
• I suggest that you divide them into separate sub headings and include only those points leading to a conclusion of your thought.
• Also it does not matter, the origin of many terms like secularism and Hindu but what matters is the meaning understood by the common man. Today every common man understands the term Hindu.
• Without making it very complicated every person in India knows whether he is a Hindu, Muslim or Christian .Why try to define a term which a common man on the street knows.
• Secondly SECULAR means all citizens have the same rights and privileges in administration, law and rights. Communal party wants to give benefits only to the community or religion to which the majority in the party belong. Savarkar and Golwalkar wanted this country only for the Hindus. RSS is purely a Hindu organisation which had no faith in the Christian British who looted this country or the Muslim Moguls who tried to convert Hindus by force. Therefore they followed a philosophy to nurture and flourish the Hindus and bring back the period called as the golden age of Guptas and Ashoka. Luckily the present government of BJP will ensure the secular nature of this country where all citizens irrespective of the caste or religion will have the same rights.
• Do not give importance to terms as understood by intellectuals but give importance as it is understood by the common man.

Secularism is ingrained in the psyche of Indians and no party who professes communalism will survive in this country and this is well understood by the BJP leadership.

My response:

An average Hindu knows that she belongs to a ‘religion’ called Hinduism. Though she might have some understanding of ‘secularism’ (that too only among the educated), I think she doesn’t understand what ‘communalism’ is. This is true for an average Christian and Muslim as well. The question about Hindu Communalism was raised by a (communal) Hindu (RSS) leader, which was challenged by another communal Christian convert, thinking that like Christianity, Hinduism’s main identity is ‘communal,’ similar to Christianity having ‘religion’ as the main criteria to decide what Hinduism is. But not agreeing with him, I gave that response to help him understand that ‘communalism’ is not part of Hindu DNA.1 Of course, when her religious sentiment is attacked, and she is provoked, a Hindu becomes ‘communal’ not to attack others but to defend her faith. Otherwise, she is happy to remain a secular Hindu, keeping her faith as a private affair, not disturbed by others. Similarly, she is not interested in going and disturbing the followers of other faiths, particularly attempting to convert them to her faith.

In general, as we often see, Hindus are not interested in converting others to their sects. There is no point in pointing to some fringe sects like ISKCON (Hare Rama-Hare Krishna) converting Christians to their faith. I am not sure whether they are specifically targeting Christians to convert them. It would be an interesting study if one could actually find out how many Christian converts are in ISKCON. Not all white people in ISKCON are Christians, I think. Above all, even if Christians are converted to ISKCON, they are not lured by giving incentives as accused in the way conversions take place in India, particularly among the so-called suppressed castes. Even those conversions in ISKCON are individual ones and not mass conversions as we find in India, which brings a lot of tension in those communities, resulting in social tension. I am not sure if such tensions are common in the West, where several white people are converted to ISKCON.

But even when not attacked, a sincere and serious (evangelical) Christian remains a ‘communal’ one. Otherwise, she will become a nominal Christian—as long as evangelism aims at converting people from one (religious) ‘community’ to another, which, according to my understanding, is not biblical. One cannot find evidence in Muktiveda (Bible) for such conversions from one ‘community’ to another.

We know that there are ‘nominal’ and ‘secular’ Christians and Muslims. But are we hearing about any ‘atheist’ Christians or Muslims?

The word ‘nominal’ is always used by Christians as the opposite of ‘born-again’ Christian. As such dichotomy does not exist in Hinduism (and most Hindus don’t even understand it), there are ‘secular Hindus’ but no ‘nominal’ Hindus. However, there are several ‘atheist’ Hindus like Jawaharlal Nehru, Amartya Sen, Tapan Roy Chaudhuri {the author of several books like Perceptions, Emotions, Sensibilities: Essays on India’s Colonial and Post-Colonial Experiences, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999; The World in Our Time: A Memoir, Noida, 2011, etc.}.

So I completely agree with the above comments given by another Hindu convert after reading this article on ‘Hindu Communalism,’ as I requested his views. I also have to agree with him that, ‘You have included too many points, and sometimes one gets confused on the point that you want to drive. I suggest that you divide them into separate subheadings and include only those points leading to a conclusion of your thought.’ This is my problem with most of my writings, which are mere brainstorms. In order to defend my main theme, I try to approach it from various points of view. And to substantiate those points, I often (taking help from scholars) give lots of information from a scholarly perspective. And naturally, I end up giving too many points, which often confuses me and others. Unless properly edited, my brainstorms cannot be called articles. However, as this is my way of recording my responses, I am not much worried about the lack of order in thoughts in my brainstorms. As I often write only for my own needs, I try to share my views but also gather authentic scholarly information for those views. Unless one has a brave heart and strong brain, they cannot read and understand my brainstorms. This I know very well. In one way, I am happy not to receive further comments or questions on any topic, as they consume a lot of my time responding to them. Left alone, I am happy. Nobody is dying to read my thoughts. This I say not with arrogance, but I know my limits. I write only to address my needs. That is why I often fail to communicate with others.

So this response is specifically to address the issue of ‘Hindu Communalism’ that the Hindu convert raised and not for common Hindus on the street. And it is limited in its scope.

Conclusion:

As a Hindu, when anyone points out several shortcomings in Hinduism, I will humbly accept it—like casteism, untouchability (recognizing that this is common to all the faiths in the Indian subcontinent). But not understanding the complexity of Hinduism, when others try to impose their imagined Hinduism, then I have to defend it. Imagine what will happen to a Muslim if they change their faith? Though Christians won’t go to that extreme, still they too will be excommunicated not only from their church but even from their community—if not from their family. Whereas most of the time, a Hindu converted to Christianity rarely faces any kind of persecution from their religious community or family. In fact, their family is persecuted and has to pay the cost for their conversion to Christianity. Except for rare exceptions, all the so-called persecution of the converts from Hinduism to Christianity is over-exaggerated by the converts, mostly to win sympathy from their church. Not realizing this magnanimity of Hindus, if any outsider, particularly a convert, tries to denigrate Hinduism, then I have to point out their ignorance.

When I try to defend Hinduism on these issues, some of my friends get confused. One of my school-time friends, also a Hindu convert to Christianity (who passed away recently), told his wife that I had given up my faith in the Lord and had become a Hindu completely. Whereas he knew well that I never became a Christian and always remained a Hindu bhakta of the Lord. When I fail to conform to their (church) doctrine, political ideology, or social anthropology, I am blamed for giving up my faith—in their term: backslidden.

But when any Christian blames me like this, I am happy and consider it an honor and recognition that I remain a Hindu. According to them, not only have I backslidden, but I also became a heretic and promoter of a new cult—which they call ‘Christo-paganism.’ As a joke, I used to respond, ‘It is better to follow this “Christo-paganism” than your “Western paganism”; at least this paganism, unlike your church, is “Christ-centered.”’ Some think that though I still keep my bhakti in the Lord, I became a liberal completely. But they don’t understand one fact because of their lack of knowledge about Hinduism: every Hindu is a liberal when it comes to their relationship and attitude towards other faiths, but orthodox when it comes to their personal faith/bhakti. The terms ‘liberal’ and ‘orthodox’ never have the same connotation in Hinduism as they do in other faiths.

According to evangelical Christians, if orthodox means accepting the authority of the Lord and treating Muktiveda as the Word of God, etc., I too have the same orthodoxy. If they further push and ask if I too believe in several doctrines like the virgin birth, atonement, second coming, etc., my answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ When my bhakti accepts all these doctrines, my reason refuses to accept them. But this is not a problem for me. Till the end, I will have several such doubts and will always ask questions about those doctrines. Whereas as a bhakta of the Lord, they become secondary issues in my relationship with Him. Before knowing the Lord, I had similar doubts and questions on so many issues related to the doctrine and philosophies in Hinduism. When I struggled a lot in those areas, my bhakti in my deities helped me to have a normal life as a Hindu. Having relativistic pluralism as the worldview, a Hindu does not find it difficult to live accepting contradiction not only in her life but also in her bhakti. God is the one who binds and also liberates; wounds and heals. Either/or is not her theory in life, and she accommodates both contradiction and conflict side by side. But she never allows this to doubt her bhakti in her gods. This is not syncretism but synthesis, chaos paving the way for clarity, and clarity further giving space for questions and doubts. That experience helps me now. As I’ve said several times, all my understanding about the life and teachings of the Lord and theology is a backward walk for me to understand them. My bhakti started in my relationship with the Lord, and as I try to understand His life and mission, I began a backward walk in history with the help of church history and the Word of God. In that walk, several genuine questions came and still come, for which my reason still cannot find a convincing answer. When contradictions and conflicts are part of normal life, how can one have an exclusively ordered, disciplined religious or spiritual life? Whereas my bhakti helps me cling to the Lord, knowing the limitations of my reason! ‘…Were there no room for doubt, there would be no room for faith either,’ says Phillip Yancey2, endorsing my view.

Thank God that I am not left alone in my pilgrimage with the Lord, and there are other bhaktas who are helping me to clear my doubts, particularly related to theology. This is the strength in our bhakti in the Lord. Though we can have our personal bhakti in the Lord, we need not and cannot have a PRIVATE GOD OR PRIVATE BHAKTI, as we are part of the Universal Mandali of the Lord. With this confidence, I hope to finish my race and be with the Lord in Eternity with Him along with other bhaktas of the Lord. Till that time, several times, I have to walk alone as I fail to communicate my thoughts and mind properly to others. This is both a limitation and a blessing from the Lord, considering my nature as a recluse both in life and bhakti. Someone once said that every saint should learn to walk alone with the Lord, though she need not lead a lonely life.

Db 

4-07-2020

Notes

1  Note what Kakar says that, ‘Communalism is a specifically Indian concept which signifies a strong identification with a community of believers based ont only on religion but also common social, political and especially economic interests which conflict with the corresponding interests of another community of believers—they ‘enemy’—sharing the same geographic space…..(p.154) 

However what he further says is more to understand this ‘enemy’:

It is interesting to note that generally a Hindu’s self-identification as a Hindu occurs only when he talks of the Muslim; otherwise the conversations on his affiliation are more in terms of caste.  A Hindu is born only when the Muslim enters the scene.  Hindus cannot think of themselves as such without a simultaneous awareness of the Muslim’s presence.  This is not so for Muslims, who do not need Hindus for self-awareness.  The presence of the Hindu may increase the Muslim’s sense of his religious identity but does not constitute it’ (p.157)– Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar ,Indians Portrait of a People, New Delhi, Penguin Books, [2007], 2009, pp. 154 and 157.  The whole Chapter: Conflict: Hindus and Muslims, pp. 152-179 worth reading to understand this ‘communalism’.

2 Soul Survivor, New York, Galilee Doubleday, 2001, p. 253

A response to the review

Thanks AJ for taking your valuable time to read and give your views. I value your views and they forced me to think further. The following is my response to your genuine questions.  I will post this in my blog but won’t mention your name.  If you have any objection let me know.  If you want to remove any reference which might help others to guess who you are, then I will remove them—for example like ‘former RSS’ etc.  Again thanks for giving your valuable time.  God bless you.

Db

3-7-2020

Appendix

14 February, 2020

Representational Image, Source: The Indian Express

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has called for a law that criminalizes forced and induced conversions. Speaking in Goa, Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi, the national general secretary said that the RSS opposes conversions done by exploiting and inducing the illiterate, poor and backward people. Such practice of conversion to Christianity using exploitation and inducement should be made a punishable offence, he demanded.

While he stressed that there is no restriction on individuals going to Christianity on their own, there is a need to punish mass conversions as well as individual conversions done by exploiting the individual’s economic and educational backwardness. “Forceful conversion or by inducement, we say, should be made a punishable offence. There is no restriction on those who are going to Christianity on their own,” Joshi said.

Joshi also added that there were many such cases across the country where people working under various NGOs have indulged into religious conversions. “There are many cases across the country of those operating under the guise of NGOs. If you want to work in the area of water conservation, then why are you building a church in the village,” he said.

Joshi also remarked that opposition to BJP should not be seen as opposition to Hindus. He also stated that without an understanding and a concept of a Rashtra, people will only view it as a piece of land or a geographical entity.

Joshi also clarified that RSS does not oppose non-Hindus from joining the organisation, but they must believe in the concept of Bharat Mata. “We will not change our ideology or have a special program tailored for them”, he said.

Bhaiyyaji Joshi also said that a Hindu can never be communal because Hindus are not a community. “Those who worship one God, have one manner of worship, and believe in one book are considered a community. Since Hinduism doesn’t fit into this description, Hindus are not a community. Hindus, therefore, cannot be communal,” he explained.

Recently, groups affiliated to the RSS were stopped in conducting marriage ceremonies for tribals in Bengal despite taking permission from the administration. The VHP has alleged the collusion of Christian missionaries and communist leaders in this incident.

   Support Us   

Whether NDTV or ‘The Wire’, they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford