Hindus, Christians, and Confusion

Hindus, Christians, and Confusion

“Hindu, Christians & Confusion: India’s Latest Census: Hindus, Christians & Confusion”  September 10, 2015, by Padma Kuppa

As most people of Indian origin know, “American Born Confused Desi” – an ABCD – is a special phrase used to refer to a rather “neither here nor there” mentality that we Indian Americans might have acquired while growing up in America, with parents who are immigrants from India trying to provide an “Indian” environment at home. My parents went a step further – they moved the family back to India when I was in high school so that I could have a first-hand experience of what it means to be Indian. What I really imbibed from India, particularly during college, was its pluralism. I had friends of different faiths, sampradayas, and languages – all living together, freely expressing, practicing, and even sharing their faith – without any intent to convert or claim superiority of one faith over another. Looking back at the number of times my Catholic roommate and I went to each other’s houses of worship, my Muslim friend and I visited each other’s homes on our respective holy days, or our Christian neighbors and my family exchanged traditional sweets for Diwali and Christmas, those years in India – and subsequent visits – allowed me to understand what living religious pluralism actually is.

Being in America and particularly a Hindu in America, I have found that being grounded in pluralism helps me balance the various aspects of my identity – not just Indian or American, but being a mother, a wife, a daughter, a community member, an employee, an activist, and so on. The Hindu belief that God has many forms, yet is essentially One, the formless Divine, has helped me find peace – and the rich spiritual practices found within the various Hindu sampradayas with their ancient philosophy have been essential to finding a way out of the confusion that can come with being an ABCD. I confidently self-identify as a Hindu and often prefer it to identifying as Indian, something not as common among my Indian immigrant peers.

So when I heard the news about India’s recent census and the resulting social media buzz, I was rather bemused. The Indian Census Bureau just released numbers from its Official Census in 2011, showing a continuing decline in the proportion of Hindus: people identifying themselves as Hindu dropped to 79.79% from 80.46% ten years earlier, which was at about 83% in 1991. While the percentage of Muslims in the population rose to 14.23% from 13.42%, the numbers overall caused a stir within the Indian diaspora community.

Academician and fellow Telugu, Vamsee Juluri, was moved by the Indian Census to write about American Hindus and their challenges. Aseem Shukla, my fellow Board member at the Hindu American Foundation, shared a Wall Street Journal article with the encomium that its interactive feature was the best summary of the issue he had seen, praise that we at the Foundation often can’t offer Western journalists. A college classmate sent me an email of surprise that the proportion of Christians was so low, at 2.3%, given the number of churches we have seen pop up in small villages on our visits to our spiritual homeland over the last 25 years. And yet another friend and I exchanged emails about John Dayal, an Indian Christian political activist, and how Twitter was all abuzz with his comments that Indian Christians underreported themselves – comments that justify duplicitousness.

Saying one is a Hindu on Census forms ensures receipt of government-provided benefits called reservations, given to certain underprivileged communities. If the same individual goes to a Christian missionary organization, they often receive further aid if they identify as Christian. That this happens has been documented in other parts of the world: Guyanese Hindus called themselves “Christian” to get access to hospitals and schools but continued holding on to their faith at home, as explained here by Murali Balaji, a scholar and voice from HAF. A study from those at the Lausanne Movement, where they find “it difficult to accept the census as authoritative,” reports that the actual number of Christians was 4.8%-5.8% as far back as 2010.

So if the numbers of Christians in India are underreported, I wonder if it is Indian Christians who are confused. I am proud to say I am a Hindu – are they not proud to say they are Christian? True acceptance of Christ comes with certain expectations of the heart and mind – including acknowledgment that they are followers of Christ and have left Hinduism behind. Or have they?

My response: 

I agree with the author that Christians who become a ‘convert’ should not hesitate to disown their ‘Christian identity’ just for the sake of receiving some social benefits. But too many, due to economic pressure, have to make this compromise. One Catholic Father at a conference said that many in their congregation remain ‘Hindu’ in their certificate, whereas they remain ‘Christian’ in their church register. As the church failed the impossible task of addressing the economic needs of the converts, and the government failed the impossible task of addressing the socio-religious needs of the people, those converts from economically weak and socially oppressed backgrounds are forced to do this. My personal opinion is that all are victims and nobody can be blamed. Instant and one-time solutions to complex human issues and needs cannot be arrived at by any kind of one-time action by any individual or group or government. The solution to such issues will evolve rather than be invented.

The issue Kuppa raises is a limited issue that addresses the converts. But those who want to keep their Hindu identity and follow the Lord need not give up their identity or couldn’t do it because of these issues, which the Church and Christianity in India or anywhere else face.

Having said this, I wonder what is the criterion that decides one’s Hindu identity? 

If one claims culture as the criterion, we all know there exists no uniform so-called Hindu culture anywhere in the world. For example, Dravidian, tribal, etc., cultures need not be called Hindu culture—though there is scope for Dravidian/tribal culture accommodating different kinds of faith in it. Similarly, so-called Hinduism can give room and scope for Dravidian/tribal culture. The same is the case with ‘tradition.’

If we keep geography as the criterion for Hindu culture, then identifying Hindu India (Bharat) is a big problem. According to the orthodox view, only central India is considered as true Bharata, and Brahmins are warned not to set their foot in Kalinga, Vanga, Anga, etc. Rejecting orthodoxy, if we consider the Indian subcontinent as a whole, then the present India will have some major parts missing from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. So which part of the Indian subcontinent should be considered Hindu India?

Even the sampradaya identity won’t help one claim Hindu identity. The same is the case with scripture. For example, if the Veda is claimed to be essential for Hindu identity, then most of the tribes, even the so-called ‘Hindu tribes,’ cannot be called Hindus, as most of them neither heard about Vedas nor accept its authority. Leave the tribes, even several sampradayas and (religious/spiritual) traditions within Hinduism never recognize the authority of Veda. On the other hand, they vehemently condemn it, like that we see in the Tamil Siddha tradition. The following information provided by Prof. Ganapathy suffices here to prove this:

“…A Veda is like a finger pointing at the moon of liberation; it would be a calamity if one took the finger for the moon. Siddhas want us to be free from the fixist slumber or unrealized description of truth. A description can never in itself transmit experience…”—T. N. Ganapathy, Tamil Siddhas, New Delhi, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1993, p. 16.

“…In order to jolt people out of their intellectual rut and their conventional thinking, the Tamil Siddhas have vehemently criticized the Puranas, the Vedas, and the various other sastras11…”—ibid. p. 192. 

11. Valmigar says that puranas have been invented for earning one’s livelihood (verse 8); he also calls Vedanta figments of language (ibid.). Agasthiyar Jnanam-3 speaks of how Vyasa’s Mahabharatam is also a story (verse 3). Agappeyccittar warns people not to recite the Vedas thinking that they have known the truth through them (verse 90). Valaichami wants us to throw away the ‘philosophical dustbins’ and to plug the ‘hole’ (of ignorance) created by the Vedas (verse 146). Sivavakkiyar ridicules that the Vedas are of no avail at the time of our last breath (verse 13).—ibid. p. 200.

But the interesting fact is that those Hindus living outside India, due to their identity crises have to raise similar issues to keep alive their issues as the focus of any Hindu discussion both in and out India. But we Hindus who live in India do not have time or interest to know or address their issues as we have our own to handle. But the way the NRI launch this kind of ‘native invasion’ on us won’t solve their problem or earn our sympathy to understand or address their issues. They have, for their own good reasons, opted to exchange their Indian identity, and we have never raised any question. We believe in fundamental human rights and we never condemn them or question their motivation to exchange their birthright for some comforts and benefits. But we prefer to be here and struggle with other fellow Indians to face our identity crises for which we never expect or are going to accept any solutions from these kinds of Diaspora Hindus. Most of them still remain the washerman’s dog which neither belongs to the riverside or to the house as the Hindi proverb clearly paints their situation: dobi ka kutta na raha gar ka yaa ghat ka.

Finally, who has to decide for any Hindu to keep her birth identity as a Hindu and have her own preference to follow any kind of sadhana that suits to her personal spiritual need. Religious heads have neither the right nor the Constitution. Sitting on Moses’ throne these ABCDs and other Diaspora Hindu Fundamentalists take their own authority to decide our identity and needs in India.

Next is, what is there to proudly claim any one identity as their own considering the fact that so many atrocities are done in the name of that ‘identity’—whether religion, ethnic, culture, tradition or nation. For example more blood was shed in the name of God and religion than by all other violence in human history. Then where is the hope to have any pride to claim that particular religious identity as one’s own. Of course this is a philosophical question, whereas many are ready to give their life to defend their religion as Colton rightly said: “Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but live for it.” {unknown source}

The same is the case for every identity which one way or another sheds blood in order to preserve that particular identity. For example, ethnic identity cleanses others to have their own in a particular country or place. Tamilians shed blood in the name of Tamil language identity and even created a ‘Hindi Arakki’ (Hindi demon). Those who understand this reality will remain humble even claiming their identity rather than bragging about it.

The issue with such people like Kuppas is that they never try to understand the struggle of common people on ground level, they will raise elitist intellectually objective questions and give their own impracticable solutions to them—as they have time and source to have such intellectual entertainment. Though not related to this brainstorm, see my article Native Invasion in my blog on the same subject.

September, 2015