When I read the rebuke from Gangadhara against the proselytizing of Semitic religions, I thought to myself, “Gangadhara hits where it hurts.” However, his statement about ‘non-interference’ being central to the Hindu tradition surprised me a bit. I could overlook it if it were just his opinion, but when he calls others’ interference “in the tradition of human communities” unethical, I recalled various instances of ‘unethical interference’ of one Hindu sampradaya with another. As a student of Hinduism (and the history of religion in general), this made me raise further questions about such claims by scholars like him.
But before proceeding, I should confess that I cannot claim to fully understand Balagangadhara’s views in this book. Not only is the language, but also his style of writing, beyond my current level to grasp fully. When I completed Chapter One, I wrote, “It is beyond my capacity to understand this chapter.” I faced a similar problem with the subsequent chapters, as it is challenging to comprehend such scholarly writing.
The main issue for me is the language itself. I don’t like English and never studied in English-medium education. I never developed my skill in English, as I have never liked the language very much. Thus, when I read any book in English, I struggle a lot to understand both the language and the subject matter. The only reading I enjoy is Tamil, particularly poetic literature.
So, my limitation in English is the first impediment to understanding this book. The next issue is the subject matter. Since he writes as a scholar, a student like me has to struggle significantly to understand it. However, when I reached Chapter 8, “The Secular State and Religious Conflict,” I breathed a little easier as this subject is also my favorite one. I not only enjoyed reading it, but I also agreed with the author on many points.
However, when I came to the statement about ‘unethical interference’ and his claim that ‘the value of non-interference is central to the tradition of Hindus,’ I recalled several instances of ‘unethical interference’ by one sampradaya with another.
Upon further reflection, a few more issues came to mind. If Hinduism were considered a homogeneous religious entity like the Semitic ones, we could agree that proselytization is ‘unethical interference’ by others. However, if the reality is that ‘Hinduism’ received that label very late and is actually several heterogeneous traditions, then one tradition has always ‘interfered’ with another and has made followers of one tradition change to another.
Moreover, certain traditions have nearly caused the complete disappearance of other traditions. For example, the Upanishadic tradition almost made the Vedic tradition of yajna disappear gradually. Similarly, the origin and growth of the temple tradition pushed other Vedic traditions to remain elitist. The various sampradayas of Vedanta schools developed because of the interference of one tradition with another. Since there was no ‘Hinduism’ in those early periods, I am not sure whether we can claim that new thoughts came from outside and were ‘entrenched’1 in the so-called Hinduism, or whether it was the mutual influence and interference of one tradition with another.
In other words, these various (Hindu) sampradayas uprooted the ‘specific set of ancestral practices’ of a particular tradition to create a new community from another. A prime example is the Srivaishnavas. They strongly believe in their community identity based on the ‘exclusive truth binding the believer to God,’ namely Narayana (Vishnu). These days, Sri Anandabadbanacharaya is giving a discourse about Ramanuja (Ramanuja Vaibhavam, Podigai, Tamil Channel, Monday to Friday, 6:45 to 7:00 pm), where he often uses the term ‘Srivaishnavas’2 as a community binding its members to Vishnu.
This outright interference of one tradition with another is clearly spelled out by a renowned scholar of the Dvaita school of philosophy, Professor K.T. Pandurangi:
Another sanctioned activity in the propagation procedure given to samnyasins and mathadhipatis is to spotlight the supremacy of Visnu worship by criticizing those who worship other deities. They should not only declare Visnu’s sarvottamatva {all powerful; the greatest one} but they should frankly condemn those who do not follow their beliefs. Those who preach other philosophies like Advaita must also be taken to task as vehemently as possible….
There is a belief that when it is a matter of spirituality, one should not follow the normal attitude in civil life by politely letting others disagree. They say: “Knowing fully well what is wrong and what is right, if I don’t tell the other what he believes is wrong, I will be doing a great disservice. I will not be helping an ignorant person. To help an ignorant person who has distorted knowledge is my responsibility as much as to propagate.” Pandurangi added that this may be in response to the earlier aggressive faiths that were in vogue before the advent of Dvaita, such as the Saktas, who were prone to spread their faiths by forceful means.3
Such an open statement by a modern professor of one tradition is a telling rebuke to Balagangadhara’s claim. I strongly oppose proselytization efforts by Christians, as I have learned from my own personal experience. So, I completely agree with my understanding of Balagangadhara’s comments on the Semitic religions’ agenda of proselytization as well as the neutrality of the Indian state. Let us see what Gangadhara says:
The pagan view, on the contrary, implies that every ‘religion’ is a tradition—that is, a specific set of ancestral practices—characterizing a human community. The traditions are upheld not because they contain some exclusive truth binding the believer to God, but because they make some community into a community. Any attempt at interfering with the tradition of a community from the outside will be seen as illegitimate, since all traditions are part of the human quest for truth….(p.209).
I strongly oppose proselytization efforts by the Christians, as I learnt it from my own personal experience. So I completely agree with my understanding of Balagangadhara’s comments on the Sematic religious’ agenda of proselytization as well as the neutrality of Indian state:
…the Indian state ought not to be neutral with respect to religious conversion in India because it cannot be neutral.
The above statement is odd, to put it mildly. We can bring the ‘oddness’ to light by formulating it as a logical statement: with respect to religious conversions, if a liberal state ought to remain neutral, and if the Indian state ought to be a liberal and neutral state, then the Indian state can be neutral. However, the Indian state cannot be neutral on this issue. Therefore, either (a) a liberal state ought not to remain neutral or (b) the Indian state ought not to be liberal and neutral or (c) both. We can eliminate the choices (a) and (c) rather quickly: the obligation of state neutrality with respect to religious conversion is a cornerstone of liberal political theory. Consequently, there is only one choice left: with respect to religious conversions, theories of state neutrality oblige the Indian state not to be liberal and neutral.
…The post-independent Indian state implemented a series of reforms to ‘the Hindu religion and its law’, while it did not interfere with Islam and Christianity. {see Chatterjee, P. ‘Secularism and Tolerance’, in R. Bhargava (ed.) Secularism and Its Critics, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1998.} 6 This suggests that some interpretation of ‘neutrality’ and ‘liberalism’ is at stake here. Theories of state neutrality that interpret this notion to mean neutrality of justification force us to compromise the notion of a neutral state. Such interpretations either generate odd conclusions or try to defend indefensible positions.—4 (Italics original)
For a student of religious history (or Hinduism, about which I am still not clear), a scholar like Gangadhara, while rightly criticizing any proselytizing efforts by any religion and questioning the neutrality of a secular state, should not claim that there was no ‘interference’ of one tradition with another in Indian sampradayas.
Hinduism, which is not a religious entity, has always provided space for one tradition to interfere with another and has given birth to many communities, thoughts, and movements. With my limited understanding of Hinduism, I can say that although this space (or permission) is granted, it never allowed one tradition to eradicate the truth claim of another tradition or community, even though some remain an insignificant minority (like Vedic yajnas). It was never considered ‘unethical’ but an obligation on the part of one tradition or community to propagate and give birth to another tradition or community. There is ample record of even violence used in this process by a few.
However ‘unethical’ it may seem to any secular scholar of modern times, the obligation of a bhakta to encourage and influence the followers of other traditions is never considered wrong. Not interfering is even considered a ‘disservice’ (as noted above by Pandurangi).
The following observation authenticates my view:
On April 8, 2007, the famous religious speaker Sri Velukkudi Krishnan, who is from a Vaishnavaite sampradaya, spoke on the National Tamil TV channel. He asked his listeners to repeat ten oaths after him. As expected, a few were along sectarian lines, such as ‘Ramanuja is the only acharya to be followed,’ and ‘Narayana is the only god to be worshipped.’ This brings to mind similar claims of Islam through the call ‘La ilaha illallah Muhammadur rasulullah’ = There is no other God but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet.
But what was interesting to me were two of the oaths. One said, ‘Neither by birth, nor wealth, nor education will we consider ourselves great.’ He did not say, ‘By birth, wealth, or education, we will not consider ourselves great but will treat all as equal.’ The other oath was, ‘I will share these oaths with at least ten people.’
I wish I could have recorded them and shared all those ten oaths. I don’t want to add any of my comments, but anyone can read them on their own as per their perception.
19-03-15
Endnotes
- The Upanisadic period, probably, is the time when a number of new ideas were associated with Hinduism. There is enough evidence to indicate that the fourfold varna (class) division of society had hardened and we also know that the four purusarthas or values of human existence (dharma, artha, kama, moksa), as well as the karma theory connecting the self with transmigration, were all well entrenched in the tradition….— T. S. Rukmani, Samnyasi in the Hindu tradition, Changing Perspectives, New Delhi, D.K. Printworld (p) Ltd. 2011. p. 16
- V. M. Gopalakrishnamachariyar, a Tamil and Sanskrit scholar who wrote an undisputable commentary to Kamba Ramayana, (Chennai, Uma Padippagam, 2006, Seven volumes) giving his comments to the song 2705, in Yuddhakanda (part One, p. 198) says: ‘By calling Tirumal (Tamil name for Vishnu) as ‘Mulattevu’ (original or prime deity) shows that this poet, viz., Kamban is a Vaishnava.’ Interestingly in the very next song in which Kamban describes about Siva (when Hanuman saw Him in Himalayas on his way to bring the medicinal hill) with high respect, the author says, ‘this shows the respect that this poet (Kamban) has for Siva’. But he never mentions that Kamban has bhakti to Siva. Above all the word ‘Mulattevu’ in this song is in bold letter.
திருமாலைக் கூறுமிடத்து, ’மூலத் தேவு’ என்றது, இக்கவிஞர் வைணவரென்பதைக் காட்டும்.–வை. மு. கோபாலகிருஷ்ணமாச்சாரியார், கம்ப ராமாயணம், சென்னை, உமா பதிப்பகம், 7 தொகுதி, யுத்த காண்டம், இரண்டாம் பகுதி, மருந்துமலைப் படலம். பாடல், 2705, ப. 198,
இக்கவி (2706), சிவபெருமானிடத்து இக்கவிஞர்க்கு உள்ள மதிப்பைக்காட்டும்….–ப.198, மேற்படி,
3 T. S. Rukmani, Samnyasi in the Hindu tradition, Changing Perspectives, New Delhi, D.K. Printworld (p) Ltd. 2011. p. 41
4 S.N. Balagangadhara, Reconceptualizing India Studies, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 212
Leave a Reply