01-10-2008, 03:53 PM
Unless Hindus have a direct adversarial strategy towards other religions in which they claim that their Hindu religion with its zillion armed Gods are under threat and require human protection just like Allah is under threat and requires protection, Hindus have nothing to protect.
The complex and comforting philosophy of a "Hindu way of life" has been raped and torn asunder down the years and cannot now be protected. It is oh so easy to argue that the Hindu way of life included the "egregious social system and other terrible practices". If you say that has all changed now, the next question is "If that can change, why not something else?" So what the hell is this "Way of life"?
Hindus are masters of the profound and blind to the obvious. The profound Hindus will not survive.They do not have anything to protect. They are too well protected by their profound philosophy. Indian secularism thrives on such timeless and unprotectable philosophies while Hinduism dies. Only the stupid Hindus, who have vulnerable Gods can survive.
First, thank you for penning your thoughts. I do not think we differ in, what we want the actions to be. The active defense of hindu ways is non negotiable. I have made my effort to study the loss of Hindu India and cannot be blind to the obvious.
The exercise to define terms, better suited to the Hindu model is driven from a need to do âjusticeâ to Dharmic concepts and also to a degree state a rejection of the existing, available terms as the framework from where these terms come from are disadvantageous to Hindus.
I also believe, attempts to redefine, explain and force fit Hindu concepts, within these alien terms have not succeeded.
My primary argument is one of debating frameworks. What is a debating framework and Why is it important? When a debate is setup, let us say: Do you support caste based reservations or not? The two opposing parties are locked in a debate about the merits and demerits of caste based reservations. No matter who the winner is the âacknowledgedâ results will affirm that caste itself is a valid concept of Hindu society.
What will not be looked at is, how did these so called castes of SC/ST, OBC et al come into being. How did they get there? Are the conditions that got them there in the first place, still valid? What are the ground realities of caste, across the land mass, today? What were the generally accepted theological doctrines on caste and its actual day to day practices in history? Is the concept of caste itself, as widely understood, valid? How did untouchability in Hindu society come around? How was untouchability actually practiced? Did these practices amount to persecution on a sustained basis? What was the effect of these differentiations, practices and so called prejudices?
And whoâs word did we take to resolve many and all of these questions? The words of the British census, western and mancuaylized historians.
By the time we come to some reasonable policy on caste based reservations and maybe even an enlightened one, the overall context of caste has been well accepted. These terms and their meaning thereof, had a lasting and devastating impact.
If you look up the debates in the constituent assembly on the issue of caste based reservations, you will find some parallels. A small debate around, if caste based reservations, itself is a good idea and then an enlightened and reasonably considered policy at that time, in their view, to provide reservations for SC/ST. The decision to do so was done without any great understanding of how these 2300 or so SC/ST castes come from? How did they grow?
The reservation policies were coded in the constitution as articles 15(4) and 16(4). The founders did not envision reservations to be permanent or at the cost of efficiency of administration and neither did they consider it to be a matter of right. Reservations were viewed by the founders as an advisory and temporary, although not codified as such.
60 years down the line, these very words of our constitution are used by judges and politicians to fragment the Indian polity and use caste as a divisive element in Indian society. Much research has been done on the above questions on caste, which shed some new light but are they factored into policy? No. In fact, we go right ahead and provide reservations for OBC and have the audacity to estimate the OBC population at 52%(for which no adequate census exists) and we go right ahead and now talk about reservations based on caste for - minorities.
Did the founders envison this? Certainly not. Did the politicians and judges bend the words of the consititution out of recoginition? Absolutely. We can blame whoever we like but the fact is a lack of advantageous terms and frameworks of debate allowed the caste policies develop into a cancer it is, today in Indian polity.
I believe, a rejection of the definitions of caste and how they came about and what they actually were and are at the time, would have resulted in a different policy and subsequent evolution of that policy.
My point. If you do not define your own terms and frame works, some one else will define them for you. As in the case of caste, where the then people in power and âexpertsâ, who did not think like Hindus did, in terms of Varnas and Jatis and distinctly not linked with economics. The result is today we live with their interpretations and the consequences thereof.
There are many such terms and concepts, which have been embedded in our constitution and part of the wider debate, which get Hindu Dharma in a disadvantageous position from the get go. Examples are:
âSecularismâ: What is secularism, is obviously not defined. Hence, the implementation of this undefined idea is largely left to policy. Since minority appeasement is encoded through articles 29 and 30 and through separate personal laws, this idea of secularism is applied in a haphazard manner in the Indian state. The elite, minorities and DDM fear the replacement of âsecularismâ for a version of hindu hegemony, where muslims and Christians are second class citizens. This view flies in the face of documented history of India but the fear and black mail continues. The result:
Since ages, many Hindus worship the deity Sarasvati as a representation of the giver of knowledge. A deity is different from the monotheistic understanding of God. Seeking blessings in school and a prayer to the representative of knowledge would be a normal part of Hindu culture in many parts of India. So will be the obulations to Agni or Fire, represented as the giver of light. Our peace chants, ask for peace for all, without differentiation or prejudice.
All of these cannot be practiced in the public space, due to the minority veto in the name of secularism. Hinduism cannot be a theory and something to be practiced in the private domain only.
Even our national song of Vande Mataram had to be cut due to the objections from the minorities, only to find out that they had a problem with the first two stanzas also.
No matter which side of the debate you are from, pseudo secular, liberal or conservative, the loss is of the Hindus. For, what is codified is the validity of the secular model itself as a valid form of governance in a land that has never recognized or known or have the need for such a concept and does not share the evolution of the secular concept, as developed in the west. Yet, the systems of the land were more humane and tolerant of diversity of beliefs and practices than any other major known evolved system.
There are many other terms which do not provide easy answers, even for day to day conversations. Try answering these neatly and nicely, understandable to the average Christian or Muslim in a casual conversation. An honest and informed answer, will confuse the heck out of the other person, and short and sweet answers will not do justice.
What is your religion?
Do you worship god?
What do Hindus believe in?
Do you believe in rebirth?
Does your religion prohibit you from killing cows?
I can give the simple answers and get away with it but in my heart I know, I have not done full justice. How can you for these questions and the terms within them come from a certain context, alien to the hindu ethos.
What I am seeking is a better winning formula through a transformation. These transformations have the following initial aspects:
1. A clear definition of who we are and what we stand for along with a trajectory and framework for change management
2. Seek freedom from the dhimmified and macuaylized state of the Hindu mind. Almost always on the defensive and always defining itself on alien frameworks.
3. A process for Dharmic ways to start asserting its world views and evolve these Dharmic world views --- even if they some times oppose the dominant and accepted world views of forms of governance, economy and even the Indian state itself.