Subscribe to Desicritics
Lies, Like Beauty, Depend On The Eye of the Beholder - Part I
Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
Hindu Nationalism has emerged from a rather long history of a feeling of victimhood and discrimination, with roots going back to more than millennia. Ever since new religions and cults have appeared from the imaginary (maya) body of Hinduism or have intruded into the subcontinent, there have been reactions against those cults and religions with a call to Hindu Nationalism.
There have been reactions to introduction of Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam, intra Hindu sectarianism (such as the Naga’s, Shaivites, tantrics etc.). But the current formulation, called as Hindutva, is of comparatively recent origin. A recent book, titled Lies, Lies and More Lies by Vivek, is a collection of articles aiming to shed light on Hindutva. I am afraid if Hindus need to be defined as a nation, it needs much more work than this effort. Let us see why!
Nobody can doubt the sincerity of the author. It is clear that the author is writing with deep passion and strongly held beliefs. There are also several chapters and concepts that the author raises that I completely agree with. But by and large, the book suffers from some very deep seated mis-conceptions and fundamental inconsistencies, which unfortunately destroy the entire argument around building a nation out of Hindus. Building a nation out of Hindu’s is a laudable aim. Nations have been formed for far less interesting and cogent reasons (cults are one example).
But given the nature of Hinduism, I am afraid forming a nation is well nigh impossible. The whole concept of nationhood relies on a group of people united under a common concept or ideology (communists), a characteristic (Goths, skinheads, white skin), a geography (the Brits from the British Isles), a language (Swedish, Serbian, Marathi), culture (Bengali around the work of Rabindranath Tagore), religion (southern Baptists, Greek orthodox), history (Mongolia – emerging from the Mongol Empire history) etc.
Sometimes the concept of nation and country coincide (Greece, Greek, history, religion…), but more often than not, they do not. Sometimes the country is bigger than the nations while at others the nation is bigger than the country. Sometimes the nation is spread out over multiple countries. To further complicate matters, a person can belong to multiple nations at the same time.
For example, I can belong to the Bangla nation from the perspective of one culture and language, but also belong to the British nation by virtue of geography, while belonging to the English nation by virtue of language. One can switch in and out of nations for example after immigration, learning another language, conversion to another religion or falling in love with somebody from another nation. And the concept of nations changes over time. The Mesopotamian or Ancient Egyptian nations no longer exist, although the successors do.
This brings me to this book where the author switches between a country (India), the idea of India which was expressed in the Indian constitution and a nation (Hindus) interchangeably. This is the root cause of the incoherence and inconsistencies in the book. It is the same confusion which occurs with Jews, Zionism and Israel.
More importantly, I am afraid the author has missed the foundational underpinnings of Hinduism. For example, the cycle of birth-rebirth, the concept of Moksha and Maya, destiny in the hands of the Brahman, the impermanent nature of this world and atman.
These would have given him the clue as to why Hindus have not undertaken resistance to the large scale invasions of the sub-continent, rule by foreigners, foreign customs, etc. Given that background, Hindus operate on a totally different frame of behaviour and one should not expect a violent reaction to invasions. This also emphasizes the concept of non-violence of the Mahatma.
Secularism is another concept which confuses the author. Secularism, like beauty, depends upon the eye of the beholding country. While the dictionary meaning might say one thing, you have all different varieties in the world. In the UK, you might have the head of the state also being the head of the church. In Poland, it is explicitly Catholic. In USA, you have clear identification with God (In God we trust), and so on and so forth. So the conclusion is that there is no single definition of secularism.
Which brings me to India and this concept of 'Nehruvian Secularism'. If one has to name it, then a better name would be 'Ambedkeraite Secularism' after the Chairman of the committee which drew up the Indian Constitution. And this brings me back to the idea of India, and the secular, pluralistic idea of India is based upon this document.
The author also seems to demand a certain pride in his religion. I fail to understand why belonging to a certain religion will make one proud? Religion is not something to be proud of. Religion provides a moral compass to live by, a set of principles, processes and procedures which will hopefully lead one closer to God(s) and achieve the spiritual aims.
Pride, as it so happens, is one of the deadly sins (yes, I know, it is in Christianity, but it is almost the same in every religion and value system). And what exactly is involved in “being proud”? Boast about it? And who will hear it? And what will it achieve? Besides noise and disgust, nothing. Its such a bizarre notion! So this desire to recover the lost pride is rather meaningless.
The author also says that Hinduism needs armour. Armour from what? You see, armour also has issues. Armour is heavy, expensive and is very limited in protection. Steel armour worn by the mounted knights was overturned by the cross-bow. And I am also surprised to hear that Hinduism needs protection. The author again confuses the religion with its practitioners.
A philosophy doesn’t need any protection, and the practitioners of a religion get physical protection from the state. Why would they need this strange undefined and illogical concept then? If Hindus are not getting protection from the state, then that is a different matter to Hinduism needing protection.
Concepts and history are very uneasily mixed in the discussion. Bharatvarsh, Bharat, the Mauryan Empire, The British Indian Empire, so on and so forth. An example of the confusion arises from the fact that the largest expansion of the Mauryan Empire was done under the aegis of Ashok, who ultimately converted to Buddhism. So how do we draw a line from a contentious origin of the Hindu nation, to a Buddhist empire, to the Mogul Muslim Empire, a colony of Christian Britain, to the Dominion of India, to Independent Secular India?
Another shibboleth needs to be knocked on the head. The concept of "divide and rule" is a very simplistic concept. You cannot rule a country the size of former British India based upon a silly sound-bite concept. The British Indian dominion was a proper subsidiary state, with national structures, parliamentary representations, army, judiciary, etc. etc.
And divide and rule does not explain how the British Crown took over from the East India Company nor does it explain the partition. The author also forgets the amount of British control over the so-called independent kingdoms, whether Kashmir or Hyderabad, they all had British residents controlling the kingdoms tightly.
None of these kingdoms had an independent foreign, defence, macro-economic, or communications policy. So they were, in effect, colonies with the thin trappings of independence. The tiny countries and kingdoms collapsed because of their own mismanagement and were taken over by the East India Company or the British (or were controlled by them).
India as a cohesive and unified nation did not exist except as a figment of people’s imagination. Just what did a Bijapuri have in common with a Pathan or a Konkani with an Assamese or Naga? Even the first war of independence was fought under the ostensible allegiance to a Muslim Emperor who used to spend his time writing poetry, while rest of the leaders were motivated more by a desire for personal gain rather than an over-arching National Ethos.
The author again is making a leap of faith in trying to ascribe a single world view to Hinduism, and I am afraid the historical record vitiates against his assertion that "The only religion to have a stellar record of tolerance and acceptance of other views is Hinduism. Hinduism and democracy are synonymous". There have been far too many fights between various sects of Hinduism. And there is actually no link between democracy and Hinduism, but what does exist is based more on the Pali canton (which is Buddhist in nature).
If one does want to review political structures within Hinduism, then it is based upon a class based structure, not democracy based structure calling for equality of all. The caste system, the restriction of professions, the divine right of kings, etc. have no link with democracy. On page 44, one cannot conclude that Hinduism equals democracy at all.
Democracy was imposed as a foreign condition, based upon the general liberal education of most of the pre-independence leaders of the Indian National Congress (who were of all different faiths as it so happens). And the fact that we had the luxury of a long unbroken series of institution building, a great constitution and a huge determination to be secular. No link to Hinduism at all, I am afraid. So it would have been useful to know more about the background to this assertion.
The population modelling is interesting but very limited. Population dynamics have a long unhappy history of being proven almost continuously wrong every generation. Some major exclusion in this modelling relate to socio-economic levels, fertility rates, survival rates, birth/death ratio's, health and education statistics, availability of employment opportunities for women, polygamy, etc.
Each of these factors has a severe and large impact on demographic trends, so the ratio is very suspect. Furthermore, the ratio is different in separate areas. For example, urbanised Muslims have the same fertility ratio as Hindus say in Hyderabad, etc, but the ratio is far more skewed due to the immigration factor mentioned by the author. However, one aspect is important and that is the immigration from Bangladesh, because it is seriously a threat to the integrity of India, as well as the survival of rare and ancient cultures in the North East.
The prevalence of terrorist, insurgent and separatist threats in North East is evidence of how difficult it was and still is to control immigration, the border fence not-withstanding. And the blame lies on many political parties seeing this new voting bloc as their way to power by displacing local political parties. But to ask for Demographic Status Quo in Chapter 21 is such a silly concept that I am not even going to deign that with a comment.
Before this turns into another book, I should stop. My sister hates multi-part essays, but this topic is so broad, and the author has covered such a large number of issues that writing a good comprehensive review in one essay will be too large to cover this broad spectrum of issues. So next week I shall continue with my observations about the remaining chapters and my final conclusion about the intellectual development of Hindutva after reading the entire book.
All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!
Lies, Like Beauty, Depend On The Eye of the Beholder - Part I
Article
- » Published on September 01, 2007
- » Type: Review
- » Filed under: .
- » This is part of a regular feature, With a Grain of Salt.
Author: Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » With a Grain of Salt
- » Comments on this article
- » Politics
- » Culture: Books - Non Fiction
- » Culture: History
- » Culture: Desi
- » Culture: Religion
- » Politics: India
- » Politics: Religion
- » Desicritics.org articles by Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
- » All Review articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Chandra
September 1, 2007
08:23 AM
BD
Excellent....
temporal
URL
September 1, 2007
01:38 PM
beady:
so you will turn this into a ten part serial?;)...ok i will look for another kabir doha later
here is one for this one:)
Chalti Chakki Dekh Kar, Diya Kabira Roye
Dui Paatan Ke Beech Mein,Sabit Bacha Na Koye
Translation
Looking at the grinding stones, Kabir laments
In the duel of wheels, nothing stays intact.
Vivek
September 2, 2007
07:20 AM
Dear Dr. Dasgupta:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful review.At this point I would Like to point out a cardinal misinterpretation of the reading of my book. I do not envision a Hindu Nation in terms of a theocratic state. I want an India which is truly secular formed on the basis of Hinduism and other indigenious religions like Buddhisn, Jainism and Sikhism as its guiding principles.
I will soon post a point by point explanation of the issues which you have raised because these are precisely the misconceptions that I want to allay.
A. S. Mathew
September 2, 2007
08:02 AM
Great article, please keep up the good work.
No theocratic nation will stand for ever. God has given every human being the mind to think,
and soon or later, his thinking will start clicking. Human freedom can't be supressed for
ever. The mighty Catholic Church tried to protect their control, then reformation took place using one person.
If some self-made prophets are trying to protect
their own religion, it will never work.
When China became a communist nation in 1949, the
Christian population was 4 million, now it is
111 million, and by the year 2050; according to this growth, it may be 250 million Christians.
Communism is known as a political ideology, but it has all the characteristics of a religion, and
this religion tried to supress all other religions in China; especially Christianity.
Now in India, some radical elements of the Hindu
society ( some of my closest friends are Hindus and I grew up with them ) want to protect Hiduism
by terrorizing the Muslims first, (that
strategy didn't work) then taking on a denfenseless Christian community. In Banglore,
it is a daily event that street gangs are attacking Christians in homes and churches. Is it protecting Hinduism? Now, thousands of educated and decent Hindus are alarmed with this
dangerous predicament and standing with the Christians in their rights to worship without
fear.
In a democratic society, it is the inherent and
fundamental right of every citizen to have freedom to select his or her own religion and to
propagate it without fear of reprisal.
When Christians go to the slums and conduct medical camps and other humanitarian works, those extremely poor and hopeless people will be
attracted to the service and will be attracted to the teachings of Jesus. ( I had been to the slums for medical camps). These medical camps are opened to all people, no question is asked
about their religion. From my experience, most of the slum people go to crooked magicians and
follow witchcraft. If those dicarded people are
getting a new life in their social and religious
life, why the radical Hindus are aggravated?
Some of the Islamic nations are trying to protect
Islam religion by persecuting and supressing the
minorities belong to other religions, but one day, all the secret followers of other religions
will pop up surprising the custodians of religions.
Vivek
URL
September 2, 2007
06:04 PM
Dear Matthew:
I read your comments and would like to clarify them
1)It would be wrong to define Hindutva from the actions of a few radical elements or isolated instances like what you have quoted.
2) Hindutva does not oppose anyone practicing one's religion.It is only against conversion by inducement or force. The Supreme court of india clearly indicates that there is no fundamental right to convert and makes a clear distinction between conversion and freedom of religion.
3)Christian missionaries have done a lot of humanitarian work in India but I would be hesitant to say that they did this without a selfish motive. They will be viewed in better light if they do this work without expecting anything in return. An end to conversion will remove the distrust between Hinduism and Christianity.
bd
September 2, 2007
06:09 PM
#1 Thanks, Chandra
#2, Old man kabir was great, wasnt he? lol
#3, Vivek, a nation does not have to be theocratic. A nation is nothing but a group of people who are conjoined together by some common characteristics, of which religion is just one part. There is the nation of english speaking people which you and I are part of. I also belong to several other nations which are denoted by language, just like I am sure you do as well. A nation denoted by religion can exist independently of a state and it is not necessary that it has to be a theocratic state.
Take the example of the anglicans who form a nation without having a state or having a theocratic state.
That's what i meant by mixing up religion, state, and nation. Each of them are clearly different and have different intellectual, social, political and historical histories.
So I have absolutely no objections against a Hindu nation. So if I, as a Hindu, express my disapproval against say the treatment of Hindu's in Malaysia, that is perfectly fine. I can also, as a member of the human nation, express my disapproval of the treatment of Hindu's in Malaysia. But I have to be internally consistent. And that's the challenge to maintain.
And that's why STATES based upon RELIGIONS NATIONALISM such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Malaysia and Israel collapse or struggle against the contradictory impulses of religion versus nation versus state.
If you do want to take an example of STATES which have successfully or managed to navigate the shoals of religious nationalism, see India (with the pseudo secularism with Hinduism), United Kingdom (with the anglican majoritism), France with Catholicism.
If you want to see work in progress, see Poland which is further to the right of the western europeans with its religion of catholicism.
In the middle is Italy which an uneasy relationship with its roman catholic religion.
And finally, I would be very careful in specifying a "true secularism" model. There are different facets to secularism and there is no true or one common or absolute truth to secularism. Each country at each time comes up with its own definition of secularism. The USA can be called as militantly secular but still has In God we trust on its State Symbols. The UK is secular but has the head of the state as head of the church. So comparatively speaking, we in India are streets ahead.
But I suggest you wait till next week for the concluding bit as I deal with many additional points and give suggestions.
Cheers
bd
bd
September 3, 2007
11:21 AM
I forgot to add one thing, Vivek. All political movements have to have a very strong intellectual framework to be successful and survive. If you think that nationalism and secularism are academic terms and have no place in the real world, then that is misplaced since from these concepts flow real national and state symbols such as your constitution, laws, treaties, rules, regulations and other human constructs which go up to make human civilisation.
See the history of Zionism again. See how Jinnah created a country for a nation and changed history. Every time a nation has been created along with a state (see for example how Malaysia or Bangladesh) have been created, a very strong intellectual backing and coherence was required.
Sarvarkar, bless his soul, unfortunately did not provide that. Which is one the reasons why the BJP is floundering and why the Sangh parivar cannot and will not appeal to all or even a majority of the Hindu's.
I further take your point about conversions. They need to banned or stopped. It is frankly stupid. I noticed the recent report by the GoI about foreign contributions. The top guys were gospel firms from Europe and USA. And very curiously, they do not have a web presence!, if I have time, I will investigate it further but my gut feeling is that they are front organisations.
Cheers
bd
Aaman
URL
September 3, 2007
11:39 AM
In the best traditions of Desicritics, the author responds to this review right here on Desicritics - looking forward to your next part, Doc.
Vivek
URL
September 3, 2007
01:59 PM
Hi Bhaskar: I do agree with you that an intellectual basis is vital to the success of any such venture. But it cannot be a pure mental exercise without the capability of being translated into useful action.
Moreover we are not creating a new nation as India exists and always existed.We dont need to start from the beginning all over again.Our guiding values have always been with us.What is in question at the present time is the protection of a basic principle of our nation:pluralism. A pluralism that fell by the wayside as a result of demographic changes in a truncated part of the same land that became Pakistan and is in danger in an existing part of the country namely Kashmir, again because of demographic changes.
When we we lack the intellectual foresight to interpret these changes we are in danger of subjecting large populations to misery and suffering in the future.
How to prevent this by adopting civil means is the biggest challenge that India as a nation faces.
bd
September 3, 2007
02:38 PM
Vivek
You are again confusing between a country and a nation. They are NOT the same. Let me give you an example. Being an Indian is belonging to a NATION. But that Nation is NOT the same as the Hindu Nation. The Indian Nation to which I belong to has members of all religions, sexes, states etc.
If you are an Indian, your intellectual basis lies in the liberalism of the 19th century starting from Mills, Hobbes, etc. In the legal code of the British India Act, in the Indian Constitution, in the secularism and yes, socialism of Nehru. Those are all identifiers of Indian nationalism.
That is not the nation you identified in your book. I am not sure what you did identify but that is something you need to clarify in your next edition or your blog.
And the Indian nation is already in place and flourishing nicely, mate. It has had huge amounts of challenges and seccessionist aspects and it has really made sure it has survived, not least due to the strong non-religious based national identity.
Which is the reason why there is a very strong difference between the Hindu nation and Indian nation. The Hindu nation includes Hindu's in Fiji, Trinidad, UK and USA. The Indian Nation talks about POI, pravisis, with no reference to religion.
So no, I am sorry, but till you define what political construct you are talking about, it will be unclear.
Demographic change is not a threat to the Indian Nation. Territorial threat is.
And strangely enough territorial change is not a threat to the Hindu Nation. The fact that British India got partitioned did not make much change to the Hindu Nation other than the population distribution. But that's natural.
Cheers
bd
bd
September 3, 2007
03:48 PM
Vivek
just saw your other post. I have already explained the basic flaw in your assumption that a nation is the same as that of a state and is the same as of an ideology. And have given quite a lot of examples where that confusion has led you down blind alleys and misreadings as mentioned above and more to come next week.
Second, you really need to understand population dynamics and modeling. May I suggest you look at some techniques around population projection techniques, matrix models, mutation aspects, actuarial studies, etc. These are mainly linear in nature but there is some good stochastic, probabilistic and non-linear work done in the area of epidemological research where cell growth is studied.
I make a living out of selling and managing financial products to firms who sell and manage (amongst other things) pensions. And the concentrated horsepower of all these pointy headed rocket scientists still gets its demographic projects wrong. Think about the collapse of populations in western europe. Or in Russia. Or the collapse in defined contribution pensions. Happy to give you some refernces to seminal research papers and books if you wish.
And to ask for status quo for population demographics is rather interesting. Not least because of the obvious question. How?
If you were pitching for a return to the basics of Indian Nationalism with equal treatment towards equal citizens, then I think you will find much more clarity, intellectual robustness and statistical / economic support rather than coming at it from a religious perspective.
More later!
cheers
bd
Vivek
September 3, 2007
06:50 PM
Hi Bhaskar
1) Your last paragraph does summarize what I am trying to convey. Hindutva today does not advocate Hindu supremacy but seeks equal and uniform treatment for all including the Hindu. My last chapter 'Note of caution' states: Hindutva cannot be an ideology that relegates another individual to second-class status. It should be a force that makes all Indians conform to the pluralistic, secular tradition of our land that respects one and all.
2) I have used the words nation and state interchangeably because even if we use strict dictionary definitions one cannot deny that the fate of the Hindu nation and the Indian State (with regards to its character ) are inextricably intertwined as the overwhelming bulk of the Indian State is the Hindu Nation.
3) I welcome any references or suggestions to enhance my understanding or those that provide some solution to the problems of India.
I have greatly enjoyed my discussions with you
regards
Vivek
Harmonica
URL
September 5, 2007
07:54 AM
####
Secularism is another concept which confuses the author. Secularism, like beauty, depends upon the eye of the beholding country. While the dictionary meaning might say one thing, you have all different varieties in the world. In the UK, you might have the head of the state also being the head of the church. In Poland, it is explicitly Catholic. In USA, you have clear identification with God (In God we trust), and so on and so forth. So the conclusion is that there is no single definition of secularism.
####
Secularism has only one definition. It's pseudo-secularism that changes its definition to suit the ends.
e.g. Poland, if Catholic, is Catholic then, and not secular. If the policies of the US favour the god called God while discriminating against those called Allah or Ganesh, then it relinquishes it's claim to be Secular.
Perhaps we should blame your sister for your false arguments too?
harmonica
September 5, 2007
07:58 AM
BD.. On second thoughts, please excise that last sentence...totally uncalled for. thanks.
bd
September 5, 2007
09:18 AM
Harmonica
Secularism like Democracy has one definition (sometimes) but the application across the world has different characteristics. This pseudo secularism label is meaningless because it does not mean anything. There is no country in this world which fits the dictionary meaning so does this mean that every country is following pseudo secularism?
No, hence the comment.
Ganadeva Bandyopadhyay
URL
September 5, 2007
06:29 PM
when are the other parts of this review coming up? maybe desicritics can go ahead and publish the bunch of reviews for this book and author willing, an appendix to this much reviewed and debated book.amen
ganesh
February 22, 2008
11:10 PM
WHAT is secularism ?
In France, historically,they succesfully contained the ever expanding Church and their interference in the affairs of the state by creating a " iron screen " between the King or latter, the Government and the Church.
They called that "laicité".But, that was history.
And now how are they applying it to today's life or have they given a "new meaning" to this restrictive theory ? For exemple, in schools, the french have forbidden the use of religious distinctions.
what that reveals. They say that wherever laicité is applied, that area should have people without distinctions based on religion.
Their inability to respect and accomodate strangers wearing burka or Sikhs having turban is a weakness. They want to erase everything pertaining to religion and create a "no man's land" for that purpose instead of living in harmony with each and everyone.They say that one religion can not ne dominant and to make people live together , it is necessary to create a space devoid of religion. But, they leave to the "invisible Hand " to invent a cement that will keep the people together.
(But, "Hindutva" is not a religion. It is the social cement of our people. In, France, they don't have this plus point. India has. Let us be concious of this and make this cement become more effective in bringing people together by saying "no" to divisive forces.)
In India, freedom is given to all people to dress themselves as they like and to be what they are really. In France, which invented the
motto " Liberté, égalité et fraternité" (Freddom, equality and fratenity), that freedom is curtailed by their notion of "laicité".
So, the world according to Vivek in which Hindutva will be the cement of all Indians so that they might live in harmony can be accepted by the majority Hindus but I think the minority might refuse that ciment and prefer the cacaphony of "secularism" a special cement that will bring together only muslims among themselves or christians among themselves,and encouraging Hindus to imitate them.This will
create independent group of people with no communication in between them..If Hindus imitate this behaviour pattern, that will
transform the very nature of Hindutva.
But then let us hope that the "Hindutva" when seen as an effective "constitution" , "a frame" , "a way of life" or a "set of principles" that enable people of different religions live together thanks to it's unique force lying in it's generosity and openness, then the effectiveness of the ciment will increase and fulfill what other notions "laicité", "secularism as defined in India" have failed : in inventing the invisibe cement that can harmoiously keep people of different orgins live in peace and harmony.
If they don't want Hindutva because it is linked to "Hinduism" let us welcome somone who might give someother thing that might be called "fraternity" or some hting like that but infine will bear the universal seed of Hindutva even though the name will chang, Hidutva is in all fundemental principle that helps people tolerate each other.
commonsense
February 22, 2008
11:34 PM
ganesh,
what the fishing FISH??
Deepti Lamba
URL
February 22, 2008
11:36 PM
CS- vat? No sleep?
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/6148)