HVK Archives: Ramkrishna Mission is Hindu Again
Ramkrishna Mission is Hindu Again - Weekend Observer
Ram Swarup
()
May 30th 1996
Title : Ramkrishna Mission Is Hindu Again
Author : Ram Swarup
Publication : Weekend Observer
Date : 30th May, 1996
FOR quite some time, the Ramakrishna Mission faced a crisis of
identity. Everyone thought it was a Hindu organisation, but for
some reason, the Mission authorities themselves were not
satisfied with this identity. So they approached the Calcutta
High Court to grant them the status of a non-Hindu religious
minority. The request was granted.
The step taken by the mission authorities was not popular with
its rank but they went along passively with the authorities.
Because the high court judgment was disputed by interested
parties, they went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on
July 2, 95 reversed the high court judgement and restored the old
status of the Mission.
The Mission was Hindu again.
The question however remains: Why did the Mission make such a
request at all, a request which went against the original
inspiration and historical role of its founders and all that they
stood for? The step also went against its more mundane
interests. The Mission derives its support from Hindus in
general. Did it fear no adverse reaction? It knew, of course,
that Hindus are used to being taken for granted by their leaders.
So the Mission authorities took to their ill-advised course
without much apprehension about Hindu reaction. But things did
not turn out exactly that way. The Hindu mind was much agitated.
The Times of India found it newsworthy and published a four-piece
article on the subject in which the Hindu viewpoint found
articulation. It also made front-page news in Hinduism Today
issued from Hawaii with a wide circulation among Hindus overseas.
The subject became alive: Mission authorities began to be
questioned and they felt embarrassed, but could not muster enough
strength to say "sorry" and retrace their step.
The Supreme Court judgment has come to their rescue and
saved
them from a great crisis the crisis of self-identity.
The Supreme Court, however, could only make a legal contribution
but tne rest would depend on the Mission itself. If it takes,
the decision gracefully, well and good. But if it feels Hindu
only under legal compulsion, it will have no great work to do for
Hinduism.
Some, however, see no such problem at all. They say that the
Mission is Hindu at heart and was so even when it went to the
high court for a non-Hindu status. They say it was only forced
to do it for practical and technical reasons for avoiding
disadvantages under which Hindu institutions have to work in a
secular India.
The contention is true at least partly and the Supreme Court too
seems to recognise this fac- tor. It speaks of "the peculiar
circumstances which led Ramakrishna Mission to make a claim
that
Ramakrishna religion was a distinct and separate religion from
Hindu religion," but it finds that the Mission over argued its
case. It also chides the high court and says that the threat of
Mission's educational institutions being "taken away under one
pretext or the other by the state government, should not have
been found favour by the learned judges of the high court," and
that they should not have gone along with the Mission when it
tried to prove that Ramakrishna and Vivekananda were Hindus of
doubtful commitment.
Without agreeing with the Mission overmuch. Sri P
Parameshwaran,
President of the Vivekananda Kendra, has however offered an
interesting justification for its chosen action.
He says that its educational institutions being under threat of
Marxists and Leftist forces of West Bengal, the Mission was in
the midst of a grim struggle, that really "no moral or ethical
question was involved" and the Mission's very "survival was at
stake and it wanted to make sure that it survived."
After making this gallant defence. P Paramesharan parts company
with the Mission authorities and says that they overdid their
case: that perhaps their stand could be "understood and even
appreciated at least by well-meaning critics if that were all to
it. But some monks went too far and argued with "unnecessary
vehemence that their contention of being a non-Hindu religion
was not legalistic or technical but was based on historical,
religious and philosophical grounds."
To this I would add nothing except to say that let us not bring
Yuddhisthir and Krishna into the picture so lightly. We could do
our lying and even our truth-telling whatever it amounts to -
without invoking their names.
Here one could make another point. The problem of the Mission
was not greater than what other Hindu denominations faced. In
fact, some friends at the Bharat Seva Ashram told me this much.
They said that they too ran schools and other institutions though
they were not as numerous as those of the RK Mission, and faced
the same difficulty. They said they were expecting the Mission
to give them a better lead being more powerful and better
connected.
But it set a very bad example. One is led to believe that in
trying to survive in this narrow sense, the Mission was
committing suicide.
The Supreme Court itself did not go into the question of
independence of Hindu institutions and their protection from the
interference of the government. That is an important but
separate question and relates to the whole Hindu society and much
depends on what Hindus do in the matter.
I believe that the Mission's trouble with its Rahra college case
was merely a catalyst: it brought into the open forces which were
already at work for decades. "Secularism." name of an ideology
meant to keep Hindu down, was active in the field for a long
time: it was a powerful movement and it had infected many
intellectuals and political parties in some degree.
Secularism has not been a single doctrine: it has many faces and
it is available in many versions to suit different interests and
tastes. The most dominant one followed by the Congress that says
that all religions are equal, but those which can be nasty and
are ready, to retaliate and vote together are more equal than
others. The communist version of this ideology is frankly anti-
Hindu and has been an aid and ally of League politics in its
various expressions and stages.
Even the BJP has its version of secularism, a genuine secularism
as it calls it and opposed to pseudo-secularism of the Congress
which merely promises without performing. BJP says it would
honestly do for the Muslims what the Congress merely promises
them.
On another level, the Ramakrishna Mission has been preaching a
doctrine which amounted to religious neutrality. It has been
preaching that all religions are equal. This has made it feel
that it has no particular responsibility towards Hinduism and
that it is at best a kind of third force between the contending
parties. This neutrality could convincingly be proved by
disowning Hinduism which the Mission tried.
The Mission has been justifying this doctrine in the name of what
it loves to call Sri Ramkrishna's practice of all religions.
Whether he practised all religions or could even do it at all is
doubtful. But that is a separate question. What he, however,
surely practised were different spiritual disciplines all
belonging to traditional Hinduism and proved their essential
unity. It was useful at a time when Hinduism was under severe
attack and had developed a fragmented view of itself. It proved
the validity of Hinduism to its own intellectuals who were being
attracted atheism and Christianity coming from the West
aggressively.
It is also obvious that from his so-called practice of all
religions. Ramakrishna did not draw the conclusions which the
Mission monks now do. For, at the end of the day, he was saying
that "various creeds you hear about nowadays have come into
existence through the will of God and will disappear again
through his will." For him, "Hindu religion alone is Sanatana
dharma".
The Supreme Court reproduces this passage from The Gospel of
Sri
Ramakrishna.
Similarly, Vivekananda who preached Vedanta, used it not to
entertain all religions equally but used it to oppose religious
ideologies which made exclusive claims to truth, which lacked
yoga, inferiority and universality of the spirit, which were
based not on principles but on personalities, which went by
voices and visions of some one who claimed to be a mediator
between God and his followers.
Ram Swarup
Back
Top
|
