HVK Archives: Heirs to a great past, Hindus are reclaiming their culture
Heirs to a great past, Hindus are reclaiming their culture - The Free Press Journal
M.V.Kamath
()
January 15, 1998
Title: Heirs to a great past, Hindus are reclaiming their culture
Author: M.V.Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: January 15, 1998
Several reasons are being adduced for the defection of many
Congressmen to the BJP camp. Why did they leave the Congress?
More importantly, why have they joined the BSP? Till the other
day the BJP was an untouchable party, hated and reviled by the
Congress. Weren't these defectors aware of their party's
position? The kind of people who have joined the BJP can hardly
be described as illiterate or poor. Take a man like Rangarajan
Kumaramangalam. If one is not mistaken he is the son of Mohan
Kumaramangalam, a one time Communist leader, not lacking either
in money or intelligence. How come he was drawn to the BJP?
Kumaramangalam, of course, is only one among several who have
joined the BJP. There are many more like him who can hardly be
called "nonentities" or office-seekers. What possibly can the
explanation be for their turnaround?
It is said - no doubt with some justification - that those who
defected from the Congress may re-defect from the BJP if they
fail to pick up the loaves and fishes of office. Human nature
being what it is, nothing can be ruled out. But is that all there
is to the defections? One suspects that there is more than meets
the eye. And it is that "more" that one needs carefully to
analyse. Can it be - can it just possibly be - that there has
been a great deal of thinking going on in certain intellectual
circles over the history of the country, ever since the
demolition of the so-called Babri Mosque?
The Babri Mosque, let it be remembered, has been in the news for
a long, long time. It was not that it was demolished overnight in
the secrecy of darkness. If the purpose of any party was merely
to demolish the mosque, it could have been conveniently done by
planting a few discreet bombs under the building and then
exploding them through remote control. The aim of destroying the
bomb would have been achieved with the minimum of fuss. But those
who destroyed the mosque were not cowards. They did what they did
in broad daylight, for all the world to see, to show the depth of
their anger.
Let it not be forgotten that the demolishers had petitioned the
courts and had sought to negotiate with the Babri Masjid. Action
Committee for months. They had submitted whatever material was
available to prove the sanctity of the Ram Janmabhoomi site to
Hindus and had received no response. The demolition, under the
circumstances, should only have been expected.
We the demolition undertaken for olitical reasons as has been
made out in the some quarters? Plainly it was not. In a
remarkably frank analysis of the situation in The Hindustan Times
(28 December), one Rizwan Salim gave a possible reason. "The
efforts of religion-intoxicated and politically active Hindus to
rebuild the Ram Mandir, the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir and the
Krishna Mandir" Salim wrote, "are just three episodes in a one
thousand year long struggle to reclaim their culture and religion
>from alien invaders". And he added for good measure: "The
demolition of the Babri Masjid was just one episode in the
millenial struggle of the Hindus to repossess their religion-
centred culture and nation."
This is where a little knowledge of history comes in handy. Salim
testified to the fact that ot hundreds but many thousands" of
ancient Hindu temples were "broken into shreds" by Muslim
"iconoclasts" and the wrecking of the Hindu temples "went on from
the early years of the 8th century to well past 1700 AD, a period
of almost 1000 years". And Salim adds: "Islamic invaders did not
just destroy countless temples and constructions but also
suppressed cultural and religious practices, damaged the pristine
vigour of Hindu religion; prevented the intensification of Hindu
culture, debilitating it permanently; stopped the development of
Hindu arts; ended the creative impulse in all realms of thought
and action, damaged the people's cultural pride, disrupted the
transmission of values and wisdom..." For a thousand years
Hinduism lay prostrate before the might of Islamic rulers. The
two hundred years of British rule was an interregnum. Now
Hinduism is beginning to bestir itself It is asking questions.
That is the significance of the rise of the BJP. Politics is
incidental.
The Raj made possible the rise of a self-confident Hindu elite on
an all-India basis the like of which was just not possible under
Islamic rule. During the British rule a Hindu middle class arose
that knew its place. Even then it was not easy for it to be
assertive. The British despised Hindus and Hinduism; the
missionaries raved and ranted against Hindu gods and religious
practices; but at least they did not destroy temples. They let
Hindus be. With independence arose the issue of secularism.
Secularism was the order of the day because reversion to Hindu
rule would have only confirmed Jinnah's Two Nation Theory. If
only to deny Jinnah a chance to mock at us, our leaders opted for
secularism, whatever misgivings many may secretly have
entertained in their hearts. It paid dividends in plenty. For the
Congress it was a way of reaping the Muslim vote. For the
Muslims it helped ease their conscience. They could put their
faith in the Congress which Jinnah had condemned as a Hindu
nationalist party without any qualms. But now the time has come
to shed all hypocrisy.
Every 'ism' has a natural life span. Communism was just right at
the turn of the nineteenth century. If Marx was not born, he
would have had to be invented. Working conditions in the
industrial world were so bad workers were often chained to their
jobs - that when Marx declared: "Workers of the world unite! You
have nothing to lose but your chains". He was literally true. Why
is communism today a spent force, both in Russia and in China?
Because its time has come. It has become irrelevant. Even so, has
the time come to do away with "secularism". It has ceased to have
any relevance in today's India. As the late Girilal Jain wrote
in his posthumously published The Hindu Phenomenon, he concept
of secular nationalism more or less divorced from the country's
cultural heritage could not have been a viable proposition." It
was not. And it is only now that people are coming to realise
it. People find the concept of secularism sterile, ineffective,
self-destroying, Girilal noticed it. He saw with great clarity,
the shape of things to come. He understood as few after him have
understood, the Hindu denies his Hindu-ness? For the Hindu, self-
renewal was an impossibility under the deadening hold of the
secular ideology. That ideology had to be discarded lock, stock
and barrel - and the process has begun. One cannot renew Hinduism
if one does not accept its reality. Secularism denies Hinduism's
existence. It has to go. But can a Hindu state be flair?
Here I quote Girilal again: 'In the Hindu view, the state has to
be an expression of the Hindu ethos and personality. Such a state
cannot either discriminate against any religions group or seek to
impose a uniform pattern on the inhabitants. Indeed it would feel
obliged to look after their well-being and the preservation of
their way of life. But the state would see itself as an
instrument for the promotion of Hindu civilisation".
Girilal saw secularism as equivalent to "the moral disarmament of
the Hindus". As he saw it, "the Muslim problem would not have
remained wholly unresolved if we had not misdefined the nature of
the Indian state." But let it be stated once again: in 1947
secularism was vital to India, for law and order, for peace and
for stability. What we should also realise is that in 1997, fifty
years later, secularism has become deadwood, an impediment to
progress.
We, Indians, are a people, primarily by virtue of the continuity
and coherence of our civilisation which has survived all shocks.
Girilal wrote: "And though inevitably weakened as a result of
foreign invasions, conquests and rule for almost a Whole
millenium, it is once again ready to resume its march".
That is the meaning and significance of recent BJP successes; it
is immaterial whether in the end, the BJP comes to power or not,
but it has become the instrument of social change and there is no
getting away from it. That is the essence of Hindutva, no matter
how many stones are thrown at it. But the question may well be
asked: how can one pick up the thread where it was broken by
Islamic rule? Can one go ten steps backward to go one step
forward? Others will legitimately ask: what is the Hinduism we
are going back to? The Hinduism that permitted sati, the Hinduism
of Brahmin ascendancy? Many such questions will naturally arise.
And they have to be faced. Hinduism is not without its manifold
faults. But Hinduism has a built-in self-renewal mechanism that
not many have given any credit to. Had there been no Islamic
presence, had the British never come to India and ruled over us,
we probably would have had more liberated society than what we
have even now? In many ways Islamic rule led to Hindus getting
into their shells and preserving their rituals if only to
maintain their sense of identity. Hinduism is not dogmatic. Only
Hinduism could have produced great reformers like the Buddha and
in latter times the great Basava.
India - and Hindus - are at the threshold of great changes.
Changes don't come easily; sometimes the process can be very
messy. It can even be accompanied by violence. That is all the
more reason why there is an urgent need to understand the process
of history as we see it unrolling. All that our intellectuals can
do is to debunk Hindutva and heap abuse on those who proclaim it,
to win the plaudits of the Maulvis and the imams. They are
playing with a force they have made no effort to understand. The
quest for a great past has begun, and will continue with many
Stop-Go signs on the way. When a great people, heirs to a great
past, wish to make an effort to discover themselves, let none
come in their way. Let it be remembered that those who laugh
last, laugh best.
Back
Top
|
