Author: Prafull Goradia
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: April 19, 2001
Hardly a month passes when someone
or the other does not cry out aloud that the evil design of the Sangh parivar
is the establishment of a Hindu rashtra. A Hindu theocracy is a contradiction
in terms, but the argument will be more convincing if it is presented after
first facing the loud cry frontally.
In India, there is one outstanding
example of a self-proclaimed Hindu state and that too in recent times.
A Japanese scholar (Koji Kawashima) has researched and recorded the experience
of Travancore between 1858 and 1936 in his book, Missionaries And a Hindu
State (OUP; 1998). The study was funded by two Japanese foundations called
Yoshida and Morita and supervised by a British professor, David Arnold.
It can, therefore, be relied upon as an impartial, objective work on an
Indian state. The following excerpts from the books help to describe Travancore's
state Hinduism as well as how the non-Hindi citizens were treated.
In India, the kingly duties have
been called Rajadharma, which can be defined as the obligation of the ruler
to protect dharma, or to secure peace, prosperity, justice and order in
the kingdom. Of these duties, protection of the gods and their temples
was perhaps the most important.
As a servant of Sri Padmanabha,
the Maharaja of Travancore observed a number of rituals, most of which
were started by Martanda Varma in the mid-eighteenth century. Travancore
had a large number of non-Hindus, particularly Syrian Christians. In 1875,
Christians formed about 20 per cent of the population, and Muslims six
per cent. These different religions seem to have co-existed and largely
integrated into the Hindu state in pre-modern Travancore. One of the principal
reasons for this co-existence was a semi-official state policy of religious
tolerance.
Regarding this, Lieutenants Ward
and Conner, who surveyed Travancore and Cochin from 1816 to 1820, state
that Christianity is fully acknowledged by the chief authorities in those
countries and, whether from their justice or indifference, does not appear
to have been exposed to persecution. J Knowles, an LMS missionary, stated
in 1898 that the Travancore state has been conspicuous by its tolerance
of non-Hindu religions. In fact, Hindu kings gave the Syrians privileges
and honors that distinguished them as a high caste. And Syrians themselves
attempted to have the support of the king when there was a dispute over
ecclesiastical power within their church. Also, as Leslie Brown has pointed
out, Syrian Christians joined in many Hindu festivals.
Evidently, the Hindu state of Travancore
did not discriminate against the followers of other faiths. The overriding
evidence of this is the present population profile of Kerala, a large part
of which had belonged to Travancore. Incidentally, the other major states
of what is now called Kerala were Cochin and Malabar. Both were ruled by
Hindu monarchs. As far as religious tolerance was concerned, they were
similar to Travancore. In fact, all the three were so tolerant that they
freely allowed change of religion. Today, 20 per cent of Keralites are
Christian and a similar percentage Muslim. Why is, therefore, a periodical
outcry against the Sangh parivar's reported wish to establish a Hindu rashtra?
Assuming this was true and successful, no one has any need to fear, going
by the prototype as represented by Travancore.
The implication is that the Hindu
ethos has no tangible model of the state. True, Shri Ram was looked upon
as an ideal king. The Mahabharat discusses the three prime duties of a
king, namely, protecting the borders of the state, ensuring justice, law
and order for the people and selecting a competent successor to the throne.
Dhritrashtra does instruct Yudhishthira
about the ideal judicial and legal set up for the kingdom. He also speaks
of a strict penal system and insists on the right kind of punishment for
crimes. Also addressing Yudhishthira, Bhishma explains the duties of a
king, especially in the context of the economy as well as defence.
Sri Krishna's wisdom is wide-ranging
as well as fascinating. The Bhagavad Gita is a theory of life valid eternally.
His guidance through the epic has a great deal to teach about strategy
as well as practice for life as well as the battlefield. Yet, there is
no theory on the state and certainly not anything on a Hindu polity. Evidently,
even in those ancient times, worship was kept far away from the conduct
of the state. Otherwise, somewhere or the other we should be able to come
across the theory of a Hindu state.
Kautilya's Arthashastra is far more
comprehensive about how a kingdom should be run. Nevertheless, even if
one were to build the model of a state on the basis of the details, there
would be nothing Hindu about a Kautilyan policy. To the best of my knowledge,
there is no mention of either worship or religion in Arthashastra. The
model would be strictly secular in the original European sense of the state
being separate from the church.
Coming to recent times, Mahatma
Gandhi did talk about Ramrajya whose model he did not construct on paper.
Nevertheless, it was his idea of an ideal state. One essential sentence
from Gandhi needs to be quoted here: "By Ram Raj, I do not mean Hindu Raj.
I mean by Ram Raj Divine Raj, the Kingdom of God. For me, Ram and Rahim
are the same deity." Even then, when a non-Hindu hears the word Ram, he
takes it for granted that the concept is that for a Hindu state.
