Author: Chandan Mitra
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 25, 2007
A London datelined report last week said that
a school run by a Hindu religious foundation had laid the criteria to qualify
as a "practising Hindu". Only those who fulfilled these would be
considered for 30 generous scholarships offered by the Avanti Krishna School
in Harrow on London's outskirts.
Apparently, under British Government rules,
educational institutions run by religious foundations can receive official
funding only if they prove that special benefits are extended to members of
the community they purportedly cater to. That requires such institutions to
classify the defining characteristics of the religious group concerned. This
poses no problem for "people of the Book" -- Christians, Muslims,
Jews and most major religions. But, in order to qualify for Government assistance
Hindu institutions, too, had to define "Hindu".
The neo-Hindu foundation, apparently linked
to the Krishna Consciousness movement, faced a dilemma. There is, after all,
no authoritative definition of what makes a person a Hindu. For more that
5,000 years that Hinduism has flourished in the geographical confines of the
Indian subcontinent, nobody has attempted this mind-boggling task. However,
in their eagerness to attract funding, the school authorities hurriedly put
down a definition conforming, predictably, to their own beliefs and practices.
According to the conditions laid down, to
be a "practising Hindu" a person had to: (a) Offer prayers daily
at a temple or in the home; (b) Participate in temple activities/rituals at
least once a week; (c) Perform voluntary services in a temple at least once
a week; (d) Follow the tenets of Hindu scriptures, particularly the Bhagvad-Gita
in everyday life; and (e) Abstain from consumption of meat, alcohol and tobacco
as a matter of principle.
As the report unravelled, I shuddered. By
this definition, I do not qualify to be a Hindu at all. In fact, I don't fulfil
a single criterion. While I do occasionally offer prayers at home, I do not
visit temples regularly. Of course, I have gone to Tirupati, Varanasi, Kalighat
and some other Hindu shrines, but except on Saraswati Puja (Vasant Panchami)
I do not usually pay obeisance at temples
unless I get an urge. On occasions such as launching a new project or entering
a new home, I do organise a puja and devoutly offer prayers while, conversely,
avoiding starting anything new on inauspicious periods such as pitrapaksh.
Diwali is observed at home and office every year, but that is about all by
way of participation in rituals. I have read and tried to comprehend the Bhagvad-Gita
and some Upanishads, but have never consciously thought of following the tenets
of the Gita in everyday life, whatever that means. And as for abstinence from
meat, alcohol and smoking, I am "guilty" on all three counts. So
am I a Hindu?
But then, I have always prided myself for
being a Hindu, though I am probably more of a "political Hindu"
than a religious one. Till the Harrow school chose to define Hinduism in a
narrow, sectarian way I never thought it necessary to conform to a rigid set
of doctrines to belong to my own faith. Perhaps, it is not the fault of the
foundation. Seeking Government funding is a legitimate pursuit of any social
or educational institution.
Here the Central Government subsidises Haj
pilgrimage while some State Governments, almost in retaliation, nowadays offer
financial packages to pilgrims undertaking the arduous trek to Kailash-Mansarovar.
Land is given at subsidised rates to charitable institutions, most of which
are run by religious bodies. So, the Avanti Krishna School at Harrow cannot
be faulted for seeking official funds. The problem lies with British rules
and procedures, which are based on the underlying assumption that religious
identities are codified in accordance to scriptures. This is axiomatic for
Judeo-Christian (or Abrahamic) faiths, which originated in the same geographical
area and share cultural and theological commonalities. Incidentally, most
Indic religions too are clearly demarcated. There is no difficulty about defining
a Jain, Buddhist or Sikh (although there are some breakaway sects there too),
even if these religions share an entire body of philosophy with Hinduism.
But try defining a "practicing" Hindu and you open a Pandora's box.
At the risk of sounding like woolly-headed
liberals, a tribe I intellectually despise, I have always believed that liberalism
is my religion's greatest strength. Consider the sheer diversity of beliefs
and practices that are accommodated happily within its ample bosom. The Kashmiri
Pandit is an avid meat/ fish eater and yet this community is regarded as one
of the purest Brahmin sub-groups.
Similarly, the Namboodiris of Kerala are rather
eclectic in their dietary preferences but they are traditionally ordained
priests of the holiest Hindu shrines including the Pashupati Nath temple in
Kathmandu. On the other hand, Tamilian Brahmins are vegetarian fundamentalists.
The daughter of one of Karnataka's leading Christian political families told
me that they were once high caste Brahmins ostracised for consuming fish and,
in protest, converted to Christianity. Even now, arranged marriage in that
family happens only among fellow Brahmin-Christians!
The mahant of the Gorakh Nath Math in Gorakhpur
is necessarily a Rajput, not qualified to priesthood under the chaturvarna
classification. My own upper caste (Kayasth) claims were rubbished by a priest
in Haridwar. He informed me that pandas there clubbed all castes from Bengal,
Orissa and Assam together, because we consume fish and meat. Yet these States
boast Kalighat, Jagannath Puri and Kamakhya, three of Hinduism's holiest shrines.
In Delhi's Bhairon Mandir (opposite Pragati Maidan), the standard offering
is a bottle of rum, whisky or more frequently country hooch. After a few drops
are poured on the lingam, the bottle is returned to the devotee as prasad!
Examples of this bewildering diversity can be multiplied ad infinitum.
The time, in fact, is for greater liberalism
rather than constriction. I was distressed when some Balinese Hindus were
recently denied entry to the Jagannath temple in Puri because they didn't
"look like Hindus".
Having visited Bali, 97 per cent of whose
population is Hindu, thanks to the 6th Century mission of Swami Markandeya,
it was shockingly insensitive of the Puri priests to do this. They obviously
do not know that on Mauni Amavasya, the busy N'gurah Rai Airport at Denpasar
shuts down because the island observes maun or silence.
A Thai princess was recently turfed out of
the same temple because she declared herself Buddhist. Incidentally, King
Bhumibol of Thailand sports the title Rama IX and engaged the scholarly PV
Narasimha Rao in a three-hour discussion on Hindu philosophy and scripture
during the late Prime Minister's Bangkok visit some years ago. Hinduism survives
and thrives because it is a way of life, not a codified text.
We are different from others because anybody
who considers himself or herself a Hindu is a Hindu; nobody has the right
to decide who is a Hindu and who isn't. So, regardless of the firman of the
ayatollahs of Harrow I remain a proud Hindu.
