The non-dualism of the Hindu tradition has received a mortal blow from the BJP–Sangh parivar’s crude and ill-conceived overture to the Muslim community. Neither the BJP nor the Sangh parivar, basking in the self-perceived glow of their new-found secular credentials, will appreciate the damage they have done to the nation’s civilizational ethos that was struggling to establish itself after centuries of negation; nor will they admit that a poverty of sincerity on their part has contributed to confusion where clarity was beginning to emerge.
Ironically, these developments have taken place in the course of the nation-wide Ganapati Festival celebrations, initiated by Bal Gangadhar Tilak as part of his puissant attempts to make the Hindu ethos the cornerstone of the emerging modern nation. Tilak, it may be recalled, was the first political leader to openly express irritation at the educated Muslims’ refusal to participate fulsomely in the freedom struggle, and to seek special guarantees and separate sinecures. Mahatma Gandhi, as is well known, obfuscated this issue when he converted the freedom movement into a mass struggle, partly because he hoped to keep all groups and communities together, but mainly because he failed to grasp the nature of Islam.
The RSS, however, has long held a grim view of Islam’s role in India, and has disapproved of Nehruvian appeasement of minorities, which gave Muslims a personal law and other concessions in return for their serving as captive votebanks of the Congress party. This irritation was shared by an increasing number of educated Indians who felt frustrated at the corruption and inertia spawned by Nehruvian socialism, and enervated by its selective secularism. This class of Indians was also unhappy that the en bloc Muslim vote kept in power a party that did not represent their aspirations.
This morally, spiritually, politically and economically restless class became the natural constituency for liberalization and a growing Hindu consciousness that sought to replace the sterile Nehruvian framework with something more meaningful. It is noteworthy that this striving to place India’s civilizational ethos at the heart of national consciousness took place without a leader of the genre of Tilak or Gandhi. This is why it took time to crystallize into something tangible, and why it was also so authentic.
Historically, as is well-known, modern India’s craving for its civilizational moorings took the form of the movement to reclaim the Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya. The movement succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its sponsors precisely because it connected to a wavelength that was already vibrating powerfully. That is why it had such tangible power, cutting across class and caste, and why its secular critics were so apoplectic at its success.
It therefore comes as a slap in the face of the entire civilization to be told that there is ‘nothing wrong’ with reservations for Muslims, and that there were no Muslims before Babur. RSS spokesmen have added insult to injury by claiming that Muslims are no different from Hindus except for their way of worship (The Times of India, 10 Sept 2000). If this is their sense of history (the Arab conquest of Sind, Mahmud Ghaznavi, all erased in one stroke) and their commitment to the collective consciousness of Hindus (Partition to be succeeded by proportional representation for Muslims), then the RSS has truly been wrongfully demonized by the minorities. It has only to renounce its opposition to conversions to be admitted as life-member of the ‘secular club.’
The argument that all religions are equal and ‘the same’ except for the way of worship (ritual) is shoddy spiritualism. It is in any case a modern artifice promoted by those who wish to disarm other faiths and give their own faith an unfair advantage. It is specifically the argument of evangelical Christian denominations in the United States, which are funding most of the conversions in other parts of the world.
In the specific context of the catholicity of the sannatan dharma, it must be added that there is an erroneous belief among many westernized Hindus that the Tradition states that all religions are equal. It does no such thing. What the sannatan dharma says is that there are as many paths to the Divine as they are souls that seek it; that the road to salvation is a long evolutionary path without linearity; and that all faiths deserve respect and courtesy, as they are all an attempt to comprehend the Divine.
The essence of the sannatan dharma (which makes it truly unique) is that each soul must chart its own course, and that it is not given to any human agency to arbitrate a final truth for all mankind. The Vedas are believed to be the ‘revealed’ truth that was ‘heard’ by the Vedic rishis, but that is no reason that they should be imposed upon the world by human regents. This is why, though Hindus believe in One Supreme Being, non-monotheism has been the hallmark of Hindu religious practice.
This is why constructs like jehad, crusade, Inquisition, have never been part of the Hindu moral universe. I may add that Paramhans Yogananda specifically stated that all religions are not equal, because they are based on different levels of realization. Therefore, it is insulting and unacceptable to be told that a civilization that has embodied the highest values of human freedom, spiritual enlightenment and above all, toleration and respect for others, should be equated with religions whose living mission is to obliterate other faiths.
Barring the forthcoming elections in Uttar Pradesh, where opinion polls predict a disastrous rout for the BJP, there can be little explanation for the Sangh parivar’s mental calisthenics on the issue of minority appeasement. But even given the truth that the RSS is intensely concerned with politics and the political prospects of the BJP, it is poor mathematics, and even poorer chemistry, to woo Muslims in this manner. Giving them their rights as citizens is something a civilized state must do; that is no favour.
But if Muslims as a community are unimpressed by the fact that BJP-ruled states have given them a riot-free existence, then what is the guarantee that frightening unilateral concessions such as de facto proportional representation and reservations, will buy Muslim loyalty? And what is the justification for violating the fairly broad-based Hindu consensus against opening up such divisive issues? Hindus are already upset over the ever-increasing concessions to Muslims on issues like Haj, and it goes without saying that the Sangh parivar will not dare tell Muslims that subsidized Haj is haraam according to the Koran.
What comes as the unkindest cut, however, is Laxman’s promise to take information technology (IT) into the madrasas, when he should be getting the Muslim youth out of madrasas and the clutches of maulvis, and into local government schools. It is no secret that the Talibanisation of the whole community is taking place through madrasa education funded by external agencies. The crisis in Kashmir has been aggravated by this phenomenon, and even non-BJP states are concerned over the rise of madrasas and their impact on the law and order situation. Of course, the Muslim community is keeping its cards close to its chest, while its secular spokesmen have starting demanding that the Ram temple should not come up on the reclaimed site. Given the parivar’s betrayal, Ayodhya may be relegated to the dimly remembered past.
The Pioneer, 12 September 2000