On the first day of the new year, I wasn't following that particular advice. Thus I was surfing the Great Big Network idly and came across this interesting web site called http://www.religioustolerance.org/, and, since I had nothing better to do, immediately took exception to something on the web site. Hey, some people take drugs, I take exceptions, awright?
Beforehand though, to be fair to the web site, it is pretty good for the most part and does attempt to take a balanced view of religion and rightly calls many of the the excesses committed in the name of religion. However, I found a little paragraph that intrigued me because it seemed to lack the balance shown by the rest of the web site. And still having nothing better to do, I wrote them a small email, which I reproduce here:
This excerpt is from your web site on the page http://www.religioustolerance.org/news_02mar.htm:
[Begin Excerpt]
During 1992, some Hindus burned down a 16th century mosque in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya. Their plan was to build a Hindu temple on the site, which is sacred to followers of both religions. This action has resulted in the occasional outburst of rioting. In 1993, Hindu-Muslim riots in Mumbai (formerly Bombay)caused the deaths of 800 people. On FEB-26, a group of Muslims attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu fundamentalists who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya. Fifty-eight died. This generated retaliation by Hindus: As of MAR-3, 499 people have died -- mostly Muslims. Many have been burned to death. By the middle of March, over 700 people have died.
[End Excerpt]
Why are the people who were burned to death by Muslims on the train in Gujarat tagged "Hindu fundamentalists"? What, in your opinion, are the fundamentals of Hinduism, and why do you think the people who got incinerated were following these "fundamentals"?
I find it interesting that you do not say either of the following to describe the incident:
On FEB-26, a group of Muslims EXTREMISTS attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu fundamentalists who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya.
OR,
On FEB-26, a group of Muslims attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu PILGRIMS who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya.
Saying either of the above would indicate that you apply equal standards to intolerant behaviour, regardless of the religion involved. But that is apparently not the case here. Your language exposes your own pet biases and bigotry. The standards of behaviour applied to Hindus and Muslims seem to differ in your opinion. A group of people are promptly dubbed "fundamentalists" by you because they were returning from a visit to a disputed religious site, whereas a group of people who merrily barbecued fifty-eight men, women, and children deserve no such tag, apparently.
I find it surprising that a web site with a name like religioustolerance.org gratuitously uses a patently bigoted term like "fundamentalist" to describe the victims of a tragedy. I take it that with a name like religoustolerance.org, you are positioning your web site to promote religious tolerance rather than religious bigotry. Is this a fair assumption on my part?
Sougata Sarkar
Coda: I have often wondered idly about the bad press that Hinduism gets. Even when the source is otherwise credible and reputable. Anybody with even a rudimentary sense of fairplay must wonder about this.
11 comments:
While growing up in Calcutta, the sounds of Aajaan from a nearby mosque routinely broke our sleep. We did have some small street-side temples in the neighborhood, but never heard any Aarati or Puja broadcast publicly. Later on, as practising Brahmins, the emphasis was always on focussing inwardly. Come to think of it, other than some personal rituals, self-help was all that we practised. This probably renders Hinduism's self-protecting shell, that helps it survive threats from external religions without necessitating any religious wars. On the flip side, this makes it little-known and little-understood, even among its own practitioners. Ask an average Hindu why he shouldn't eat beef - he cannot give an answer more convincing than "my parents told me to". When most Hindus don't know what differentiates his religion from others', I cannot blame the others for caring less.
SS, I agree that the term 'fundamentalist' is misused in this context. That's not to say that Hindu fundamentalists don't exist.
About Babu's point - I have an ex-Commie friend who is now ardently BJP. I kid him about his not wearing khaki shorts; he claims that ALL religions are subsumed in Hinduism. Go figure.
My view - ANY organised religion sucks. If there is an Almighty, why would I approach Him/Her through middlemen?
J.A.P.
Babu,
What you say is true. Hindus do need to become more self-aware.
In this particular case, however, awareness or ignorance of the details of a particular religion is irrelevant. It is about balance and fair reporting. To illustrate what I mean, let's substitute the religions Hinduism and Islam in the paragraph on the web site with a couple of alternative religions that we (or I, in any case) know precious little about. Let's say the rewrite looks like this: "A group of followers of the Wiccan religion were going back to their village after cutting down a tree that is held sacred by followers of the Yoruban religion. About half a mile from their village, these Wiccan fundamentalists were ambushed by a group of Yorubans, who hacked the Wiccans to pieces; several of the Wiccan fundamentalist victims were women and small children."
Tell me now, does it not strike you as odd that I use the word "fundamentalist" to describe the Wiccans without extending the same courtesy to the Yorubans? The Wiccans merely chopped down a tree in the name of their religion, the Yorubans chopped to pieces human beings in the name of theirs. So why are the Wiccans deemed to be the fundamentalists in this case? Do I really have to know anything about either Wiccans or Yorubans to sense the unequal standards being applied?
Second, if the author is not aware of the details of a particular faith -- in this case Hinduism -- he should either (A) learn a little something about it before writing about it, or, failing that, (B) use neutral terms to describe it, rather than used loaded words like "fundamentalist". Anything else is dishonest, frankly. And the fact that a great number of Hindus are ignorant about their own religion does not somehow excuse the author from the burden of fair and honest reporting.
Sougata.
J.A.P,
Since the fundamentals of Hinduism are different depending on who you ask, I find the phrase "Hindu fundamentalist" a little difficult to wrap my mind around. For example, one may say that one of the fundamentals of Hinduism is: "Sarva Dharma Sambhava", i.e. All paths are possible. Is this person a Hindu fundamentalist? Clearly, yes.
This is no more than mere curiosity, but what is your particular definition of Hindu fundamentalism?
I have an interesting take on the message "Sarva Dharma Sambhava", by the way. Indulge me a little. [Note: My take, after I have laid it out, also should serve as an interesting thought experiment for your BJP friend who claims that all faiths are subsumed in Hinduism.]
Here's the thing: Sarva Dharma Sambhava is a logical contradiction, because it claims that all paths are possible, which is a typically "poly" position. This is a logical paradox because at some point, polytheistic Hinduism must admit that a "mono" position (for example, a monotheistic faith like Islam) is also valid. But Islam explicitly disallows alternate positions, including Hinduism. Thus if Hinduism includes Islam as a valid belief system, it must exclude itself. This is a logical impossibilty.
I personally am of the opinion that both your BJP friend and the gentle Hindu fundamentalist I spoke of in the first paragraph are wrong in assuming that Hinduism can subsume all faiths. It would be more correct to say that a polytheistic faith like Hinduism can only be inclusive towards other polytheistic faiths. It must, logically, be exclusive towards exclusivist faiths. A partial "poly" position, if you will.
I have a slightly different take on organized religions. But you quite possibly have limits to your patience. I'll elaborate only if you are interested.
Sougata.
>I'll elaborate only if you are interested.
Sougata, please do. If not for Mr. Prufrock, then for us.
Your religion-dissection is a treat to read.
I agree with you that using "fundamentalist" here was nothing short of unjust.
I do not mean to divert you from your original post, but one answer to the question you posed to J.A.P. (where are you J.A.P.?) could be that Hinduism is polytheistic only at the core. By core I mean the Hinduism of the Vedic era, as laid out in the Vedas. Subsequent movements, and most significant of them all being the Upanishads which regard the "non-dual" as the ulitimate spiritual entity, have not always been polytheistic. Of the later movements, the Brahmo school of thought also assumes a mono position.
We may regard these as peripherals and say Hinduism in essence is what the Vedas dictate (the Sanatana Dharma) and is polytheistic. This is the conservative Hindu position. Or we may include all schools of thought (and this may include the Agnostic, Atheist schools too, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism...) under one super-size umbrella. This is the liberal Hindu poly position - {0, ?, 1, non-dual, n}.
Babu,
I liked your comment a lot.
I personally think that the fact that Hinduism allows and admits multiple (and often conflicting) stances, attests to its liberal core. Monism, dualism, and pluralism are all forwarded and discussed as being possible explanations of the nature of reality. What is more interesting to note, however, is that the groups of people plugging each of their aforementioned pet explanations do not find the constant need to be at each other's throats; or worse, cutting each other's throats. This sort of free-marketeering appeals to me.
Especially since everybody is equally clueless about reality anyway. So why get all worked up over another's beliefs? "Live and let live" is a motto that many preach, but few (too few, in my opinion) pay more than lip service to.
I almost understood the set that you proposed to describe the liberal Hindu position at the end of your comment, i.e. {0, ?, 1, non-dual, n}, except for one thing. If I am not mistaken, the 0 indicates an atheistic stance, the ? indicates an agnostic stance, 1 is either monism or monotheism, n is a poly position (either true polytheism or henotheism). But how is "non-dual" different from "1"?
Sougata.
P.S. It occurs to me that this here is beginning to qualify as a real philosophical discussion. Well, I'll be! I surprise myself sometimes. I must capture this moment in a more durable medium somehow. No one will believe me if this blog goes kaput.
Wait, let me fetch my Etch A Sketch.
Sougata, you are pushing me off the cliff... this will be my last one before I experience nothingness. Some really smart folks put forth this idea that we cannot realize the ultimate truth of nature and being (and the creator) within the limits of human perception. What we think is real is nothing but what appears to be real. The appearance is what our senses perceive, to which our thoughts apply some pre-formed concepts, and the cognitive brain synthesizes into knowledge. This forms the reality of experience. However, in his insatiable quest for truth what man truly seeks is the absolute reality, which is transcendental. This is the duality - reality is dual.
This is quite similar to Immanuel Kant's philosophy, who went a step further and broke down the reality of experience further into phenomenal reality, which is pursued by science, and moral reality which is pursued by religion, ethics and morality.
The Upanishads provide guidelines and exercises by which one can overcome the sensory perception, the conscious state of mind, the sub-conscious state of mind, the unconscious state of mind and finally attain enlightenment. And this is the knowledge of the the absolute truth, the one without a second, the non-dual Advaita.
Monotheism is in the plane of the reality as we know/think. It is about God. Non-dualism is in the plane of the absolute transcendental reality. It does not talk about God, but talks about truth. Numerically they are similar, but they differ widely in concept. That is why they are generally attributed separate positions.
My head feels heavy, I'll flush my brain cells with some alcohol now, to make them happy.
Maybe we are living in the "Matrix" ?
SS: pls don't let this blog go kaputt!
babu: don't you go kaputt aswell nor disappear in nothingness.
A truelly interesting and profound discussion or should i straitly say tiefsinnig?
wish more serious stuff like that was available on net!
Thanks to both of you!
Post a Comment