Bharat, which is India and Hindustan
Since Islamic terror or Muslim terror has been so much in news, the term
‘Saffron Terror’ was coined by some so-called secular people and brought into
political and media discussions to bring in an “equal-equal” balancing act to
emphasise their own secular credentials.
In 1966, Chief Justice of India, PB Gajendragadkar, writing on behalf of a
five-member Constitution Bench, had observed, “We find it difficult, if not
impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it.” Continuing
in the same vein, 10 years later in 1976, the Supreme Court, disposing of
another case, noted, “It is a matter of common knowledge that Hinduism embraces
within itself so many diverse forms of beliefs, faiths, practices and worships
that it is difficult to define the term ‘Hindu’ with precision.”
Does this mean that no Hindu can be a terrorist? No. But given the nature
of Hinduism, to brainwash and programme large numbers of its adherents to
attack others will not be easy. As Justice Gajendragadkar had observed in his
judgment, “Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not
claim any one prophet, it does not worship any one god, it does not subscribe
to any one dogma, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept, it does
not follow any one set of religious rites or performances, in fact, it does not
appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed.” Yet,
when it comes to branding Hindus as “terrorists”, everyone seems instantly to
know and agree upon who a Hindu is. The branding, it would seem, is more
important than any evidence to support it.
Of course, there are criminals, rapists, murderers and much worse people
who happen to be from practicing Hindu family or just have a Hindu name. But ‘Hindutva terror’ or ‘Hindu terror’ is
mostly meaningless as hardly any Hindu would go out and commit terrorism for
the glory of the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ or for
attaining heaven, or chant a ‘Vedic Mantra’
before blowing up a group of people. Hindu criminals surely exist, but ‘Hindu
terror’ is mostly imaginary.
The word “Hindu” does not exist in any of the four “Vedas,” the
fountainhead of the so called “Hinduism.” The reference to the land mass of so
called “Hindus” which was also referred to as “Hindustan” on some later date, is
to be found in Hymn 24 of the 8th Mandala of the Rig Veda. (Sanskrit
text, Unicode transliteration and English translation)
य रक्षादंहसो मुचद यो वार्यात सप्त सिन्धुषु |
वधर्दासस्य
तुविन्र्म्ण नीनमः ||
ya ṛkṣādaṃhaso mucad yo vāryāt sapta sindhuṣu | vadhardāsasya tuvinṛmṇa
nīnamaḥ ||
Who will set free from ruinous woe, or Arya on the Seven Streams: O valiant
Hero, bend the Dasa's weapon down.
Mandala 8 is a prayer to God Indra and in this hymn the prayer invokes God
Indra to protect the Aryas and the land of the Sapta-Sindhu (meaning 7-rivers)
by blunting the weapons of fate. Sapta-Sindhu was referred to as Hapta-Hindu by
Persians. The people of this region and their culture, the Sapta-Saindhavas
were referred to as hapta-Haindavas by Persians. The term is found in ‘Avesta’
of Zoroastrians. “Hindu” is thus a geo-demographic descriptor for the people
from the Sapta-Sindhu region without religious connotation. The language of
these people was ‘Sanskrit’ and the script was ‘Devnagari.’ The language and
the script also do not have any religious connotations.
The ‘dharma’ (poorly translated as religion) of these people was Sanātana
dharma (Devanagari: सनातन धर्म meaning "eternal dharma"
or "eternal order"). The root of the word dharma comes from ‘dhri’ in
Sanskrit, which means to uphold or maintain. The Sanskrit says ‘dharayati iti
dharmaha’ which translates as dharma is that which upholds. However, not only
what is supported is ‘dharma,’ but that which does the supporting is also ‘dharma.’
So ‘dharma’ is the means as well as the goal. When the word ‘Sanatana’ is added
to ‘dharma’ it expands the meaning and purpose. ‘Sanatana’ means eternal. So
Sanatana-dharma can mean the ancient path that has existed from time
immemorial. It is the eternal path which has been given to humanity and comes
from beyond the material dimension. Thus, Sanatana-dharma is the
inter-dimensional path of progress for all living beings.
With the passage of time and the onslaught of invasions from the Persia,
the expression in Persian, ‘Hindu’ got currency. Their religion - Sanātana dharma became “Hinduism”
- an alien and a restrictive and also a limited expression. Europeans were happy to follow and propagate
this expression “Hinduism” unfortunately and ignorantly treating it as a
synonym, which has resulted in an interesting ambiguity - is it Bharat or
Hindustan or India, what is the proper
name, isn’t name a proper noun and are proper nouns to be translated?
Obviously, the word ‘Hindutva’ comes from the words Hindu and Hindustan (Bhaarat
and not just the land of the Hinduism). It
is “Bharatiyataa” or Indian-ness or Indian-ism, the social and cultural ethos and
the way of life of citizens of Bhaarat or India. It is the essence of India. Hindutva,
to serve as a word, must appeal to the geographic source of India’s cohesion. This
word is understood as Americans understand the word “India,” without religious
connotation. But what of the Hindu derivation of the word “Hindutva” Well it
goes back to the word Sindhu meaning a citizen of Hindustan. Thus it has no
more religious connotation than the word “Hindi.”
Many of my Hindus friends seem wary to be associated with Hindutva, in
spite of the fact that Hindutva simply means Hindu-ness or being Hindu. They
tend to accept the view which mainstream media has peddled for long –
‘Hindutva’ is intolerant and stands for the ‘communal’ agenda of a political
party that wants to force uniform Hinduism on this vast country which is fully
against the true Hindu ethos. Several of my friends with Hindu names keep
ridiculing Hinduism without knowing anything about it. They have not even read
the Bhagavad-Gita.
Some other friends claim that Hinduism is the most immoral of all religions
and responsible for the ills India is facing. They refer to caste system and ‘ManuSmriti’
as proof. ‘ManuSmriti’ has become the favourite pasture for scavengers keen on
bashing Hinduism and Vedas. This becomes among the most potent tools for
promoting conversion away from Hinduism. And interestingly most of these Manu
bashers perhaps never ever gave ‘ManuSmriti’ a serious reading! Let us examine the
truth behind just one such unfortunate tendency in modern society, which is to
project Manu as ‘anti-woman'. In fact, Manu holds women in high esteem. One may
refer to Verse 3.56, Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and contextual English
translation (the verse is from the chapter titled “Duties of the Householder”) –
यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते
तत्र देवताः। यत्रैतास्तु
न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तत्राफलाः क्रियाः ॥ ५६ ॥
yatra nāryastu
pūjyante ramante tatra devatāḥ | yatraitāstu na pūjyante sarvāstatrāphalāḥ
kriyāḥ || 56 ||
Where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice; where, on the
other hand, they are not honoured, there all rites are fruitless.—(56).
The statement “Na stree svaatantryam arhati” from verse 3 in Chapter IX is
often provided as an example for Manu's anti-woman stance. It is important to
refer to this complete verse here - Verse 9.3, Sanskrit text, Unicode
transliteration and contextual English translation (the verse is from the
chapter titled “Duties of the Husband and Wife”) –
पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति
यौवने । रक्षन्ति
स्थविरे पुत्रा न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यमर्हति ॥ ३ ॥
pitā rakṣati
kaumāre bhartā rakṣati yauvane | rakṣanti sthavire putrā na strī
svātantryamarhati ॥ 3 ॥
The father looks after her during virginity, the husband looks after her in
youth, the sons look after her in old age; the woman should never be depending
on one's own self for sustenance.—(3)
In Manu's perception, a woman is, by her very nature, so divine and unique
that she should never be left to fend for herself. It is the duty of society to
protect and take good care of her — by her father during childhood, husband in
her youth, and son in her old age. Interpretations stemming from inadequate or
improper understanding of the original Sanskrit text often lead to distortions
and generate hard feelings in a cosmopolitan society like ours. Unfortunately
the Sanskrit verse is wrongly translated as if woman does not deserve
independence. If Manu had intended such a meaning, there would never be verses
like 9.31 – Child belongs to mother, 9.33 – Woman is akin to the soil of the mother
earth, 9.88 – man will marry his daughter to a bridegroom who is of
exceptionally distinguished appearance, and her equal, 9.118 – sons inherit the
father’s property as equal shares but each son needs to give away a quarter of
his share to his sister; and so on.
The caste system as propounded by the ‘ManuSmriti’ is the least understood
and the most abused. Let us refer to Verse 10.4, Sanskrit text, Unicode
transliteration and contextual English translation -
ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियो
वैश्यस्त्रयो वर्णा द्विजातयः। चतुर्थ एकजातिस्तु शूद्रो नास्ति तु पञ्चमः ॥ ४ ॥
brāhmaṇaḥ kṣatriyo vaiśyastrayo varṇā dvijātayaḥ|
chaturtha ekajātistu śūdro nāsti tu pañcamaḥ ॥ 4 ॥
The Brāhmaṇa,
the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya are the three twice-born castes; the fourth is the
one caste, Śūdra; there is no fifth.—(4).
Everyone is casteless by birth. They need to
be born again – to become a Brāhmaṇa, or a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya by choosing to
be so no later than the age of 8 years, 11 years and 12 years respectively. Not
choosing to be born again by the stated age would by default assign them to be
Śūdra. (One can also begin with the position and argue that everyone is Śūdra
by birth). The second birth is marked by taking a vow to be so at an event
referred to as the ‘Yajñopavītam’ and ‘Upnayana’ (start of formal education) ‘Samskar.’
It is mandated for each of the three – twice-born to read and study the Vedas
but the right to teach and interpret the Vedas would remain with the Brāhmaṇa. Those
who do not make a choice through the ‘Upnayana’ are not deprived of making such
a choice any time later. However, the entry to the professional caste of a
Brāhmaṇa, or a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya is not allowed. ‘Upnayana’ is not
restricted by gender or by ancestry. It is a choice. There is a clear
recognition of differences in individual calibre and capabilities, and the ‘ManuSmriti’ is only making it mandatory to
exercise the choice to be a Brāhmaṇa, or a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya by a particular
age and then devote the balance of time for preparation for the profession. Nowhere
does it prevent Śūdra from reading and studying the Vedas. In present day
systems, Judiciary alone can interpret the Constitution and the law, and entry
into different public services require prior commitment and have an age limit
hurdle. Clearly ‘ManuSmriti’ was a much advanced system of social order and not
a tool for social discrimination. Quite possibly, like most constitutional
provisions and laws, this was also abused by the unscrupulous.
Dominant majority has a vested interest in remaining ignorant of the real
‘ManuSmriti’ because they wish to remain oblivious to their complicity in
ongoing social injustice in the name of ‘ManuSmriti.’ They resist every chance
of becoming knowledgeable about what they do not know and continue to live
blissfully in a fool’s paradise of believing that they know. Denial of
complicity through culpable ignorance and becoming an apologist is a great
escape from getting morally implicated in any crime.
Some of my childhood friends indict me for ‘standing up’ for Hindu Dharma
as belonging to the ‘Hindutva brigade’ that is shunned by their sense of political
correctness. They obviously don’t doubt that their own perception and views
about ‘Hindutva brigade’ and also their perception of my allegiance to the
‘brigade’ to be incorrect. My secular friends can’t really be blamed for their
faulty understanding. They were taught that Hinduism is just another religion.
Children usually don’t doubt what they learn. They are becoming Hindu apologists-
apologist for radical Hindutva- and presenting themselves as a 'moderate' Hindu.
I urge my friends to pay attention to Voltaire, who rightly said, “Those who
can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
Hindu Dharma was never based on unreasonable dogmas and did not need
blasphemy laws to keep its followers in check. It is helpful to society as it
imparts wisdom and gives guidelines for an ideal life. It does not
strait-jacket people into an unbelievable belief system. It allows freedom of
thought and many parallel streams with different ways to connect and co-exist
harmoniously. The Supreme Court ruling of 1995 declares, “... Hindutva is
indicative more of the way of life of the Indian people. … Considering Hindutva
as hostile, inimical, or intolerant of other faiths, or as communal proceeds
from an improper appreciation of its true meaning. ...” Hindu nationalism,
whether dubbed as Hindutva or political Hinduism, should neither lose sight of
nor tamper too much with this aspect of our way of life. Hindus must see
through various conspiracies to divide and discredit them, including the
largely false and fabricated narrative called “Hindu terror”. British colonial
authorities, by introducing religious and caste tags in their 1871 Census
unleashed a monster which we have not yet learned to tame.
The so-called secularists fight for the rights of religious minorities.
India has already seen one partition on religious lines. There is no point in
escalating the confusion by asking what was partitioned, Bharat or Hindustan or
India, and what were the parts which emerged after the partition - Bharat or
Hindustan or India and Pakistan? How can educated Indians be blind to the
danger and risk having in future more partitions on the basis of religion,
including the risk of more terrible bloodshed? Strangely, the minority
religions are not accused of being divisive and communal, but Hinduism is. True
secularism will neither favour minorities nor distort the traditions of the
majority to demonise the latter. Hindus must see through such ploys while
resisting the urge to go to the other extreme in becoming anti-Muslim, anti-Christian,
or against any other tradition. To be pro-dharma is more important than to be
anti-anything or anybody.
My stand is neither communal nor dangerous for India. Hindu Dharma is
indeed not only inclusive, but also most beneficial for the individual and for
society and yes, politicians, too, need to base their lives on Hindu Dharma if
they want to be efficient in serving the society. I am not advocating any
change in their faith in any –ism of their choice. In recent weeks some staunch ‘secular’ Indian
politicians declared themselves suddenly as Hindus. Maybe they pave the way for
others to follow.
In the national flag of India the top band is of Saffron colour, indicating
the strength and courage of the country. The white middle band indicates peace
and truth with Dharma Chakra. The last band is green in colour shows the
fertility, growth and auspiciousness of the land. Saffron is a colour most associated with ‘Sanaatan’
or Hindu Dharma. The colour Green has a number of traditional associations in Islam.
Being Hindu means to know and value the profound insights of the ‘Rishis’
and to follow their recommendations in one’s life. Being Hindu also means
having the welfare of all at heart, including animals and plants. Being Hindu
means following one’s conscience and using one’s intelligence well. Fanaticism
hurts Hindus as much as it does others. Being Hindu means being wise – not
deluded or gullible or foolish.
I think it was Voltaire who said, “God gave me intelligence. I think HE
wants me to use it…”
----
Om ॐ (also written as Aum) is an ancient mantra and mystical sound of Hindu
origin (India and Nepal), which is considered sacred in religions like
Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. Hindus believe that all the divine and
other creation form of consciousness originated from the vibration manifesting
as sound "OM". In Vedas and other Hindu scriptures, AUM is the 'Sound
of the Sun' and the 'Sound of Light'.
-----
Let the author know by following
this blog, if you like the posting! You will remain informed about new
postings.
Please go ahead and share the post
with your friends and networks!!
You could also follow the author on
other blogsites -
https://www.facebook.com/intheworldofideas/
https://intheworldofideasblog.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/vichaaronkeeduniyamein/ (In HINDI)
You could also follow the author on
social media -
linkedin.com/in/profmukulgupta
twitter.com/ProfMukulGupta
facebook.com/ProfMukulGupta
----
Labels: General, Politics, Public Discourse, PublicDiscourse, Social
posted by Mukul Gupta @ July 31, 2018
0 Comments
