Prof.
Vijaya Rajiva thinks that I as an outsider cannot really help the Hindus. So
far, so good: if Hindus don’t help themselves, there is indeed no outsider who
can save them. However, she also says (indeed it is her chief message) that
Hindus don’t need outsiders because the traditional Hindu way is good enough.
But is it?
A diagnosis of the Hindu situation
Yes, the
traditional Hindu way has some remarkable achievements to its credit, no one
should deny that. The very existence of a Hindu civilization after more than a
thousand years of Islamic battering and a few centuries of European
colonization is indeed not so evident. Hindus have fought, and there was
something invincible in the Hindu social structure.
However,
the losses were also staggering. A part of the Hindu biomass, i.e. Hindu
people, went over to the Islamic enemy. They secured an Islamic territory in
1947 as well as legal, constitutional and de facto privileges in the Indian
republic. Christianity tried several strategies to win converts, at first
rather unsuccessfully, but now with increasing results. At last, the climate is
right, with a defenceless Hindu society offering little resistance against the
conversion wave.
Meanwhile, the
world has changed. As I have argued in my article about missionary anti-racism,
the Christian Churches and the missionary apparatus have adapted admirably,
crossing the floor all the way from association with colonial racism to a Dalit-Dravidianist
discourse which borrows fromanti-racism. They have many successes to show for
it. Though the Indian Churches have cooperated with the governmental goal of
reproductive self-restriction, they have still made demographic gains, with the
reality being far more impressive than the official figures, which are already
impressive enough. Indian Islam too, for all its looking back to a medieval
Prophet, has adapted sufficiently to make and consolidate its gains. After winning
a separate territory in 1947, it gained a promising foothold in the Indian
Republic, secured a partisan anti-Hindu section of the Hindus (“secularism”), made
the media and academe toe an anti-Hindu line, and gained enormously in numbers
both through a consistently high birthrate and through immigration.
Hinduism,
by contrast, is losing constantly. It is fragmented along caste and ethnic lines
(worsened by the “secularist” regime) but also along ideological lines, chiefly
secular against Hindu activist. It is
divided against itself. There is a Hindu nationalist movement, but it is warped
by the “Western” nationalist viewpoint and deliberately unable to wage the
ideological struggle against Hindu society’s non-Hindu besiegers. Its recent
help to the people from the Northeast is commendable, but proves also how
formidable the problems inside India have become. Traditional Hinduism is
losing its grip even among nominal Hindus, who learn the government version of
culture and history in their schools and watch TV-programmes on stations owned
by foreign or Indian (but either way anti-Hindu) magnates. That is why the
Hindu historian Sita Ram Goel concluded his diagnosis with the observation that
the death of Hinduism is no longer unthinkable.
There is
very little sign of Hindu forces adapting themselves to the new realities. A
few individuals show a remarkable sense of initiative, like Swami Dayananda
Saraswati (who patronized the Jerusalem declaration), Subramaniam Swamy (the
convert to Hindu nationalism), Prof. Yashwant Pathak (convenor of the Elders’
conferences) or Swami Vigyananda (VHP
general secretary); but over-all, this seems too little. The main
representative of the Hindus in politics, the BJP, has completely abandoned its
Hindu agenda, showing not just the weakness of character of people in the party
concerned, but the weakness of the Hindu spirit to which they respond. The
Hindu masses haven’t got a clue, though they react healthily whenever they have
to deal with hostile subversion or violence. They long for leaders, but most
leaders disappoint them. Hindus are mostly stuck in the past, and I interpret
Vijaya Rajiva’s article as a defence of this tendency to live in the past.
The good
thing about being an outsider is that, while one may not see what goes on
inside the black box of Hindu society, one can see the input and output all the
better. From the outside, it seems that Hindus are not dead yet, but are losing
ground all the time. So, from my vantage point, I can see very clearly that
there is no reason for the smugness emanating from Vijaya Rajiva’s article. One
can argue about the methods proposed by “alarmists” like N.S. Rajaram or Ashok
Chowgule, but their diagnosis that threats to India and to Hindu society are
looming large, is only realistic. One does not have to be a foreigner to see
what those Indians see, but suffice it to say that in our own way, we can see
it too.
Apaurusheya
The
Professor thinks that I am not in a position to say that the Vedas are apaurusheya, “impersonal”, often
interpreted as “supernatural”, “of divine origin”, because there I would not be
talking about my own heartfelt tradition. Well, exactly. That is indeed a point
on which I have waged many discussions with internet Hindus. Let me reword my
considered opinion a bit differently. I am in a position to say: no, the Vedas
are not divinely revealed. This is not the viewpoint of “Western” or
“Orientalist” scholarship, it is the Vedas themselves that say so: they are
composed by human seers who address the gods.
The Vedic
hymns naturally contain in passing many data about the age and region in which
they were composed, as well as the genealogy and the circumstances of their
composers. The gods figure in them in the second or the third person, the seers
in the first. Bhargo devasya dhimahi,
“let us meditate on the god’s effulgence”, or Tryambakan yajamahe, “Let us worship the three-eyed one”, or Agnim ile, “I praise the fire”, all have
the human seers as their subject, the gods as their object. This is in sharp
contrast with the Quran or the 10 commandments, which are deemed to be revealed
by God through his conduit, the prophet.
What Vijaya
Rajiva represents, is the Hindu tradition, which over the millennia has come to
differ considerably from the Vedic inspiration. Hindu tradition has turned the
Vedas from a human composition into a divine revelation, the seers and poets
into prophets. In fact, it has turned the Vedas into a kind of Quran. It is
unclear whether this is cause or consequence, but the Hindu mentality seems to
have evolved since the Vedic period. Whereas an unencumbered outsider sees the
greatness of the Vedic poets as creators, Hindu tradition reduces them to
conduits of the gods. Or worse even, to conduits of the single monotheist God,
who created the timeless Vedas along with the world. If that’s what the Vedas said,
we wouldn’t have bothered to give up the Bible, for it says much the same
thing.
Post-Vedic Hinduism
In
particular, the introduction of the notion of “liberation” or “enlightenment”
(absent in the Vedas) created an absolute, a steep inequality between people
deemed enlightened and the rest of us. Hence the veneration of gurus, see e.g.
the “Vedic” (but in fact Puranic, medieval) mantra in which the guru is equaled
to Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshvara. Rama never venerated his guru Vasishtha as a
quasi-god.
Another
novelty is the belief in reincarnation. It is not in the Vedas, no matter how
internet Hindus look for it there. The Upanishadic Brahmins Uddalaka and
Shvetaketu came to know about it from a Kshatriya (not coincidentally the caste
to which the later Buddha and Mahavira belonged), and explicitly acknowledged
it as a novelty, not implicated in the central Upanishadic doctrine of the Self
or in the liberation from the false identification of the Self with the
non-Self. In recent centuries and today, most Hindus are crypto-Buddhists to
whom reincarnation is a central belief and liberation is even defined as the
escape through meditation from the cycle of rebirths. That is not the original
Upanishadic view. I have seen many internet Hindus get angry for my making
these factual observations, but hey, that’s what scripture itself says. It just
goes to show how tradition may differ from real history as laid down in the
Vedas.
This is not
to say that reincarnation is untrue. Post-Christian Westerners with their
matter-of-fact approach have investigated testimonies of reincarnation
(spontaneous testimonies by children, provoked testimonies by adults in
regression trance, and Tibetan tulkus) and are inclined to conclude in favour
of reincarnation. Incidentally, they found no proof of the concomitant
Hindu-Buddhist doctrine of karma in the sense of reward or punishment for deeds
from a past life, a doctrine unknown to other reincarnation believers. But
reincarnation may be a fact, and those much-maligned Westerners would not say:
“I believe in reincarnation because Lord Buddha or the Shastras tell me so”,
but: “I believe in reincarnation because research findings confirm this hypothesis”.
This is
also not to deny that the belief in reincarnation is old. It certainly existed
in Vedic times, indeed it existed before the Amerindians left Northeast-Asia
for America, so that they could take it with them. But those who composed the
Vedas did not hold this belief, in fact they had a ritual for the dead in which
they pointed to a specific part of the heavens where the deceased went. In the
European world, the belief in an afterlife (Valhalla) coexisted with the belief
in reincarnation (taught by the Druids, or in Virgil’s Aeneis). Others, who
contributed to the non-Vedic part of Hinduism, may have held this belief, and
later it was accepted by the successors of the Vedic seers. Hinduism is a
confluence of Vedic and non-Vedic traditions, just as the Paurava Vedic tribe
coexisted with other tribes, and just as the Vedic Sanskrit language coexisted
with other Indo-Aryan, other Indo-European and totally other languages.
Another
example of how Westerners may see what Hindus don’t, was given to me by a
reviewer of my 1997 book BJP vis-à-vis
Hindu Resurgence. Like Vijaya Rajiva, he hoped to be delivered from those
non-Hindu busybodies trying to defend Hinduism. Apart from myself, he also
directed his ire against David Frawley, namely for writing in his autobiography
that he was a self-taught Sanskritist who had read the Vedas all by himself. In
the reviewer’s opinion, Frawley should have been initiated into the Vedas by a
recognized Vedacharya. Well, then he would have studied the Vedas through the
eyes of Hindu tradition, which captures and transforms the message of the Vedic
seers, whereas now, he accepted the face-to-face encounter with the Vedic seers
themselves. It has not kept him from becoming far more Hindu than myself, but I
note that to some Hindus, he has remained an outsider nonetheless.
So, a
Westerner, or indeed a globalist, may miss certain things, but conversely, they
see things which Hindu nationalists fail to see. That is why I am not
apologizing for being an outsider.
Hindu survival
However, I
have no quarrel with Hindu tradition. For me, everyone is free to practice
religion as he likes (within the usual confines of morality). There may be
something to living Hinduism which I cannot feel, and what I do see and feel is
already glorious enough. So, by all means, go ahead with it. Only, I am curious
to know what those traditional methods of survival are. Among them is certainly
the continuation of Hinduism as a living religion. In that sense, I have no
quarrel with Hindus forgetting about politics and taking part in religious
activities such as rituals and festivals.
It’s just
that I think this is not enough to survive. Many people have practiced their
religion but turned out to be no match for the “asuric forces”. So, on top of
continuing Hindu tradition, I’d like to see what strategies are being deployed
to outwit these asuric forces. Don’t tell the details to an outsider like me,
but then at least show me the results. Show me how the Hindu percentage in
India is increasing again. Show me your victories.