'Divided' Hindu Keeping India together is a matter of pride

Publication: The Statesman
Date: November 23, 2004

The lack of a popular reaction among Hindus following the Kanchi Sankaracharya’s arrest has made “Hindu passivity” a fashionable phrase among the commentariat again. Depending on their ideological proclivity, commentators have either been wistful or snide about the majority community not taking to the streets or even conducting agitated conversations in drawing rooms. Both sides have noted the “fragmentation” of Hindus along caste and region; think of the two worlds of a Tamil Brahmin and a Bengali Kayasth, for example. That Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion and that it is as much cultural, and therefore susceptible to many near-independent variations, as a religious one, have also been noted. In fact, while a pan-Hindu reaction informed by religiosity is rare, Hindu subsets can react strongly to “attacks” on their specific cultural iconography. But this “divided” Hindu society should not be a target of hand wringing or sneering.

From the point of view of the community and of this country, it is a matter of some pride and great fortune. To understand this one should look at countries where the majority is from other denominations. The evangelical Christian vote that is widely thought to have given George Bush his second term is an exception rather than rule in Christian- majority West. In Italy, there was hardly a popular revolt when a papal favourite and Silvio Berlusconi’s nomination for European Commissionership, Rocco Buttiglione, was rejected by European Parliament for his ultra-orthodox views on homosexuality and women (one is a sin and the other should know their place). Italy is thought to be among the most religiously inclined countries in Europe.

Similarly, when churches in the Christian-majority world have harboured alleged pedophiles, there was hardly a conservative reaction to protect the “institution”. On the other hand, in most Islamic countries, institutional, conservative religion is powerful, sometimes all powerful, and any secular questioning, far less attacks, is out of question. America and the Islamic are two entities where the state gives the most space to religion — an irony that should not be lost on anyone observing Bush’s war on terror.

Given this, Hindu-majority India is a wonderful exception. Wonderful because this is not a rich country. Wonderful because we do not have the long history of state’s steady advance against organised religion as in Europe. Wonderful because this is true despite pandering to organised minority vested interests that Jawaharlal Nehru started and has been carried on ever since. And this is possible because Hinduism is not a proselytising, evangelical, let’s-kill-for-god kind of religion. It is possible because although most Hindus are social conservatives, they feel private space is big enough to practice their religious and cultural rituals. Hindus do not in general like preaching, they do not in general like being preached to — and thank god, or rather, thirty three millions gods (the number of deities said to be in the Hindu pantheon) for it.

There’s a dogged liberal, individualistic streak in this religion so full of orthodox rituals. So, Hindus don’t protest en masse because one of their religious leaders has been arrested. That may not have been the case had the shoe been on another denomination. That makes it even more important that the Hindu is what he is. India is secular because the Hindu is secular.