One of the world’s oldest forms of faith, Hinduism has an unbroken trajectory of beliefs and rituals that have passed on for many millennia through the footsteps of pilgrims and the pedagogies of theologists; through myth, science and politics. But what does all that mean to the modern Hindu today asks Hindol Sengupta in this special series – Being Hindu. Watch Sengupta in conversation with Lord Meghnad Desai, a self-proclaimed atheist.

I was once asked: ‘Is it true that the Hindus believe in dancing gods? This was at the Harvard Club in Manhattan where I was giving a talk. ‘Is it true,’ I was asked by a polite elderly gentleman who was a distinguished member of the club. A nearly naked dancing god – was that part of Hinduism? He was talking about the the Natraj, from  CERN,  the  European Organization for  Nuclear Research which is home to the Large Hadron Collider,   and   was   intrigued by the presence of this statue.

We had a long conversation about the relevance of the dancing Shiva in which I tried to explain to him the philosophy of the Natraj: the representation of the constant chain of creation and destruction in the  universe.  As the  art  historian Ananda  Coomaraswamy has  also  written,  the  dance  represents   the  god  Shiva’s  five activities—creation and evolution; preservation; destruction and further  evolution;  illusion  and  rest; and  release, salvation  and grace2. What  to Western  eyes is a wild-eyed image of a man— in a tiger skin, dancing  dervish-like,  drum  in hand,  his matted locks in a storm—was  in reality the succinct representation of relentless  creation  and  destruction, and  the  creation  again  of life itself. A fascinating belief system, yet packaged  in caricature to audiences.

Over the years that I have pondered about writing this book, I have always been fascinated  by many of the curious beliefs about  Hinduism; some funny,  some fantastical, almost all unrecognizable to practising  Hindus  like me.

As I spoke  to  people,  friends  and  strangers, around India and  the  world—on Delhi  streets  and  Kolkata  bookstores, in Mumbai restaurants and Bangalore clubs, waiting for the train at  Notting Hill  Gate  station,   in  a  village  in  Rajasthan, at  a bar in Copenhagen, outside  the Harvard Club in New York— wherever  I could,  I’d work  a question  or two about  Hinduism into   the   conversation.  The   answers   I received   sometimes amused,  sometimes  perplexed  me.

In a lot  of the  answers,  I heard,  naturally, much  about  yoga  (yet  not  much  about  the spiritual   principles  behind  it),  about   cows,  the  caste  system and  the  refrain  of ‘many  gods  and  goddesses’,  but  it seemed that  the  ‘colour’—as  we  journalists would  say—more  often than  not obscured  any understanding about  the richness of the philosophies, some of the oldest, most evolved principles  known to  man.  The caricatures, it seemed to me, had hardened into prejudices that blurred the core philosophies.

It occurred  to  me that  in many  ways  the  general  lack  of knowledge  about  this multitudinous, multilateral faith with its numerous sub-belief  systems and  also one great,  foundational narrative was  almost  impossible  for  most  people  outside  the country—indeed,  even  inside   the   country—to  comprehend and  communicate. In this specific context,  most  Hindus  have experienced  a simple unwavering quality  in their  faith,  which has seen them through 800 years of Islamic and British rule, as well as hundreds of invasions.  But ask most Hindus  to explain the principles,  history and belief systems of their faith and they would struggle. There is a reason why this is true. Conversion or proselytizing has never been core to the worldview of Hinduism in any shape or form, as it is an essential practice  in Islam and has largely been, and still is in some places, in Christianity. Ask a Hindu if he/she knows of verses, scriptures or even practices of proselytizing  or active efforts to convince and convert—and the answer would mostly be no.

The idea of conversion or spreading of faith by inducting  more followers  is not a characteristically Hindu  way of thinking.  The  emphasis  in Hinduism is on  the personal,  the private, and so the spread of the collective has less meaning.  There  are some fringe groups  like the Hare  Krishna movement which actively seek ‘members’, but this is not central in any  way  to  the  manner  in which  most  Hindus  access and address their faith. The lack of proselytizing zeal means that the average Hindu  is far less articulate about  distilling his/her vast polytheistic  philosophical ideals than in monotheistic faiths. At an everyday level, I’ve observed,  the Hindu  relies not so much on  scriptural texts  but  on  life  experiences.

A Hindu   would find it easier to describe  his relationship with  the divine, with the spiritual  part  of his life rather  than  explain  the faith  in its totality. Since the subtexts  are so diverse (remember  those  33 million,  some say 330 million,  gods and goddesses?), ordinary worshippers are  often  not  able  to  identify  and  articulate the dominant themes of Hinduism. They can, however,  talk about their personal,  empirical  faith.

In no  way  does  this  imply  that  there  aren’t  dominant or core  themes  and  values  embedded   in  Hindu   literature and rituals, because they are often deeply complex and nuanced theological  ideas. What happens  more often than not is that the believers or the practitioners, people like me for instance,  tend to get obsessed with the rituals at the cost of understanding the philosophies. We will address some of these themes through the book, but for the moment,  let us return  to my initial discoveries of what  many  people  think  about  Hinduism.

For  instance,  I learned that some shared the point of view that the great Hindu epics—the Mahabharata and the Ramayana—were ‘fantasy stories’,  essentially  fiction  with  no  intrinsic  historical   value. Some even said  that  to  offer  any  historicity  to  mythology  is illiterate  and  imbecilic.  However,  I disagree;  my examination finds this not to be quite correct. I do not, naturally, believe that every idea  and  thought in every so-called  Hindu  text  should be  accepted  as  the  truth.   That  to  me  would  go  against  the Hindu  idea of relentless enquiry,  that  it is our duty to question everything before believing in it.

Let  us  take  an  example   from  the  lectures  delivered  by D.R.  Bhandarkar on  ancient  Indian  history  (specifically  the period  between  650  and  325  BCE) at  Calcutta University  in February   1918.  In his exploration  of  antiquity,  Bhandarkar  constantly  points   out how references in the Ramayana  and Mahabharata, written  as they were by men who attempted to capture  the zeitgeists, help confirm many historical  facts. I shall illustrate only three points from Bhandarkar’s lectures as examples.

For instance,   in one lecture, Bhandarkar talks  about   a Kshatriya  (the warrior caste of the four primary  Hindu  castes) tribe called Bhoja. He confirms  their existence from references in   Kautilya’s    Arthashastra—which   is   the    great    ancient Indian  socio-economic  treatise  predating Florentine   Niccolo Machiavelli’s advice on statecraft, The Prince, by around 1,600 years—to  the  Mahabharata and  the  Harivamsa,   one  of  the important appendices  to the Mahabharata.

Then  there  is a reference to the Ikshvakus, a major  ruling clan   from   the   north   of   India.   Bhandarkar  confirms   the presence of the Ikshvakus from three sources: first, inscriptions that  have  been  discovered  by  archaeologists  from  the  third century   which  talk  about   the  reign  of  King  Madhariputra

Sri  Virapurushadatta  of  the  Ikshvaku   family;  second,  from the Ramayana we know  that  Lord  Rama—the hero  of the text—was part of the Ikshvaku race, and finally, Buddhist texts tell us that  so was the Buddha.

My  final  example  from  Bhandarkar’s teachings  has  to  do with the Brahmin sage, Agastya. Now,  Agastya is mentioned in the Ramayana  as among  the first to have crossed the Vindhya mountains and  is admitted by all Tamil  grammarians as the founder  of the  Tamil  language,  the  great  Tamirmuni, or  sage of the  Tamils.  Also,  Bhandarkar points  out  that  if you  read Robert  Caldwell’s Grammar of the Dravidian  or South-Indian Family of Languages,  there is mention  of a hill where Agastya retired  after  his  work  in  bringing  forth  the  Tamil  language.

This hill, called Agastier (Agastya’s Hill) by local tradition and later adopted by the British, can still be found in the Tinnevelly district of Tamil Nadu. Caldwell was a Christian missionary and linguist in the second half of the nineteenth century.  The point is simply this: it is erroneous to suppose that myths and legends are not intertwined in history. What might be considered a mere myth might often be about  deep connections with history,  with real events and real people.

Now what Bhandarkar says about  these examples is of prime importance, ‘I am not unaware that these are legends. It is however a mistake to suppose that legends teach us nothing  historical.’

This  is exactly  the  point  of  revisiting  ancient  mythology from  a historical  point  of view. It is to  ensure  that  we make the relevant  connections between  the myths and  our  everyday landscape  so that  the legends do not  remain  fantastic  and  far away.

That Charlie Hebdo editorial was Islamophobic paranoia at its extreme. But here’s an exercise for you: cut and paste a rough translation of the editorial into your Word document, replace the word *Muslim* and its variations with *Hindu* and its variations and read it. That there staring you in the face is the Indian liberal agenda.

In the last week since I joined a growing chorus of Hindus asking why their temples are being stormed, when Indian law protects against interference on matters of the Waqf board, religious properties of the Church or the Parsis or the Sikhs, I have been called everything from mentally unhinged to bigot and been referred to Modi to get what I want.

Because you see for liberal India, the same who believe the violent acts of rogue terrorists cannot be equated with Islam, even if the perpetrators insist on doing so themselves, the voice of non-violent Hindus who have concerns or fears, and those concerns can always be debated, is always and unequivocally to be equated with violent fascism. Right.

Also read – Busting myths about how Sabarimala came to ban ‘impure’ women

So what has Indian liberalism achieved for Hindus? There are laws that outlaw discrimination on the basis of caste, which is good. New debate suggests outlawing discrimination on the basis of gender, which is good. Temples have been nationalised, lands redistributed and wealth, formed entirely of the private donations of patrons and devotees based on religious needs, audited. Temples are required to indulge in secular development activity.

And as recent outrage shows, choosing not to invite a Muslim DC is now against the principles of templehood. The anti-superstition bill prevents the guileless masses from believing in any unscientific gibberish the priest may throw at them. The Income Tax appellate will not exempt temples as Hinduism is a way of life not a religion, so no excuses there as made in the past, when kings made endowments that were to be used for public good.

The Waqf is also required to use their income for public good, but it is for Muslim public good, not general public good. All great temples for instance offer free food, which is a legacy of the past generosity integral to the religion. And temples are open to all faiths. Dress codes are seen as outrageous.

Also read - Not allowing women inside Haji Ali insults the spirit of Islam

Though mosques still require you to follow protocol and those demands are seen as culturally appropriate. Temples under state and central government administration are now the personal treasuries of corruption, revenue from lands being used to line the pockets of government officials, and with a paucity of funds for any real research, learning, commentary, thinking or even propagation of actual Hindu texts.

As Trimbakeshwar Temple shuts its sanctum to men, the interference in Hindu religious matters has reached its peak. 

The architectural heritage of the Hindus commands some of the highest prices in the antiquities smuggling market. None of this is unrelated and this is all progressive and great. Hindus should move beyond idol worship anyway.

What makes a temple a place of Hindu worship then? Why is it not, say, a library?

While all of these changes are undeniably progressive, and some such as those against caste discrimination are required to be enforced far more aggressively, no questions asked, with the Maharashtra government bringing in the social boycott bill to reinforce implementation, the question it begs is: Is the entire definition of liberalism to rest only on Hinduism?

Also read - Why liberals and conservatives need to stop the cock and bull fight

Club the above with the fact that there is not a single modern reputed institute of Indic studies in all of India today. The debate over Pollock is also the fear that all academic research on India’s Hindu past is only emerging from overseas, and thus leaves the mainstream Hindu thinking with no scholar worthy enough to counter or debunk it – this itself speaks of the lack of institution building.

Most books on Vedic culture emerging from within India today, even well funded ones like the Poddar library collection are hagiographic, unattributed, and lack chronology, detail, source, which are important – the bhashyas or commentaries are so self important they manage to be insufferable bores.

One assumes this is by design and not because there is a lack of a market. Because otherwise there wouldn’t exist the level of interest there is in popular writers like Amish Tripathi, Devdutt Pattanaik and Ashok Banker or Bibek Debroy, let alone in badly made television episodes on Indian mythology.

Also read - How many gods must our judicial system please?

The middle level – well-researched works that examine mainstream concepts and figures of Vedic culture and are well written – have not been funded, published or encouraged in 60 years. Rather, they have been systematically avoided in that time. Quiet research out of corners like Melkote, Mysore, Kanchipuram, Trivandrum, Varanasi are too concerned with embalming the past rather than finding a modern pulse within it to work with.

So the fearful-of-not-being-heard mainstream of Hinduism descends into chest thumping, protectionism and tokenism, while nothing that propagates actual thinking is permitted to grow. At the same time, the law insists on progressiveness, which is the obligation of the Hindus.

This would be fine if it were equitably enforced to ensure a progressive society. But all other religions are encouraged by laws framed in an era when the thinkers believed silos had to be maintained for harmony. That liberalism meant those within the silos would never have to adapt to a changing world. And this was fine. Frogs in their wells, all’s right with the world.

So the self-critical thinking across India today is restricted to “hey, we didn’t do it” for Muslims, “paedophile priests the Vatican pardons. And Mother Teresa is a saint” for Catholics, “make more babies of pure bloodline” for Parsis. Yes, internal questioning of codification exists for the Catholics but even they are not obliged to align with the Constitution. That they do so now is a function of who their Pope is.

Also read - Merry Christmas! Not you, Mother Teresa

So Muslim women can go file petitions asking for entry into dargahs or to end female genital mutilation but the court is not confident it has the authority to intrude and hence postpones verdict. Especially when the Supreme Court has declared the Jamait Ulema-e-Hind has rights to intervene in matters of Muslim women.

So institutions like Kodai International School in Kodaikanal have the right to ask for parents to sign on a piece of paper ensuring all children who study there will be brought up in the Christian way, but no Hindu institution that is not a Vedic pathshala would be within their legal rights to do so. While temple land was nationalised and redistributed the Catholic Church in Kodai, my hometown, has the freedom to continually acquire properties, especially of those now lying derelict after the dissipated British population left it with no heirs to inherit it. Instead of nationalising it, like everything else, these lands were reverted to private Church control.

So, it’s not the right to acquire individual property that is questionable but the right to acquire community property. Which, every time a non-vegetarian is not permitted to rent or buy a flat owned by a vegetarian, typically Hindu, who has bought it out of personal funds carved over a life time of savings, with no discount from a panchayat or church or Waqf Board such that no constitutional amendments may apply to them, is touted as Hindu oppression. This enshrines the liberal belief that not only is the right of Hindus to own community property suspect, individual rights must also be put under lock and key and regulated.

Also read - Why personal laws must go

As Trimbakeshwar Temple shuts its sanctum to men, the interference in Hindu religious matters has reached its peak. It functions without understanding that in all religions, some roles are given to men and others to women. These are roles integral to religious participation – yet Hindu women have fought for and won rights to be priests, to perform funereal rites and to chant Vedas, thus indicative of a larger more expansive and well-functioning critical process within Hinduism itself which is not to be underestimated or shunned.

Muslims, Catholics, Parsis, Sikhs have their own gender-based roles within their religious duties. If they were all secular and afforded gender parity and rational scientific ideals they wouldn’t be religions anyway, they’d be sciences. The function of religion is faith, and to dictate the rationality of one religion’s faith (when human rights are being regulated) is not just wrong, it is oppressive and by design engineered to wipe out the religion.

Unlike other religions, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism does not even excommunicate those who do not abide by their way of life. No priest can take away your authenticity as a Hindu. So the freedom to disbelieve a certain practice is enshrined in Hinduism itself and thus does not require constitutional intervention.

Also read - Why saying ‘I am a Hindu’ should be respected

If you believed Shani was necessary to your spiritual growth, you must believe the myths associated with him. If you don’t, why do you need him at all? Walk away with no punitive action against you.

If the Hindus may not have a say in regulating administration funds, religious practises of Muslims, Catholics, Parsis none of which are devoid of patriarchy of racism or are obliged to progressive critical thinking that aligns them with constitutional rights… The question is why are the Hindus?

So, it follows that the only real obligation – legal, constitutional, social – to be truly liberal, is the Hindus’.

Brick by brick, the idea of liberalism in India today stands on the need for Hindus to be liberal. If the Hindus choose, as many individuals are doing today, to be illiberal, Indian liberalism has no other recourse to existence. It will die.

This is why there is so much “liberal” panic at the Hindus who choose not to be liberal today. And yet, there is no incentive or indeed any means for them to protect their inherent pluralistic way of life. It is a snake eating its own tail. As Indian liberalism furthers this idea of Hindu-only progressiveness, it kills the very institutions that propagate and protect that way of life. In response, the Hindus become more insular.

If your entire idea of liberalism is based on Hinduism staying so: here’s a thought – stop killing it.