The Anger of the Hindus

I most humbly assign all of my readers a task. It may help to undertake this activity in a Facebook group or in the replies section of a tweet by an eminent person or both. I would further require for your own providence that you possess the fortitude to bear with the consequences.

Write a post or a tweet questioning the sagacity of our Hindu scriptures. I do not advocate derision but reasonably high skepticism. I shall hesitate not to tender my most deferential apologies to you in the event that you are not targeted by irate Hindus.

To what do such of these Hindus owe their ire? That the tolerance of the Hindus to criticism has eroded would be an impulsive conclusion. Do bear that I owe much of my knowledge that shall reflect here, to numerous interviews of the eminent author Amish Tripathi.

Momentarily, pray reflect upon the Second World War. The mind inevitably imagines Nazi Germany and the petrifying mistreatment of the Jews. Now, pray reflect upon what has happened thereafter. The Jews spread far and wide, but stayed fundamentally united. They ensured that their story appealed to the conscience of the world. The civilized world today knows of the Jews as a much persecuted religious group that has with its forbearance built the state of Israel — a nation no less than an epitome of success.

There remains, however, a similarly if not identically persecuted national group. It is misunderstood as a religious group — courtesy the paramountcy of the social interpretation by colonial authorities. To its misfortune, it was not persecuted in a physical way alone. It continues to remain under persecution intellectually. It has had faced centuries of enslavement, but none so daunting as the last two of them. It attained administrative independence but not independence of thought. As thousands of its temples were desecrated, its women subjected to indescribable depravity and its universities set afire, it put up a valiant fight, and even succeeded in expanding again and establishing a highly powerful empire. The later invaders, however, were much more cold and calculating. They exploited internal differences, succeeded in positioning one ruler against the other, secured loyalty from numerous natives and succeeded in establishing its colonial rule over the nation. That alone did not suffice. The national community referred to hereinabove was systematically stripped of its strengths. Its scriptures derisively dismissed as myth, its cultural institutions shocked almost beyond recondition by the gradual effacement of its language, its people gradually made to accept that they were an inferior race meant to serve its colonial masters, its own education system dismantled and replaced and the divisions of its people amplified manifold. Compendiously, its sense of pride and memories of its past valour were scrupulously suppressed and a sense of defeatism engendered within its people. As a consequence, there remains a significant section in it driven by pathological contempt for its own identity despite decades of administrative independence. The national group I refer to is that of the Hindus. The nation I refer to is India. The language I refer to is Sanskrit. The colonial power I refer to is the British Empire.

Why do I refer to the Hindus as a national group? Why do the Hindus constitute a nation? I find purposive the definition of a nation given by noted French philosopher Ernest Renan, in order to answer such questions:

A nation is a living soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is in the past, the other in the present. One is the common possession of a rich heritage of memories; the other is the actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to preserve worthily the undivided inheritance which has been handed down.

There cannot be the minutest doubt with regard to the possession of a rich heritage of memories. The Indian heritage of memories may well be the richest in the world. The Hindus have lived together since time immemorial. Neoteric India is represented by numerous religious, ethnic and linguistic groups. Nevertheless, there is only one national group: that of the Hindus. Notwithstanding their divisions, the Hindus are not akin to Europeans who share some common history and religious ideas but nothing more. Indeed they are more closely knit that one would imagine. Famed author Sankrant Sanu quite appositely notes:

Our hymns and religious stories not only share common themes, heroes and deities, they also uniquely link us to this particular land in a way Christian stories do not link to the land of Europe. There are no hymns that Europeans sang that spoke of the land from the Urals to Scandinavia or from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean as one. No one sang devotional songs listing all the major rivers of Europe, east to west. The idea of Europe is like another continent, like Africa or Americas — with some shared geography and history but no historic conception of the integrated whole as a unity that was recognized among all the common people.

Thus there have been no religious stories of Europe linked to its particular boundaries and capturing the common fealty of the people, unlike the story of Shakti being dispersed over the land of India in peethams that millions of people visit, or the sage who set up mathas in the four quadrants of the land, or who wrote the Mahabharata, or who wrote of the land of Bharatvarsha and Aryavarta. So, there is a unity to India, an Indian nationhood that is far greater than any shared similarities between Europe.

Would it not be ludicrous to contend that the English in England constitute not a nation but merely a community? It truly would. Equivalently, it would be ludicrous to contend that the Hindus in India constitute not a nation but merely a religious community.

At the outset, the provenience of the word “Hindu” must be taken into consideration. It pertains not to religion, but to geography. That the Indian civilization has been the most ancient on Earth is undisputed. What principally defines a civilization? Verily, it must be a river, for agriculture and the proximacy of a river would have led to permanent settlements and thereby civilizations. Which was the defining river of the Indian civilization? Mistakenly, people assume it was the Indus — Sindhu being its original name — and thereby people mistakenly call it the Indus Valley Civilization. A river of much more prodigious proportions which unfortunately desiccated later was the defining river of the Indian civilization. That river was the Sarasvati.

I shall enumerate not the evidence of its existence millennia ago. That may be found in the scholarly book The Sarasvati Civilization: A Paradigm Shift in Ancient Indian History authored by the redoubtable Major General G.D. Bakshi. What I endeavour to draw your attention to at the moment are two interesting verses that describe the Sarasvati.

आ यत साकं यशसो वावशानाः सरस्वती सप्तथी सिन्धुमाता |
याः सुष्वयन्त सुदुघाः सुधारा अभि सवेन पयसा पीप्यानाः ||
The Rig Veda 7.36.6

TRANSLATION: This great seventh River Sarasvati is the mother of the Sindhu (Indus), flowing with great force and abundant waters. Flowing together, this river and her seven sisters give us food and milk.

अम्बितमे नदीतमे देवितमे सरस्वति ।
अप्रशस्ताइव स्मसि प्रशस्तिमम्ब नस्कृधि ॥
The Rig Veda 2.41.16

TRANSLATION: May Sarasvati, the greatest of all mothers, the greatest of all rivers and the greatest of all goddesses, grant us, the ignorant, her knowledge and wisdom.

Pray note how the Sarasvati is referred to as the Sindhu-Mata. The word “Sindhu” may be interpreted as the specific river Sindhu (Indus). Alternatively, it may be interpreted as a common noun for “river”, for it is a Sanskrit synonym for “river”. There are thus two translations, namely, “mother of the Sindhu river” or “mother of rivers”. Either way, the Sarasvati was manifestly a far more prodigious river. Indeed, as Major General G.D. Bakshi describes it:

It was no seasonal river. It was a mighty perennial stream that flowed over 4600 km. The satellite pictures vividly reveal the dried out river bed of a once mighty river that was 6–8 km in width. South of Patiala–where there was apparently a confluence with Yamuna and later the Satluj–it was almost 20 km in width.

It is contended that the word Hindu is derived from the name “Sindhu” thereby indicating that the settlers around the Sindhu river were termed Hindus. That is an incomplete understanding. In the first of the two verses above, note that the Sarasvati is described as “seventh river”. What is the significance of the number “seven”?

The answer is that there were seven major rivers defining our land. These rivers were: Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Sarasvati, Narmada, Sindhu and Kaveri.

गङ्गे च यमुने चैव गोदावरि सरस्वति।
नर्मदे सिन्धु कावेरि जलेऽस्मिन् संनिधिं कुरु॥
Aahnika Sutravali (verse 106)

TRANSLATION: O Holy rivers Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Sarasvati, Narmada, Sindhu and Kaveri! In this water, may you be present!

Collectively, these rivers were called Sapta Sindhu and so was the land of Bharat, which was defined by these rivers. Which is why ancient India is also referred to as the Land of the Seven Rivers.

It is from this very Sapta Sindhu that the word Hindu was derived, and not only from the specific river Sindhu (Indus). It has come to define the residents of the Land of the Seven Rivers.

Consequently, the word, “Hindu” does not refer to the theological Hinduism which I contend is an inappropriate word. It narrows the expanse of the word Hindu. It is not a theological proper-noun. It is a geographical and cultural proper-noun. The culture practiced by the residents of the Sapta Sindhu was Sanātana Dharma.

This culture has been the most ancient and thus symbolic of the Indian nation. Fundamental reason dictates that its adherents must thereby constitute not merely a religious community but a national community. I add to this the observations of the erudite Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, inarguably among the most educated men on the planet of his time:

Ethnically all peoples are heterogeneous. It is the unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian peninsula with respect to the unity of its culture.

It truly is an arduous task to “define” the Hindu culture. I refer, therefore, to the observations of the Honourable Courts themselves:

1966, Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, writing for a five-judge Constitution Bench in Sastri Yagnapurushadji and … vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and … on 14 January, 1966: When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet, it does not worship anyone god, it does not subscribe to any one dogma, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept, it does not follow anyone set of religious rites or performances. In fact, it does appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. it may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.

1976, Commissioner Wealth Tax, Madras vs Late R Sridharan’ [1976 (Sup) SCR 478]: It is a matter of common knowledge that Hinduism embraces within the self so many diverse forms of beliefs, faiths, practices and worships that it is difficult to define the term ‘Hindu’ with precision.

1995, Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo vs Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & … on 11 December, 1995: It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions, the term ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, or be construed to fall in the prohibition in subsection(3) and/or (3A) of Section 123 (of the Representation of the People Act).

It is thus the Hindus who culturally define India. One may from my argument mistakenly construe that those other than Hindus have thereby no place in India. I firmly remonstrate with contentions to that effect. Quite akin to how Hindus who are born in Britain or have taken British citizenship are no less British citizens than the Englishmen, anyone not a Hindu is no less an Indian citizen than the Hindus. Under no circumstance can he be treated inferior to a Hindu. Further, one cannot refute the fact that there has also been substantial cultural addition to the primaeval Vedic culture, both by the Hindus and the non-Hindus. It is on that account that the Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains and adherents of all religions must also be considered Hindus.

I, therefore, deem it expedient to now address the reason behind the simmering sentiment within the Hindus; their sense of nigh-insecurity insomuch that a slight criticism may render them nervous and make them adopt a fight-to-the-finish demeanour.

It is not prudent to deny a national consciousness within the Hindus. Suppressed though its pride has been, it does exist. The colonial rule may have terminated, but successive governments in independent India have not done justice to the long-suppressed Hindus. They have ever engaged in propitiating the minorities — the Musalmans in particular — at the expense of the Hindus. Dare any government raze a mosque in India, an act routinely undertaken even in Islamic countries? Dare any government subject mosques to government control? It took decades before the practice of Triple Talaq was abolished, a practice long banned even by such rogue states as Pakistan. The unity of the Mahomedans in India is enviable.

The Hindu community is not perfect. It has had a history of evils such as superstition, casteism and untouchability. Yet, social reform movements germinated in parallel with the independence movement. This resulted in a gradual effacement of these evils, thus evincing the general liberality intrinsic to the Hindus. This positive trait is hardly ever acknowledged.

The Hindu stands powerless. He is tormented at the fact that the expanse of the word “Hindu” has been narrowed to the theological aspect of his culture. The jaundiced notions of secularism forbids the government and the elite to acknowledge the Hindu heritage of India. To them, it is merely another religion and must ipso facto be treated just like Islam or Christianity. Aforementioned judicial interpretations appear to mean little to them. The Hindu is further tormented at seeing his community riddled with caste divisions and the abominable caste-politics that has a firm grasp over Indian politics. He is tormented at seeing his community dormant and not lawfully demanding that government renounce control over temples. He is tormented at seeing caste-based reservations compound ad infinitum. Truly, there remains a trace of caste discrimination, but it is nowhere as prevalent as it was decades ago. He has developed prescience enough to discern that these reservations would only exacerbate caste differences. He grimly and grievously realizes that no government could muster the grit to cease asking for castes in official documents. He is tormented by the ebullient propagation of absurd theories of the origins of his culture, such as the Aryan Invasion Theory, employed by vested interests to fuel separatist sentiment among the South Indians. He stands helpless against vested interests who ever so fiercely argue, “How could seventy percent of the Hindus be threatened by seventeen percent of the Muslims?” The academia has access to resources and therefore can undertake a comprehensive research to examine the social vices of the Mahomedans, but shall not do so. The average Hindu lacks such access to resources. His community has little to no influence in the historically left-leaning academia. He discerns the unholy alliance between Islamism and influential left-leaning voices, but is powerless to counter them. Thus, his only defence is the collection of sporadic yet numerous incidents of violence against the Hindus by the Muslims ignored by the media, academia and intelligentsia. The same influential cabal, however, squanders not a moment to ignite communal passions in the event that Muslims are subjected to violence by the Hindus.

Armed with a complete lack of intellectual means, a Hindu responds in the only way that remains: the way of anger. It is not pathological contempt for the Muslims, but an anger that stems from helplessness. It is a reaction to the trauma of the devastation inflicted upon the Hindus for centuries. A Hindu would like nothing better than living in harmony with the Muslim and Christian fraternity. Decades of contempt from the intelligentsia and ignorance by government has served as a propellant for suppressed emotions. This receives expression in two ways: physical violence and online harassment. With what other rationale could the contemporary popularity and almost mainstream nature of hitherto fringe groups such as Bajrang Dal, VHP, Durga Vahini etc. be explained? To what could this popularity be attributed but to the infantine yet rising consciousness of the Hindus as a whole? The rise of the BJP and its espousal of Hindutva has only consolidated the Hindus more than ever. Nascent though the consolidation be, it has had the Hindus charged.

Such acts of anger are not to be condoned. Those who know me would be aware that I am an unequivocal proponent of law and order. But I trust that the readers shall be so gracious as to consider my contention if not be ad idem with it. For after an examination of history, my contention would certainly be less preposterous than that of those who plead for mercy for avowed enemies of the State, as well as that of those who plead that the circumstances, which must have forced them to adopt the path of terrorism, be understood.

Bear that the Hindus have, notwithstanding such injustices, never demanded a separate homeland. They struggle for a more respectable position in the land that has, since the dawn of civilization, been their own. Very naturally, they do not see Hindutva any different from national pride. The solution is not to treat the Hindus with contempt and adopt a hostile disposition against them. The solution is to concur with the sentiment behind that anger. It is the expression of that anger and not the anger itself that is injudicious. It is a positive emotion should it be channeled in the appropriate direction.

I term this rise in consciousness a Hindu Renaissance. Should you be led to call it as such on account of reading this text, know that I cannot claim credit for it. The term, however, encases a profound meaning. It need be undertaken.

The Jews received justice. It is of the essence that the Hindus receive the same.