One
of the many allegations I face occasionally, after Mr Modi became the PM, is
that I hate Hindus or Hinduism or both. This allegation was hurled at me yet again
yesterday on Facebook by a person who worked with me for a couple of months in
the same school where I taught in Delhi.
It
began with a 4-year-old
blog post of mine in which I argued that the RSS view of Onam, which is the
same as the North Indian view, will never be acceptable to Malayalis for whom
the Asura Maveli, rather than the god-incarnate Vamana, is the real hero for
obvious reasons. The above-mentioned friend first questioned my knowledge of
Hindu scriptures because he, like most others of the fold, thinks that a non-Hindu
does not care to study Hinduism. When he realised that I had perhaps more
knowledge about Hindu scriptures than himself, he changed his charge against
me. He said I refused to accept his good intention. When I questioned his
intention, he changed his allegation again: I lacked “the purity of heart, mind,
and body” required for understanding the Hindu scriptures. When I pointed out
the crimes committed by acknowledged Hindu leaders of today (yogis and such ‘holy’
people) as a contrast to my alleged impurity of heart, he chose to hit me below
the belt like any other mediocre bhakt. He said I was driven by hatred of
Hindus and Hinduism.
This
is an allegation I hear again and again from Modi bhakts. Where do I begin my
answer to this?
Let
me start with saying that I have a lot of friends who are Hindus. They know me
personally and hence they also know that I don’t hate any particular community
or religion. Questioning something is not tantamount to hating it.
Why
do I question Hinduism? This, I think, is the crux of the problem. Is it
because I hate Hinduism? The answer is plain: I don’t hate Hinduism. You think
I hate Hinduism because I question Modi and his kind of politics which makes
use of Hinduism as a political tool. What I question is not Hinduism but Modi
and his religious politics. Vamana and Rama and Krishna all enter the discourse
in the process. Obviously. When Modi the Prime Minister stoops to behave like a
primitive temple priest on behalf of a mythical king who belonged to an age
that history has no record of, it is not only Modi who enters the critical
discourse. Myths are man’s creations and Modi is the grandest myth-maker today
and so myths are inextricably interlinked with Modi-discourses.
Secondly,
Modi is the Prime Minister of a country that carries a population equal to that
of the whole of Europe and the USA put together, a population marked by more
cultural, religious, linguistic, and ethnic diversity than the entire Europe
and the US. Obviously, whatever Modi does is under the scanner. When he begins
to exterminate the diversity in his country for the sake of what he envisages
as a nation with uniformity, it becomes a matter of concern for certain people
among whom I count myself. So it’s natural that I question Modi’s wrong
policies. This questioning is no indication of my hatred of anything, let alone
Hinduism.
The
plain truth is that I don’t like religions, be it Hinduism or anything. I don’t
like them because they necessarily blind people. They make people absolute
ignoramuses and nauseating bigots. They start wars in the name of non-existent
creatures who are imagined to be sitting smugly somewhere in the outer space watching
a few billion simians fighting for the safety and security of non-existent,
omnipotent, divine entities. I have wished many times for at least one god to
become real enough to come down to this planet and give a few nice kicks in the
asses of their most idiotic devotees. Since the omnipotent gods don’t do it, I
do it as best as I can.
Hinduism
enters my writing more frequently merely because I live in a country whose
rulers are Hindus, whose majority are Hindus, whose culture is largely Hindu,
whose whole national dialectic has been Hinduised. Can I escape from this
national proselytising process? I am like a centipede on a road over which
massive road rollers and bulldozers move up and down wearing a particular
colour. At any time, my existence can just vanish into the gigantic wheels of
that one nationalist colour. Obviously, I question the validity of that colour.
Obviously, I assert my right to exist. As what I am, and not what any
particular religion wants me to be. If the majority religion that sought to
pulverise me was Islam, I would question that too. Or whatever else it was, I
would question. Question, not hate.
No,
mine is not hatred. It is an assertion of my identity, my personal worth. I am
ready to fight for that identity and its worth till the last drop of my blood. Because
I love real creatures more than imaginary gods and demons. I love while your
gods hate.
Questioning something is not tantamount to hating it This is what which applies to all.
ReplyDelete.I put some questions and you levelled me hater and bhakt.
I hope this post makes it clear why i regard you a bhakt. If not, i can't help it. Too much time has already been take up by you, first at fb and then here.
DeleteI appreciate your thoughts. There is no need to hate any ism (except fascism perhaps). And, to be frank, there is no need to love any religion or faith also if we are true to ourselves and nurture things like piety, truth, justice and benevolence in our hearts. Religions have only contributed to dividing the mankind. We don't need them at all. The biggest trouble created by the present Indian premier is that he has taken self-aggrandizement to such great heights that his followers have converted themselves into Bhakts forfeiting all their wisdom, rationality and conscience.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pity we have to discuss religion this way at all. Religion should remain a personal affair of the heart, as you also said. Instead our present leaders and their vapid bhakts insist on dumping their personal affairs on others. Hence this sort of discourses. So tragic we have ended up with such myopic leaders.
Delete