Author: T.R. Anandan
Publication: The Hindu
Date: May 27, 2003
URL: http://www.hinduonnet.com/op/2003/05/27/stories/2003052700050200.htm
Introduction: As for conversions,
a simple question is, what is the need for anyone to formally embrace another
religion, say Christianity or Islam? Is it not enough if a person, whatever
faith he is born into, believes in the tenets of any other faith which
he considers appealing to his spiritual yearnings? There is no antagonism
to conversion per se as far as Hindus are concerned. Conversions using
unfair means only are opposed.
In her article `Hindutva and ethnicity'
(The Hindu, February 25), Ms. Gail Omvedt has made several statements which
call for comments. The solicitude and greed of the Pandas, which are sarcastically
mentioned by the author, are not a peculiarity of a temple or found only
in India. They are an extremely poor lot and make a living out of services
rendered to the pilgrims both as guides and providers of ritualistic procedures
for a dakshina. To ask for more money than is justified is not an act found
in those poor people alone, but even in highly sophisticated service providers
such as doctors and other professionals.
Restrictions on temple entry
The `Non-Hindus not allowed' or
`Only Hindus allowed' boards in temples are a necessity since all other
religions barring Hinduism believe in one God and one Prophet, do not believe
in idol worship and ritual-based worship. It is a special characteristic
of the Hindu religion that the Supreme Power is worshipped in many forms,
both feminine and masculine, for which idols are installed and consecrated.
It is thus the religion is often referred to as polytheistic though the
description is strictly not correct.
When a non-Hindu enters a temple
in which an idol of a particular deity is installed (often of granite or
marble) how can the visiting person understand the significance of the
particular form of the deity and the many mantras chanted for the various
rituals which are opposed to the faith professed by the visitor? The feeling
engendered might be a curious mixture of disapproval and non-belief, even
contempt. Recent reports have it that a certain company manufacturing western
type closets in a foreign country had printed pictures of Hindu deities
like Lord Ganesha and Kali on the inner side of the closet's lid, with
a view to boosting its sales. So much for respect of Hindu deities by certain
other religionists! Hindus view such attendance as sacrilege and fear ominous
consequences to those persons, which are to be avoided.
Besides, there is certain discipline
to be observed by pilgrims while entering the temples and remaining within
the precincts such as removal of footwear, not spitting or committing other
acts considered hurting the sanctity with which the visitors might not
be familiar and might be committed inadvertently. The inner sanctorum of
a temple is barred even for Hindu worshippers. Thus visiting a temple by
non- Hindus which will be more like visiting a tourist or sight-seeing
spot is not considered good in keeping with the Shastras and scriptural
stipulations. However, there are temples, entry into which is permitted
to non-Hindus who believe in the Hindu rituals, philosophy and forms of
worship and make a solemn statement to that effect in writing. Instances
of non-Hindu VIPs having visited certain famous temples do exist.
About the physical features referred
to by the author, it should be noted that Hindus of Nepal (a Hindu country)
and some northeast States do have features similar to subjects of countries
such as Japan, China, Korea, etc. They are freely admitted to Hindu temples.
Therefore, the colour of the skin or even appearance is not considered
a reason for barring entry and to consider Hinduism `racist' on that account
is absurd. And to what nationality and country did Sister Nivedita, disciple
of Swami Vivekananda or did the Mother of the Sree Aurobindo Ashram belong?
David Frawley is a living example who has even adopted the name of Vamadeva
Shastri. They were very much practising Hindus. Similarly there are many
Hindus in countries such as Thailand and Bali who are not Indians. Where
then does the question of racism or ethnicity come while considering their
faith? Ethnicity or race has nothing to do with Hinduism as a religion.
A significant percentage of the non-Hindus of this country are converts
to other religions from among the Hindus. The Muslims, the Christians,
Buddists, Jains and the Sikhs have a common ancestry, namely, the Hindus
and they are very much Indian. So, again, how does the question of racism
apply to religious faith?
Castes as race
That Dalits as a significant proportion
of the Indian population had been an oppressed class for thousands of years
due to a hierarchical caste structure in which they are placed at the lowest
level is a most unfortunate feature of the Indian state. Attempts had been
mounted in the past and even at present to eradicate this evil. In the
caste structure, birth determines the caste and that is being cited to
justify calling casteism as racism. It is significant that the World Conference
against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, in August-September 2001 had
refused to consider the caste system as a form of racism though many individuals
and NGOs had forcefully argued to consider it as such. The campaign by
them had even taken the very diabolic form of considering some parts of
this country as `Occupied territory' (report in The Hindu, September 7,
2001). Birth being considered as basis to determine caste is due to the
fact that conversion from one caste to another is not in existence.
Savarkar's views
If Savarkar had said, "A Hindu is
someone who views India as his holy land and fatherland," does it mean
that to be a Hindu one should have been born in India? It is a highly distorted
interpretation to say that the view would mean that "a Hindu is not simply
a person who has a particular belief but also a person whose ancestry is
in a particular territory," that is, the term implies ethnic definition.
The attempts to consider caste discrimination
as amounting to racism is a recent development. It had always been held
that the Hindu scriptures did not approve of caste differences and therefore
it had to be abjured and eradicated. Therefore to consider that the Dalits
and the upper castes have common ethnicity is only correct and does not
need any attempts to "create solidarity." Though a difference in religious
faith exists, the Hindus never considered other religionists of India as
ethnically different. They are considered very much Indian as already stated
above. Even those born to aliens such as Persians, Turks, Moguls, etc.,
in India are considered Indians only. To give an ethnic colour to different
religions as against the Hindus is a mischievous attempt. It is also not
correct to say that none from other religions can convert to Hinduism.
There are many instances of members of other religions having converted
to Hinduism. The only position is that Hinduism is not a proselytising
religion, like Christianity or Islam. This is because Hinduism considers
itself as `Sanathana Dharma' or as of universal following which did not
need the four-walled compartmentalisation of faiths.
As for conversions, a simple question
is, what is the need for anyone to formally embrace another religion, say
Christianity or Islam? Is it not enough if a person, whatever faith he
is born into, believes in the tenets of any other faith which he considers
appealing to his spiritual yearnings? There is no antagonism to conversion
per se as far as Hindus are concerned. Conversions using unfair means only
are opposed. Are the conversions being effected to fulfil "aspiration,
of questioning and a spiritual search that transcends all barriers and
resists all limitations to the human mind?" How come hundreds of illiterate,
economically backward people exhibit these yearnings that they assemble
and get converted? Are these people urged by "individual human creativity
and freedom" to change their religion? The law itself makes a clear distinction
between voluntary conversions and those by adopting unfair means. Where
then is the question of the Hindus insisting "that this choice has to be
bound by ancestry, by blood, by family and habit?"
Conversions in this country have
been going on for hundreds of years, from the time when Goutham Buddha
and Vardhamana Mahavira propounded new religious thoughts and got people
to follow them, when St. Thomas set foot on the Indian soil for missionary
activities and subsequently when hordes of Muslim invaders entered this
country and established their dynasties. Some Islamic regimes had even
clamped persecution measures such as special taxes on Hindus in an effort
to persuade them to embrace Islam. The author cannot be unaware of the
historical truth about the state's help for missionary activities during
all those regimes and later during the Portuguese and British rule. The
fact that the majority of the Hindu population remained unconverted to
this day despite these efforts would prove that it was not because there
were Savarkars all through these centuries to define Hinduism in the manner
quoted by the author or because there were leaders of the religion who
adopted attitudes as described by the author towards conversion, and even
in spite of the existence of the oppressive caste system, but because of
the strong religio-cultural moorings and the extraordinarily deep and appealing
spiritual processes of Hinduism and the diverse socio- religious customs
and beliefs which the religion permitted to masses across the country.
It is not exactly correct to say
that the universalistic view of seeing god "as the father/creator of all
humans" is a view of modern societies. Those familiar with Hindu philosophy
will have no difficulty in understanding the Advaithic postulate of the
religion with the concept of the individual human soul being considered
as a form of the universal power (the Brahman) described in brief words
as `Aham Brahmasmi' and `Thatwamasi' and the urge of the soul to join that
universal power. To understand this greatest principle of practical philosophy
of Hinduism, one needs a thorough study of its Vedas and scriptures and
a deep analysis of their purport. And many westerners and other religionists
who had undertaken such an effort had been convinced of the greatness of
the religion and even started practising it.
