LIBERATING INDIAN MIND -28
DEFINING HINDUISM

What did Bertrand Russel demand of a modern man with scientific temper? “A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.”

How has Sanatan Dharm,been renamed as Hindu Dharma? How has the connotation changed to equate it with religion, conceding at the same time that it has no book controlling its believers and as such is not a religion in Semitic sense? How alternately sects and sampradayas have been again equated to Semitic religions and then with an eye on benefits available to minorities those belonging to those sects have claimed a non-Hindu identity? How the tribal groups whose deities and value system form part of Hinduism have been weened away as non-Hindus to facilitate conversion? How a sect composed of conscripted eldest male child of the Hindu families that reverently attended Sabad Kitran and submited to Guru Nanak was made inimical to Hindus?

These and many such questions demand socio-psychic explanation and apt definition of the term Hindu, but within my limited awareness no such attempt was made. Undefined words like mentally deranged persons are both pitiable and indefensible with little resistance against their misuse.

Hindu may be construed to mean professionally stratified society with irremediable alternative for change of profession, with Brahman as the despot who created and maintained it. Be what it is, socio-economic problems need to be addressed, but they can not be equated with religion.

Intellectual lethargy, dependence of our intellectuals to white race geniuses to solve our problems is the main culprit. What a pathetic state that we are a country without geniuses, and the most powerful among them are those who have artfully stooped to them to conquer their own culture for them.

The term Hind had and still has in Muslim countries, a geographical connotation and those living in that area irrespective of its changing boundaries are Hindus, but once Muslims from Central Asia were collectively called Turk and later Muslims and were identified as a distinct group based earlier on geography and later on religion, the rest of the population was identified as Hindu.

It was a negative term – non-Muslims- subordinating erstwhile geographical identity. The fun of it is that Pakistan which geographically deserves to be called Hindustan has lost its claim to the word and now it is used for India although today there is no country by that name. It is the Muslims who took refuge in India, that desisted affiliation to India and detested calling it Bharat, call it Hind as they have reservations of a sort which only Indian Muslims have today in the world. As a flashback the organised Hindus under RSS who also have some aversion similar to them, call it Hindusthan.

Kabir was perhaps the first to use both Turk and Hindu as communal identities, wherein Hindu stood for the section with irrational social and ritual practices. The irony is that Kabir wanted to create social harmony by the Sanatan value system, replacing God and social ills of both by Yogic self realization.

Hinduism has never been defined as a spiritual or religious entity but as it has replaced Sanātan Dharm we shall use both the terms as synonyms, with freedom to use the shorter term for the longer one.

So defined, Hinduism gives an individual as well as community, a sense of belonging, maximum freedom to act as he thinks fit. Of course, in all his judgments he is required to maintain a high standard so that he may not do unto others, that he thinks others should not do unto him – आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत्।

Do you think it is a maxim never practiced by common man. No doubt it is a norm emulated to the best under personal limitations as all norms and rules are. Listen even an uneducated man or woman having passed through extreme suffering wishing ‘may god put not even my bitterest enemy to such a suffering,’ to know that these maxims are molds in which collective consciousness of Hindus has been cast.

Books and organizations enslave and dehumanize and criminalize their believers and followers as Russel had illustratively indicted. They have been likened to sheep whereas the founder of the religion is held to be the shepherd, or a bàndā or enchained slave, the God as the Master without mercy. No further comment on dehumanization of the organized religions is required.

On the contrary the Hindu aspires to rise as high as the founder himself – दिवस्पुत्रा अंगिरसो भवेमाद्रिं रुजेम धनिनं शुचन्तः. What was the special attribute of these AŊgirasas : ऋतं शंसन्त ऋजु दीध्याना दिवस्पुत्रासो असुरस्य वीराः । विप्रं पदमंगिरसो दधाना यज्ञस्य धाम प्रथमं मनन्त । They came from the Asura background that was lax in morals, destitute, dependent entirely on bounties of nature, preferred idleness and enjoyment, but they, following the path of stern discipline, rightness, meditation, attained excellence and wisdom and built the base of improved production through their mineralogy and metallurgy. They in fact were pioneers in scientific and technological discovery and inventions.

It does not subordinate and subjugate the members but ameliorates and uplifts: उच्छ्रवस्व महते सौभगाय।
It inculcates a habit of making small sacrifices in broader interest of not only humanity but all the creatures and the environment in general and enthuses moral courage to stand resolutely in the face even of torture and threat to life: “what has not to be done you shalt not do even if you have to die, and you shall not desist from doing that which is to be done, this is universal law : अकृत्यं नैव कर्तव्यं प्राणत्यागेऽप्युपस्थिते । न च कृत्यं परित्याज्यं एष धर्मः सनातनः ।

To be more specific, observance of truth, reticence, forbearance, cleanliness, thrift, sense of guilt, forgiveness, simplicity, appetite for knowledge, pacification, piety, meditation these or perennial duties: सत्यं दमस्तपः शौचं संतोषो ह्रिः क्षमार्जवम् । ज्ञानं शमो दया ध्यानमेष धर्मः सनातनः ॥

We find, even Bertrand Russel in his depiction of a modern, ideal, scientifically tempered society could not imagine the level of moral, mental and social, nay universal vision as was promulgated by Sanātan dharm which Hindus despite their plight through a millennium tried to maintain to the extent possible. (To be continued)