Why I Criticize Hinduism The Most
Why do you criticize Hinduism more than any other religion? This is a question often posed to us – the rationalists, secularists and atheists in India- by the proponents of Hindutwa?
The first time I heard this question it was not from a hardcore Hindutwa proponent, but a medical doctor in Kerala. It was in the late 1980s, when we, a group of young rationalist activists, approached this doctor for financial contribution towards a conference organized by our organization. We tried to explain our position telling him about the number of occasions when we had led campaigns against fundamentalists belonging to other religions, the number of publications brought out by rationalists in Kerala criticizing the religious texts as well as the obscurantist practices followed by Muslims and Christians. Our doctor, however, was not willing to lend his ears to our arguments and we were thrown out of his clinic with him refusing to give us any money.
Over the last two decades since then I have faced this question quite often, forcing me to think about it frequently. Let me hence enumerate the reasons why I find myself criticizing the beliefs and rituals of Hinduism more often than those of other religions.
1. The very first reason that comes to my mind is a question of statistics. More than 80% of the Indian population is Hindu. Naturally, more than 80% of our criticism would also be directed against the belief system of Hindus.
This is precisely the case in other countries too. I read quite a few well-known rationalist periodicals published from the US and Europe. In all these periodicals, most of the articles are devoted to criticizing Christianity, because that is the religion that the majority of their population follows. Wouldn’t it be irrational to criticize the rationalists of these continents as prejudiced against Christianity?
2. Second is my familiarity with the religion I was born into. I am more familiar with the beliefs, tenets, rituals, and practices of Hinduism than that of any other religion, and hence I am more confident in criticizing it.
So is the case with other rationalists, who were brought up among people adhering to other religious denominations. The writings of a Salman Rushdie, an Ibn Warraq or a Taslima Nasrin, for instance, are more frequently directed against Islamic fundamentalists than those belonging to other religions. (It should be emphasized here that I am not trying to elevate myself to the stature of these eminent writers).
The question of statistics referred to above once again comes into play here. Assume that one percent of any religious community in India become rationalists and start criticizing their parent religion. In India, according to Census-2001, we have 80.4% Hindus, 13.4% Muslims, and 2.3% Christians. This percentage would naturally get reflected in any given group of rationalists and, as a consequence, in the rationalist literature produced in India.
3. Third, there is a possibility that the liberalization or secularization of the religion of the majority in a country has a positive impact on the religion of the minority itself.
For instance, I have noticed, in Kerala, where I was born, the followers of Islam are much more liberal than many other parts of India. It is not possible for any section of a people, religious minority included, to be completely outside the sphere of influence of the society they are part of, however much the fundamentalist leadership is against it.
4. Fourth, the criticism coming from within a community is much more effective than those coming from people outside the fold. This is because criticism, however constructive they be, coming from people from outside a community would tend to be construed as xenophobia or even outright communal. In a perfect liberal-secular society, this should not be the case and every criticism, wherever it comes from, would be adjudged on its innate worth. But ours is not such a society. It still has a highly conservative, semi-feudal setup with a significant presence of religio-fascist elements intolerant of any kind of criticism.
For instance, in Karnataka, at the time of my writing this, a violent intimidation is being unleashed against Christians by fascist Hindu outfits such as Bajrangdal. Churches were ransacked, religious statues broken, and nuns physically abused. One of the ostensible reasons cited for this attack was that a certain Christian sect allegedly had published a book in Kannada (Sathya Darshini) denigrating Hindu religious figures. Excerpts from the book reproduced in Deccan Herald (September 18, 2008, Bangalore) shows that they are nothing in comparison to the celebrated rationalist-reformer E.V.Ramaswamy Naiker’s acerbic textual criticism of characters in Ramayana. Though the Hindu-right did agitate against EVR and his Periyarana, it never took such a violent turn as has been happening in Karnataka at present. One of the reasons for the less-violent reaction to EVR’s work was he was seen as an “insider” as against the Christian critique of Hindu religious texts. (I am not suggesting even for a moment that the intimidation of Christians seen in various parts of Karnataka today is a Hindu-reaction to this book. It is not. According to Deccan Herald, the book was printed in a press that was closed down a decade back. The attack in fact is a pre-meditated attempt of the Sangh Parivar to communalize Hindu society in Karnataka on the lines of Narendra Modi’s Gujarat).
5. The fifth and most important reason is the brutal fact that the Hindu fundamentalist forces (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini, etc) have been on the rise since the late 1970s.
The formation of Janata Party government (which included such disparate political formations as socialists and rightwing Hindutwa elements) in 1977 after the infamous emergency gave legitimacy to forces such as RSS. Since the 1990s, Hindutwa forces have used extreme violence to intimidate minorities and secularists. The violence in 1990 following the Ratha Yatra of L.K.Advani, the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992, the 
state-sponsored violence (in which more than a thousand people were murdered) against Muslims following the burning of a train in Godhra in Gujarat in 2002, the continuing (even at the time of penning this essay) violence against Christians in various parts (especially in Orissa and Karnataka) of the country, the attempts to saffronise education and secular institutions during the NDA government, the attacks on exhibition of paintings of MF Hussain, etc are ample evidence of the presence and rise of Hindutwa fascism in the country. There is no point in calling myself a rationalist if I do not take a stand against this fascist intimidation and violence and speak for the rights of the intimidated.
I hope the above satisfactorily answers the question posed at the beginning. It is quite possible that other activists campaigning for secularism may have many other reasons to cite in addition to what I have attempted to point out. I would be glad if they come out with their arguments.
***
Related posts:
Subscribe to RSS
Follow us on twitter
Follow us on facebook
Flickr
Youtube
Good debate on the subject. I would like to debate what is termed as a religion.
Going by what is followed and practiced a Religion is a set of guidelines propagated by one person in one space and one time. Like Budhha during 500BC period in Nepal and north India, Christ during 0 AD in Jerusalem, Muhammed during 300 AD in Mecca (?). There has been hardly any further revealations, research, updation, revalidation of the doctrines. As because those guidelines were bound by space and time, the guidelines relating to daily lives mostly veered around the space and time they lived. That is why some portion of these doctrines (varying in each) have become outdated and against modern free think and living.
That way Hinduism (a terminology given by outsiders) is a compilation of the early rituals, thoughts and reseacrch on life philosophy. The earlier vedas gave information on rituals followed whereas the Upanishads and vedantas gave the higher level philosophy. Then came the puranas, epics (history) and other literatures to reach out to the general mass at that time to educate them on the rights and wrongs. However those were meant for the consumption of that time.
India, being mostly depending on agriculture, had lots of time to spend on this research and that is why the tradition of India had been spiritualism. Even now we have plenty of names who have affected our lives. Take Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Shankaracharya, Satya Sai, Ramana, Aurobindo, Yogananda so on and so forth. These people have constantly repackaged the basic philosophy with the need to the society at that point of time. Even Budhha, Guru Nanak and Jain deed at those times.
Luckily in this philosophy the freedom has been given to the individuals regarding where they want to start or what they want to choose. The learned and analytical people having a bit of understanding of life philosophy is not interested in ritualistic life. He may start from gathering higher level knowledge through meditation, guru or books. Or he can start missionary life (even being in family) as a karmayogi. Or he can even provide his own interpretation of the life through his own research and analysis (as the saints mentioned above and others have done).
Nothing is stopping you to think freely (even if it means questioning anything related to your traditional belief and rituals) as this will make the system better.
Mind that rituals are the coatings of the house which needs change as the climate and weather changes.
The house remains intact as that is out of the researches and revalidations though out the history.
That is the greatness of this belief and way of life and the philosophy which is also called the Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Knowledge.
I rhetorically ask a stupid question to show how such a question is just as illogical as the one you asked, to which your answer is to pretend that I meant the question in earnest. Either you didn’t read the next line which said “Neither question is meaningful”, or you chose to ignore it so you can answer it and pretend that I am stupid enough to ask such a question.
We are into “rational and logical thinking”, neither of which I’ve seen any evidence of from you.
“What makes you think that I focus on Hindutva alone?”
Oh, my mistake. I thought that Manoj’s views expressed here were reflective of Nirmukta.
Ajita, I didn’t say those were the reasons for not having ex-Muslim writers here, but nice to know you tried.
By the way, even after you know the situation, you choose to focus on Hindutva alone? Who’s going to bell the cat that needs to be belled?
It seemed to me that the reasons mentioned were implied as “possible explanations” for the absence of ex-Muslims. Sorry if I misunderstood.
What makes you think that I focus on Hindutva alone? Your extensive knowledge of my views? Let me ask you in the same vein, why do you choose to focus on rationalist criticism of Hindutva alone? Neither question is meaningful.
More than 80% of the Indian population is Hindu. Naturally, more than 80% of our criticism would also be directed against the belief system of Hindus.
=>
A more rational/logical explanation should be the negative impact, damage and number of disruptive events in the society/world caused by adherents of a particular religion. Missing the forest for the trees isn’t helpful.
=>
Second is my familiarity with the religion I was born into. I am more familiar with the beliefs, tenets, rituals, and practices of Hinduism than that of any other religion, and hence I am more confident in criticizing it.
=>
With so much diversity in tenets, beliefs and rituals of Hinduism as well as so many different schools of philosophy which would take some considerable time and effort to study and understand, your familiarity only applies to a very small section of the population. Besides, in my experience, what I’ve found is that most people “rejected” Hinduism based only on their personal negative experience, or because they were forced by their elders to do certain rituals. Extending your specific knowledge to the entire population of Indian Hindus is not rational or logical, and is fraught with inaccuracy.
=>
Third, there is a possibility that the liberalization or secularization of the religion of the majority in a country has a positive impact on the religion of the minority itself.
=>
History does not bear this out completely, given that both Islam and Christianity have been in India for centuries. Yes, Sufism can be cited as an example, but today, even that is being threatened by the Wahabbi strain from outside – we don’t exist in a bubble. Besides, wasn’t it the secular and pluralistic nature of Hinduism that allowed people of different religions to find shelter in India and continue practicing their religion (Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, Dalai Lama), as well as allowed different philosophical schools within Hinduism to flourish and co-exist?
=>
Fourth, the criticism coming from within a community is much more effective than those coming from people outside the fold.
=>
There is some merit to this argument, assuming that the community is open to criticism from inside, and there’s no concept like ‘fitna’ to prevent community members from speaking out and implementing progressive changes. Yet, if you are a Hindu (given that you are part of that community), what’s the basis of your Hindu identity, if not religion? If you consider yourself an Indian and an atheist, then it shouldn’t matter whether you criticize Hindus, Muslims, Baha’is or Sikhs – all are fair game since they’re all Indians, and with access to the internet, lack of knowledge about their tenets or customs or beliefs is not a valid excuse anymore. And if someone could write “Rangeela Rasool” decades ago when there was no internet…
=>
The fifth and most important reason is the brutal fact that the Hindu fundamentalist forces (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini, etc) have been on the rise since the late 1970s.
=>
Correct. But have you given some thought to the conditions that made it possible for their ascendancy, and who created those conditions, and whether those conditions still exist or not? If you did, it’s not evident in your post. (Hint: so-called “secularism” that was added to the constitution during Emergency as well as its perverted application by all political parties, with Congress showing the path – yet your post doesn’t even mention Congress. Is that rational? Do you by any chance vote for Congress or are sympathetic to it?)
An atheist is an atheist – you seem to be making categories of atheists based on religion.
=>
Are you sure that you didn’t leave out some very obvious reasons (“elephant in the living room,” as they say) for why you don’t criticize Muslims in India and only stick to Hindus?
- Do you consider Muslims as Indians? If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead. Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.
- Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?
- Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe? That is indeed the most effective tactic used to prevent people from speaking out and leads to self-censoring.
Here’s what I think:
1. Universal application of the concept of secularism needs to happen. Currently, its meaning as well as application is nothing but perverted, with all political parties indulging in it.
2. Law-and-order situation needs to change and become stricter.
3. Better journalistic standards – readers jump to conclusions based on faulty and biased reporting.
Once these three are in order, you won’t need to write a post justifying why you only criticize Hinduism, and will be free to criticize any religion.
Kaafir,
Thanks for your comment. I will leave it to Manoj to respond to the relevant points addressing his post, but I would like to address one part:
“Are you sure that you didn’t leave out some very obvious reasons (”elephant in the living room,” as they say) for why you don’t criticize Muslims in India and only stick to Hindus?
- Do you consider Muslims as Indians? If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead. Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.
- Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?
- Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe? That is indeed the most effective tactic used to prevent people from speaking out and leads to self-censoring.”
Let me reassure you that none of the reasons you mention as possible explanations for the absence of ex-Muslim writers at Nirmukta had even occurred to me.
On the contrary, I tried to make the group as broad and representative of the country as possible. I specifically targeted ex-Muslims and women writers in order to create a balance, even if it was to be a contrived balance. I was turned down by three ex-Muslims from India and two from Pakistan.
Even after they were assured of their anonymity and offered their pick of a pseudonym, not one wanted in. We are still looking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pueVNbuZ2A4
Has anyone here seen this? There are 3 parts of this documentary on youtube.
Hinduism- scientifically proven religion.
Please watch and comment.
I do agree with Murali.
As to Uniform Civil Code (UCC), one of the major obstacles to sell it to the minorities, apart from their fundamentalist leadership, is the clamour of the Hindu fanatics for enacting the UCC giving the wrong impression that what will be brought as UCC is a Hindu Personal Law. It may be noted that the Hindu right was against even the enactment of Hindu Code Bill. The demand from UCC should be made from a secular perspective, emphasizing the rights of the individual, especially women. After all, it is the women who suffer the most under all personal codes based upon religion.
I agree that tolerance towards other religion definitely is not enough to bring any major beneficial change in the society. But tolerance of all differing viewpoints is a must for the well-being any society.
- Manoj
Agree with all the reasons you have given. I would add this too:
Hindu fundamentalists often argue that Hinduism is such a liberal religion and its teachings should serve as a model for the world. And that the others are not so. That might be true but I don’t see reforms in Hinduism happening and the Hindutva organisations who should actually be doing this have nothing other than confrontation with Islam and Christianity on their agenda.
They expect the Muslims to throw out the Shariat and the pardah but will not do anything to cleanse their own caste ridden society!They see cruelty in other religions but forget their own history or get away by interpreting it differently. If they could put themselves in the shoes of the minorities and get a taste of being cornered it would help them take a more liberal view.
The demand for an Uniform Civil Code would then not be a demand for imposing a Hindu civil code on the rest.
But would that tolerance to other religions be enough to bring any beneficial change in the country?
Murali
I partly agree with the above comment. The massacre of Sikhs in Delhi and other parts of North India immediately after the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984 and the statement (When a big tree falls, the earth will shake) of Rajiv Gandhi justifying the massacre were evidently indicate the presence of Hindu fanatics within the Congress party.
The appeasement of fundamentalist leadership of minorities (not the ordinary believers belonging to the minority religions, it should be noted) is also a fact – the law enacted in the wake of Shah Bano judgement, the ongoing protest lead by the student wing of Congress against a school text-book in Kerala are examples.
But it may not be correct to equate Congress party, which uses appeasement of religious fundamentalists for electoral gains) with BJP, which has an umbilical relation with Hindu fascism.
- Manoj
Its unfair to ask others to come up with other important reason but you almost covered majority of the reasons, say like 80% hindu majority. Let me crush some of my neurons and try………..mmmmmmm
Not only the emergency augmented the raise of hind fascism, but the pseudo secularism of the congress party for vote bank from minority to win key constituency also played some roles. I dont think that congress is a party which adore secularist values, so emergency expelled its own cadre so they learned to hindu fascism, but people start to take fascistic perspective due to the congress’s pseudo secular approach for its vested interest.
Then, one other most important point, well it go back to the statics, how come any rationalist cant look at the segregation of the majority of the people by religious values, those who commit such sin are self identify them-self as hindus…..how come any rationalist who cant look at the enormous majority of these malevolent Gurus, who are happened to be hindus and commit crimes in the name of same religion…………
I think these are worth points you missed…….
Personally I am sick of this Pseudo science called vedic Science…………