A Hindu Convert

Let us acknowledge that the greatest advantage of Hinduism is that it has no conversion/ re-conversion rituals whatsoever — one is free to worship any god/ gods/ or none at all and follow any philosophy or belief one fancies. Religion for a Hindu is a path to the final destination of Moksha/ Mukti (मोक्ष/ मुक्ति) i.e. the Liberation of Self or Liberation of Soul from the endless birth-rebirth of the soul. This is inherently the karmic philosophy of the religion: you will reap what you sow.  In many ways, this concept of karma is a built in feature of almost all religions.  You do the right thing and you win a reward and when you do a wrong thing and get punished for it or have to atone for it.  It seems so very logical!

Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family - “vasudhaiva kutumbakam” (वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम) and therefore it accepts all forms of beliefs and dismisses labels of distinct religions which would imply a division of identity. Hence, Hinduism is devoid of the concepts of apostasy, heresy and blasphemy.  Some academics and many practitioners refer to Hinduism using the Sanskrit phrase “Sanatan Dharma” (सनातन धर्म), meaning "the eternal law", or the "eternal way".

Who is a Hindu?

But let us first understand who exactly is a Hindu.  This term originates from the Old Persian word Hindu which in turn was derived from Indus.  The word Hindu stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which was the historical local term for the Indus River.  The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi, which translates as "the people of the Indus".  “Hindustan” was originally a Persian word that meant "Land of the Hindus" and came into use around 13 century. Around this same period of history the term “Hindu” was used to distinguish ‘Vedic People’ from Yavanas (Greeks) and Mlecchas (barbarians/ non-vedic people – i.e. those outside the caste system).  The term Hinduism was introduced into the English language in the 19th century to denote the religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions native to India and Hindu was a person who practiced such tradition which now denotes religion.

The geographical term Bharat (भारत), is recognized by the Constitution of India as an official name for the country.  Bharat comes from the mythological figure, Bharata (भरत), which some Indian scriptures describe as a legendary emperor of ancient India.

In summary:

·         Our country is called ‘India’ in English and ‘Bharat’ in native language.

·         Our citizens of India are called ‘Indians’ in English and ‘Bharatiya’ (भारतीय) in native language though majority still prefer to use the foreign term ‘Hindu’.

·         Our religion is called ‘Hinduism’ in both English and native language (some prefer to use the term Sanatan Dharma)

Generally Hindus include followers of Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, though many of the adherents to such faith may not accept that they are Hindus.  Most notable among them was Mr BR Ambedkar who attempted to shed his tag of being an untouchable by embracing Buddhism.  What he did not realize then was that post Independence Buddha would be incorporated among the 10 avatars (dasavatar) of Vishnu.  When one comes to think of it, neither Guru Nanak (or the subsequent Sikh gurus) nor anyone of the 24 Tirthankara's from Jainism got that advantage.

Hindu vs British & Islamic Morality

Unfortunately many of my Hindu friends are not very well tuned to their own history and culture and tend to consider the views of Europeans (Max Müller, George Frederick William Thibaut, Sister Nivedita, to name a few) as fundamental truths about Hinduism.  The views of white men should not come as a surprise, after all the initial European interaction with the local populace was largely limited to the then ruling class.  Hence there should be no doubt that the British understanding of Hindu culture was mainly through their interactions with the Brahmin/ Kshatriya and to an extent Baniya orthodoxy with whom they had politico-economic transactions.

First the Islamic Rule and subsequently British Rule brought in a new moral compass to the then sexually liberated Hindu.  Islam introduced Hindus to the purdah (पर्दा) system – veiling of women, segregation of sexes, and child marriage (it is part of Shariah).  The British taught Indians the Victorian notion of morality e.g. nudity in any form is unacceptable, marriage after 18 years for a girl and monogamy are now not only accepted but legally established though quite the opposite was the standard norm till a few centuries ago. 

Sex was not a taboo topic in the ancient past and the promiscuity of our Hindu gods, goddesses and even venerable sages was really never considered as a sign of their moral degradation.  Recreational sex/ Sex for Spiritual Growth (Tantric sexual rites) are concepts found largely in Hinduism.  Sex for fun/ recreation was forbidden by both Islam and Christianity.  Hence Islam & Christianity considered sex to be valid only within marriage and that too for procreation purpose.   On the other hand, sex was celebrated and even worshiped – whether in the form of the worship of the Shivalingam; or the Androgynous God - the half man/ half woman avatar of Shiva as Ardhanarishvara or Shiva’s sexual union with Vishnu (as “Mohini”, the only female avatar of Vishnu) resulting in the birth of “Ayyappan”, etc. 

If we consider the reactions of today’s current right wing Hindu groups to certain painters, films and western festivals one would think Hindus thought otherwise.  Despite this, our Hindu sensibility is embedded to deeply and therefore we are more forgiving of sexual transgressions of our leaders and artists than would be possible among the West.  Consider the easy acceptance of a porn star (Sunny Leone) as a main stream Bollywood artist in India or some of the polygamous relationship of famous Hindu actors/ actresses something that is not only scandalous but unthinkable in the Christian West.

Hindu & Caste are inextricably linked

One thing that today’s Hindu do not readily or openly acknowledge is that that we Indians are a deeply divided society... not just superficially by language or religion but also by caste (varana) and sub-castes (jati).  Testimony to this is the lack of 'social anger' on reports on Khap Panchayats and a very low acceptance of inter-caste marriages. 

We must remember that anyone outside of the four varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras) was termed as an untouchable (or the currently acceptable term for Dalit is SC/ ST[1]).  This definition includes all foreigners (i.e. anyone who not a Bharatiya) since they did not and could not belong to any caste as prescribed in Manusmriti (मनुस्मृति - Laws of Manu). In the good old days (say not as far back as 500 years ago) no respectable (euphemism for high caste) Hindu would travel overseas since he/she would most likely be treated as untouchable (a-varana or Panchama or achoot or the new pejorative Dalit) on return.  This was because there was no way of ascertaining that the such person was able to ensure continued purity of his/ her caste tenets in matters of food, clothing, sex and other such day to day matters.  Purity of caste often demanded that not even the shadow of an untouchable should fall on the high-caste. 

Even today in rural India, Dalits are sometimes barred from using wells used by non-Dalits, forbidden from going to the barber shop and entering temples. In schools, there are instances of Dalit children being asked to clean toilets and to eat separately, although with greater awareness, stricter laws and recruitment of larger number of Dalits the government comes down strongly in these cases and punishes the offenders, as soon as these are highlighted.

Conversion within Hinduism - Past

Hindus often feel smug satisfaction in the erroneous belief that Hinduism was never propagated by violent means like Islam or by material allure as done by Christian missionaries.  Why do I say erroneous?  Here is a short history where Hindus did convert one another whether by influence or by force.

Conversion of Jains to Shaivism:

Around the 8th century CE, Hindu philosophers Kumarila Bhatta and Adi Shankara tried to restore the orthodox Vedic religion, and Shaivite singers introduced Jains to Shaivism. Under these influences, Jain kings became Shaivite. Sundara, a Pandaya ruler, is known to have persecuted about eight thousand Jain monks who refused to convert along with him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_massacre).  During the 11th century Brahmana Basava, a minister to the Jain king Bijjala, succeeded in converting numerous Jains to the Lingayata, a Shaivite sect hostile to Jains. They destroyed various temples belonging to Jains and adapted them to their use.

Conversion of Jains to Vishnuism:

Vishnuism appeared around the same time as Shaivism; the Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana, also known as Bittideva, became a follower of Vishnu under the influence of Ramanuja. It is said that he ordered the Jains to be thrown in an oil mill and crushed if they did not convert. Events such as these resulted in the growth of Hinduism to the detriment of Jainism. Jains compromised by following Hindu rituals and customs and invoking Hindu deities in Jain literature

Conversion of Buddhists to Hinduism:

Historian S. R. Goyal opines that the decline of Buddhism in India is largely the result of the hostility of Brahmans. Hindu Saivite King, Mihirakula (who ruled from 515 CE), suppressed Buddhism as well. He did this by destroying monasteries as far away as modern-day Allahabad.  The Hindu Saivite ruler Shashanka of Gauda (590–626) destroyed the Buddhist images and Bo Tree, under which Siddhartha Gautama is said to have achieved enlightenment. Pusyamitra Sunga (185 BC to 151 BC) was hostile to Buddhism, he burned Sutras, Buddhists shrines and massacred monks.  At least two Pallava rulers, Simhavarma and Trilochana, are known to have destroyed Buddhist stupas and have had Hindu temples built over them.

These examples of conversion within Hinduism were largely restricted to the period when Buddhism and Jainism flourish between 100 BCE and 500 CE and died out once Jainism was restricted to few belts and Buddhism was largely banished overseas.

Conversion in Hinduism - Present

Hindu revival and interest in protecting its own, more or less coincided with the introduction of the present modern egalitarian form of Indian education system which is largely a gift of the British.  Prior to this formal education was restricted only to the upper castes.

Thought 1 – Understanding Vasudhaiva kutumbakam & Sarva Dharma Sambhava:

Now consider two concepts within Hinduism that are considered key to the faith:

·         “Vasudhaiva kutumbakam” meaning the whole world is one single family.

·         “Sarva Dharma Sambhava”, which literally means that all dharma (truths) are equal to or harmonious with each other. This statement is also taken as meaning "all religions are the same" - that all religions are merely different paths to God or the same spiritual goal of moksha.

If these two statements are accepted as truisms within Hinduism, then it implies that everyone in this world is Hindu (as we all belong to one single family) and the various paths that we follow all lead us to the same spiritual goal of salvation/ moksha.  Then Hinduism clearly negates the need to convert to achieve one’s spiritual goal.

Thought 2 – Understanding Sanatan Dharma:

Many Hindu practitioners refer to Hinduism using the Sanskrit phrase “Sanatan Dharma”, meaning "the eternal law", or the "eternal way".  This definition makes Hinduism to be inclusive of a wide spectrum of laws and prescriptions of "morality" based on “karma”, “dharma”, and “societal norms” unlike Christianity or Islam.   Hence once again we need to ask ourselves, if the way or law is eternal and inclusive, why does it matter to a Hindu, which path another fellow Hindu follows – believing in a god, in many gods, in no gods, in a god of this world, in a god in some other world, or even in a god not of Indian origin – ultimately the goal is salvation/ mukti/ moksha.

Thus it does not matter to Hindus which “Dharma” they follow as long as they seek “परम ब्राह्मण/ परम आत्मां” i.e. god or “मोक्ष” i.e. “Liberation of the Self/ Soul”

Thought 3 – Overcoming Caste:

The necessity to maintain caste purity could be one of the reasons why for many centuries Shankaracharyas never went beyond the socio-cultural-political boundaries of India to propagate and they would be seen as defiled.  The other could be that they preferred to travel by foot rather than travel by any 'vahan' (carriage) which was considered inappropriate.  Could a Brahmin (in the olden days) imagine himself travelling in the company of low-caste people whether with a caravan, or in a bus/ train/ plane or even a ship?  It was only sometime in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that people like Swami Vivekananda and Shankaracharya of Govardhan Math, Swami Bharati travelled overseas to spread the message of Hinduism. 

When converting a non-Hindu to Hinduism, we have also to decide which caste he/ she should be convert into?  No one can be a Hindu and be without a caste denomination!  After all being caste-less is equivalent to being an untouchable – a Dalit – an Achoot.  Just imagine, you are recently converted to Hinduism and then discover the awful reality that you are now at social order that is lower than that of a Shudra?  You now have the unenviable task of climbing up the Hindu social ladder which can only gained by series of births-rebirths. 

Does it then make sense to convert to Hinduism?  The answer is self evident.

One interesting question that any true blooded Hindu must ask – why almost all neo-Hindu groups try to propagate Hinduism only in white-man’s country?

Hindu Renaissance

Interestingly much of the converts to Islam and Christianity from Hinduism came from the lower castes/ sub-caste largely as a response to rejection of their lowly status among Hindus and perceived benefits and treatment as social co-equals among the followers of these religions. 

Post Independence winds of change can be seen blowing across the caste dominated Indian landscape.  Affirmative action for the benefit of lower castes along the lines of American laws for the benefit of ‘non-whites’ were getting passed.  Laws transferring land ownership to the landless (read Dalit farmers) and reservation of government jobs to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have now been grudgingly accepted.  Much of the response has been from the upper castes and political aware with the passing of Mandal Commission's report which confirmed practice of affirmative action under Indian law which recommended increasing job quota from 27% to 49.5%.

The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted by the Parliament of India, to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes has definitely contributed to reduction of overt atrocities against Dalits.

Greater job opportunities in metros and large cities have attracted people of all castes to congregate.  Economic necessity has forced people to live in multi-story buildings. People are now no longer finding it taboo to stay with a neighbour who till 50 years ago would have avoided.  Greater access to education, spiritual and political philosophy via internet; easier anonymity available in a city as compared to a village; and low cost communication via mobile telephony all contribute to greater mingling of sexes and lowering of caste distinctions. 

With growth in the political fortunes of the Dalits, many right wing liberal Hindus have realised the need to integrate the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes and now even the Other Backward Castes (OBCs) into the mainstream.  However the response sometimes take on a violent character as can be seen in the murderous attack on Dr. Graham Stuart Staines or the rape and murder of nuns or the demolition of Babri Masjid and at other times seeks to reconvert those already converted.  However such efforts to re-conversion have been restricted to Christians.  Attempting to reconvert Muslims back to Hinduism will have a swift and violent response – both on the apostates and those sponsoring apostasy.

It may of course take another 3-6 generations before Hindu society becomes more egalitarian which alone would be the one true way to ensure that its adherents don’t lose faith in the religion to which they were born.

---

[1] SC/ ST are an acronym for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.  The Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) are two groupings of historically disadvantaged people that are given express recognition in the Constitution of India. During the period of British rule in the Indian sub-continent they were known as the Depressed Classes

A Constitutional Question of Morality

The Trigger

Few days ago one of my nieces referenced a newspaper item about implementation of a law / rule that is being used to restrict women’s freedom.  She then went on to mention that discrimination against women is enshrined in the Indian Constitution while referring to Article 15 (3), which is a provision, meant to PROTECT women.  She complained that Article 15 (3) is being used to PUT LIMITS and RESTRICTIONS on a woman’s freedom to movement which goes against a woman’s freedom to EQUALITY. 

Fundamental Right to Equality

This incident made me refresh my 40+ year old Civics lessons and here is what I found in the Article on Fundamental Right to Equality:

15. (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

Well, an initial reading of Article 15 (3) looked pretty innocuous.  The provision of section 3 in Article 15 of Fundamental Right to Equality seeks to permit the State to make special provisions for women and children. Right, but then let us read it again.  Does this section inform us what would be a clear and cogent reason that could trigger such a provision? 

Does it seek to prevent harm to women and children?  If yes, then how, where and from whom?  Let’s consider drinking alcohol or smoking/ chewing tobacco.  Agreed, there is no doubt citizens are required to be of a certain age (to indicate maturity – and agreed it is arbitrary but is uniformly applied) before they are permitted to cause potential harm to themselves by such consumption.  Accordingly the State has ensured that citizens of both sexes are covered by a uniform ban, limited by age, to consume alcohol and tobacco!  No discrimination against women.

Now let us consider other aspects of a citizen’s life – like eating certain foods, reading certain books, watching certain kind of films, staying out late at night, wearing certain kinds of clothes, etc?  Could such activities also be classified as causing potential harm to women? If yes, then how, where and from whom? Oh, you mean from unruly/ uncultured men? Then why not cover gentlemen in this provision, since gentlemen also need protection from unruly/ uncouth/ gangster kind of citizens.  Sorry, you did not mean “unruly/ gangster elements” but the need to protect the dignity of women from sexually depraved men who are unable to manage their libido? 

So this last suggestion would mean that we are actively considering the ‘decency/ moral’ angle of a woman’s behaviour to decide what could trigger the “special provision for women and children” under Article 15 (3)?  But does section 3 of Article 15 really permit this:

A careful re-reading would make us realize that Article 15 (3) neither requires the State to consider the pre-requisite of “morality or decency” to decide course of action nor ensure that those actions have to be restrictive when instead they could be liberating in content and deployment.  Simply put, it means that Article 15 (3) is an enabling provision making it incumbent on the State to provide for protection of women and children from untoward harm in situations where the State feels that the guaranteed freedom of equality is likely to be hampered.

Is Absolute Equality Possible

As आम भारतीय नागरिक (common Indian citizens) we are programmed to think in relative terms and not absolutes (which probably explains Hindus belief in the many paths to the truth, but I digress).   We thus take it for granted that our fundamental rights are not absolute and it is okay for the Indian constitution to incorporate provisos, exceptions, etc. thereby giving the State over-riding powers, as and when required.

So where does the Indian Constitution provide for the ‘decency or morality’ angle which makes it possible for the Indian State to use it to control citizen behaviour?  To understand this, we need to read another article of the Indian Constitution. 

Let us now read Article 19 on Fundamental Right to Freedom

19. (1) All citizens shall have the right—

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

(italicized by author)

Decency or Morality

Yes you got it!  Article 19 (2), for the first time, introduces “decency or morality” into the constitutional paradigm, with the sole purpose and intent of controlling ‘citizen behaviour’ with respect to speech and expression.  Under Article 19 (2) the State has arrogated the right to decide how, when and where to curb your freedom for expression if you have, in their opinion, violated “decency or morality”.

Is it then a wonder that the Indian State does precious little to curb self proclaimed groups that take to moral policing be it -  

·         in markets (breaking up stores selling valentines day material);

·         in public parks (breaking up couples on account of their youth and physical proximity);

·         in film content (through Film Censor board); or

·         where you stay or earn your lively hood (no action/ penalty levied political parties bashing up residents of UP & Bihar, etc. from working in other states). 

Sometimes the State itself chooses to becomes an accomplice when it uses the law enforcement machinery to curb speech and expression that it considers as a blemish on भारतीय संस्कृति (i.e. Indian Culture) by joining hands with fringe right wing moral groups in putting in jail innocent citizens for acts like publishing cartoons and making comments in cyber space (refer to the cartoon case of Ashim Trivedi and the Facebook comments on the death of a political leader); conducting raids at private residences in the hopes of catching celebrities and influential people at parties; etc.

Beholder’s Eye Decides Beauty

We all are likely to acknowledge (if we really think through) that concepts like “decency or morality” cannot be static either in societal time or space. What were considered ‘moral and/ or decent’ few years ago are no longer considered the in the same way today and vice-versa.  Similarly what is considered “decent or moral” in a city may not be considered so in a rural areas.  Then there are strong differences in understanding about what is “decent or moral” from a youth’s view point and those who are past retirement age.

Get few people randomly and attempt to score the following activities on a 0 – 10 scale of “decency or morality” (where 0 = NA or no and 10 = highest, remember no discussion within the group to obtain consensus):

1.       picking your nose in the bathroom at home or at a public library

2.       watching nude sculptures and painting on temple walls moral or appreciating nude paintings in art galleries

3.       watching ‘choli ke peeche’ or ‘shiela ki jawani’ on TV with your children or watching a live dance floor show

4.       reading “Kamasutra” on the internet or watching reading a racy sex novel like “50 shades of Gray”

5.       giving a quick hug to a member of the opposite sex in private vis-à-vis doing it in public

6.       would your response change to question 5 if the member of opposite sex happens to be a minor relative

Compare your scores with that of your group – could be your friends, uncles/ aunties, sons/ daughters, colleagues.  Do they have similar scores to yours?  No?  Are you surprised?  Surely this simple exercise shows how decency and/or morality lie in the eye (i.e. intentions) of the beholder.  Even for the same person, progress of time and better knowledge impacts the way decency / morality is perceived.

The Touchy Indian

The Indian Constitution in its wisdom does not clarify the meaning of “decency or morality”.  This vagueness has been used by the extreme fringe right wing moral minority to impose their personal version of what is ‘decent or moral’ on the majority. 

We are constantly inflicted by moral policing by the State and right wing moral fanatics about the dress we wear, the artwork we see, the book we read, the food we eat, the comments we make, etc. These groups have one sole intention: to so hyper-sensitize the average Indian that he/ she becomes a walking-talking bomb ready to explode at the slightest suggestion of a hurt.  It is no surprise that we regularly see trigger happy rights groups who need nothing more than just a hint of hurt and use it as a license to become violent and create public order problems – be it a broken statue of leader or a torn holy book or the painting of a goddess or even an opinion in a book about a historical figure.

Some talk of the great Hindu Culture vis-à-vis Western Culture to justify the need to keep strict watch over the ‘decency or morality’ of the younger generation just so they do not go astray.  Would we still consider the following Hindu Cultural practices as decent or moral?

·         Perpetuation of caste system for centuries, if not millennia

·         Continuation of bonded labour (slave system) as a form of cheap labour

·         Committing widowed women folk to the funeral pyre as per tradition of Sati-pratha

·         Child marriage

The answer is an obvious and emphatic NO, if not one of diffident embarrassment.  We therefore had laws to ban it not just because they were exploitative but against all sense of decency and morality of a modern country.  Thankfully those laws were agreed to and reasonably well implemented too.  It is not, as if we have, as a nation not agreed to change our customs and traditions when revealed as offensive in the light of modern philosophy of humanity and ethics.

Yet culture status-quoists (typically extreme fringe right wing moral groups) vehemently protest against any change that goes against their understanding of decency and morality.  They invariably raise the false ruse of “Hindu Cultural in danger” to prevent India from joining and forging ahead in a globalized world.  To use Hindu Cultural Traditions as a benchmark to define what is ‘decent or moral’ is going to put us in a fix since we know that everything within it is not perfect. Hindu Cultural Traditions is work-in-progress; we still need the intelligence, courage and willingness to fix those parts of our culture and tradition which are neither decent nor moral. 

Else we just need a neutral benchmark or yardstick to decide ‘decent or moral’.

PIL to the Rescue

The sad thing is judges do no see themselves as the THIRD PILLAR OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY.  Probably they are so used to playing second fiddle to the Parliament and Executive, that they set aside their logical mental faculties and use their personal biases to entertain a flood of frivolous cases of imagined “hurt feelings” to decide whether to ban some event or book or play or artwork or censure an artist or publisher/ producer.

Probably someone has to give the JUDICIARY a wake up call; file a PIL - public interest litigation – and seek clarification on the purpose of ambiguous terms like “decency or morality” in our Constitution and if the terms cannot be defined or there is possibility of mischief in the purposes then to strike it down as contrary to the intent of the Article on Right to Freedom.

Till then the State and right wing moral fanatic minority would be EQUAL partners in preventing FREEDOM of expression for the majority of Indian Citizens.