Latest news with #ChandranathBasu
Hans India
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
It is a wonder that only Hindu Traditions face scrutiny
Hindutva, coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892, embodies the eternal essence of Sanatana Dharma, serving as its authentic indigenous name. This article rejects 'Hinduism,' a colonial construct of Sanskrit and English, in favour of Hindutva, while disavowing its politicisation by Savarkar in 1923 for nationalist ends. Here, Hindutva stands synonymous with Sanatana Dharma. Unlike Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which are based on prophetic monotheism and singular sacred texts, Hindutva weaves a vibrant tapestry of diverse practices and philosophies that resist rigid categorisation. Yet, Hindu traditions face a unique challenge: an expectation to justify their rituals through science, a burden rarely imposed on other faiths. This scrutiny, rooted in colonial legacies and an internalised sense of inferiority, stems from a historical compulsion to rationalise sacred practices. By affirming Hindu as a religion, not a mere 'way-of-life,' Hindus can safeguard its sanctity, resolve the tension between science and faith, and reclaim its unapologetic religious identity. This article explores the historical origins of this scrutiny, its modern manifestations, and a path forward to preserve Hindutva's heritage with confidence. Sanatana Dharma- Not a way of Life: The claim that Sanatana Dharma (Hindutva), is a way of life rather than a religion self-defeating undermining its spiritual depth. Hindu is unequivocally a religion, rich with sacred texts, rituals, and philosophies. While its flexible, non-dogmatic framework differs from the rigid prescriptions of Christianity or Islam, this distinction does not diminish its religious character. In fact, Abrahamic faiths, with their strict doctrines, are more rigid ways of life. Labelling Hindutva a way of life invites misinterpretation, exposing its practices to unwarranted scepticism. For example, claiming puja enhances mental clarity shifts its devotional purpose to a scientific claim, inviting critique it was never meant to face. This urge to rationalise stems from a historical inferiority complex, forged over centuries of marginalisation under Muslim and British rule. Embracing Hindutva as a religion, equal in legitimacy to others, is essential to end this cycle of external judgment. The word 'religion' has no equivalent in Indian languages, just as there is no English equivalent for 'Dharma.' A profound Sanskrit non-translatable, Dharma's meaning varies contextually, yet in spiritual contexts, it undeniably means religion. Many Hindus, hesitant to embrace Dharma as religion, fall into the trap of rationalising Hindu traditions with scientific justifications. This compulsion to align sacred practices with rationality inflicts self-imposed wounds, diluting the spiritual depth of Hindu traditions and exposing them to unwarranted scrutiny. By recognising Dharma as equivalent to religion in spiritual contexts, Hindus can liberate their traditions from the need for external validation. Colonial narratives and cultural defensiveness: The unique scrutiny faced by Hindu traditions traces back to colonialism, which portrayed them as exotic, superstitious, or backward to justify colonial rule as a 'civilising mission.' Orientalists like William Jones depicted Hindutva as chaotic, while accounts of the Kumbh Mela focused on crowds rather than its spiritual significance as a pilgrimage for purification. These narratives conflated social issues, like caste, with religious theology, painting Hindutva as flawed. Hindu reformers, internalising this critique, sought to align their traditions with Abrahamic frameworks. Dayananda Saraswati's Arya Samaj, for instance, promoted monotheism, rejected Hindu texts except the Vedas, and condemned murti puja, mimicking Christianity and Islam. This was not a reform but an 'Abrahamisation' of Hindutva. Similarly, at the 1893 Parliament of the World's Religions, Vivekananda presented yoga and Vedanta as rational and scientific, downplaying their spiritual essence to gain Western approval. Colonial education further drove intellectuals like Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan to re-interpret Hindu texts as scientific, a trend that persists in modern Hindu apologetics. Post-independence, anglicised Gurus and organisations like the sangh parivar have continued this rationalisation, notably claiming during International Yoga Day since 2015 that yoga is neither Hindu nor spiritual. Centuries of foreign rule fostered a defensive mindset, compelling Hindus to justify their practices empirically, unlike Christian and Muslim rituals, which rest on faith alone. This historical pressure explains why Hindutva faces demands for rational validation that no religion, Hindutva included, was designed to meet. Rationalising the sacred in modern manifestations: Today, Hindus' tendency to justify sacred practices with scientific claims undermines their spiritual essence and invites scepticism. Three examples illustrate this trap: • Fasting in Festivals: Practices like Navratri and Ekadashi fasts, rooted in devotion, are often recast as health trends, such as detoxification. This overshadows their sacred purpose, unlike Christian Lent or Muslim Ramzan, where fasting is embraced as an act of faith without scientific justification. • Cow Reverence: The cow's sanctity is diluted by dubious claims, like cow urine curing cancer, which invite ridicule. In contrast, Islam's doctrinal aversion to pigs avoids debate by asserting divine will, not empirical proof. • Vedic Chanting and Homa: These rituals, meant for spiritual transcendence, falter under scientific scrutiny they were never intended to face. Christian carols or the Muslim azan face no such demand for validation, as they make no scientific claims. By tying sacred practices to science, Hindus expose them to standards they cannot meet, fuelling external critique and diminishing their spiritual depth. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which rest on belief alone, Hindus' compulsive obsession with rationalising their sacred practices invites a self-inflicted vulnerability Reclaiming these practices as acts of faith, beyond empirical validation, is crucial to preserving their sanctity. The science-faith divide-A fundamental distinction: The root of this issue lies in a misunderstanding of science-faith separation. Science relies on empirical experiments, data, and testable hypotheses to uncover physical truths, while religion uses rituals and scriptures to address questions of meaning and transcendence. Judging faith by scientific standards does not align with its spiritual purpose, just as judging scientific theories by religious principles stifles inquiry. Hindu discourse often overlooks this distinction, driven by a colonial legacy that demands empirical justification. Christianity and Islam avoid this trap by grounding their rituals belief, not science. For example, no one questions the validity of Islamic salat or Christian communion with demands for scientific proof. By recognising this divide, Hindus can liberate their traditions from unwarranted scrutiny, allowing rituals to stand as expressions of faith, not scientific hypotheses. Reclaiming Hindutva's religious identity: To navigate this science-faith dilemma, Hindus must reject the compulsion to rationalise their practices and affirm Hindu as a religion, not a way-of-life, rooted in faith and tradition. Three strategies can guide this path: • Affirm Hindutva as a Faith-Based Tradition: By framing Hindu as a religion like other faiths, Hindus can present practices like puja and festivals as acts of devotion, not scientific tools, deflecting demands for rational validation. For instance, puja fosters mindfulness and gratitude, akin to Christian prayer or Islamic salat. This approach counters the historical pressure to prove Hindutva's validity. • Reclaim Narrative Control: Hindus must assert that their traditions are religious practices, not requiring scientific validation. While yoga's health benefits are documented, its spiritual goal of self-realisation should remain paramount. Rejecting claims like 'homa purifies air' preserves the sacred purpose of rituals and breaks the cycle of self-inflicted critique rooted in colonial pressures. • Educate the NextGeneration: Hindu gurus, parents, and educators should foster pride in Hindutva's traditions without resorting to rationalisations. Cultural workshops, temple progr ams, and school curricula can teach youth the spiritual significance of Hindu festivals and traditions, building confidence in their heritage. These steps counter the historical pressure to rationalise Hindu traditions and practices, allowing its rituals to stand as acts of faith, not subjects of scientific debate. By distinguishing religion from science, Hindus can honour their traditions' timeless wisdom without the burden of external validation. Conclusion Hindutva (Sanatana Dharma) stands as a unique religion, defined by its diverse practices and rich spiritual heritage. Yet, it faces unparalleled scrutiny, driven by colonial narratives and a compulsive tendency among modern Hindus to justify its rituals through science. From Christian British portrayals of Hindu practices as backward to reformers' attempts to align them with rational or Abrahamic frameworks, this scrutiny has persisted, intensified by modern rationalisations like claiming health benefits for fasting or cosmic effects for Vedic chanting. These efforts invite skepticism and erode spiritual depth, creating a science-faith dilemma. By affirming Hindu traditions as religious beliefs, rejecting empirical justifications, and educating future generations, Hindus can preserve the sanctity of their approach liberates Hindu traditions from the colonial legacy of validation, allowing it to navigate modernity with confidence and fostering a deeper appreciation for its traditions among Hindus and observers alike. (The author is a retired IPS officer and former Director, CBI. Views are personal)
Hans India
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Not colonial constitution but Hindu majority sustains India's secular demoracy
India stands as the world's largest democracy, a beacon of resilience amidst a region marked by political volatility. India sustains a vibrant secular democracy despite its staggering diversity—linguistic, cultural, religious, and social. Unlike its neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have succumbed to military coups, authoritarianism, and democratic erosion, India's democratic experiment endures. This article argues that India's secular democratic character stems not from its constitution, a document derived from the colonial Government of India Act of 1935, but from the cultural ethos of its Hindu majority. This civilisational framework, with its emphasis on pluralism, dialogue, and coexistence, forms the bedrock of India's democratic success. The argument challenges two narratives: the left-liberal view of secularism, which often sidelines Hindu identity, and the Sangh Parivar's politicised Hindutva, which distorts Sanatana Dharma into a divisive ideology. Both misrepresent the Hindu Majority's inclusive ethos, obscuring its role as a unifying force in India's democracy. We will examine how the Hindu majority's cultural values—philosophical flexibility and acceptance of diversity—sustain India's secular democratic framework. Defining Hindutva-A pluralistic foundation: The term 'Hindutva,' coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892 for his eponymous book, encapsulates the essence of Sanatana Dharma, India's ancient spiritual tradition, distinct from the colonial label 'Hinduism.' This article adopts Basu's definition, emphasising Hindutva's inclusivity and pluralism, unlike Savarkar's 1923 nationalist interpretation, which some view as exclusionary. Hindutva, the new name of Sanatana Dharma, embraces diverse indigenous traditions, as articulated in the Rigveda's maxim, 'ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti' (Truth is one, but the wise express it in many ways). This ethos fosters a democratic temperament by encouraging dialogue, coexistence, and adaptability. Hindu majority's cultural ethos: The bedrock of democracy: India's Hindu majority, comprising over 70% of the population, is shaped by Hindutva's principles of flexibility and diversity. Unlike systems like Christianity, Islam, or Communism, which often emphasise conformity, Hindutva embraces diverse practices and philosophies. This pluralism extends to intellectual and social spheres, fostering a culture of dialogue and coexistence that aligns with democratic principles. The Hindu tradition of shastrartha (scholarly debates) exemplifies this ethos. Scholars from diverse schools engaged in respectful exchanges, mirroring democratic practices of negotiation and consensus-building. The concept of dharma, emphasising duty, justice, and harmony, further supports democratic values. These cultural traits enable India to manage its diversity, ensuring free elections, peaceful power transitions, and robust free expression within a secular framework. In contrast, Islamic Pakistan and Bangladesh have struggled to sustain democracy. Pakistan, founded as an Islamic state, has faced military coups (1958, 1977 and 1999) and authoritarianism, while Bangladesh, despite an initially secular framework, adopted Islam as its state religion in 1988, experiencing military rule (1975–1990) and democratic backsliding. Their exclusionary politics have marginalised and persecuted minority Hindus, including the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh, where over 30 lakhs were killed. India's Hindu majority, by contrast, has fostered a pluralistic environment, integrating diverse communities into the democratic process. While India's constitution provides a legal framework, it is the Hindu majority's cultural ethos—rooted in Hindutva's pluralism—that sustains secular democracy. The constitution, largely a derivative of colonial legislation, lacks the cultural depth to fully explain India's democratic resilience. Instead, it is the Hindu majority's tolerance and adaptability that have prevented India from succumbing to the authoritarian tendencies seen in its neighbours. Historical evidence: Hindutva's democratic roots: India's ancient history reflects practices aligned with democratic values. The ganasanghas (6th–4th century BCE) such as the Licchavis, involved collective decision-making, hereby suggesting openness to participatory governance. While limited to elites, these systems laid the groundwork for inclusivity. Chanakya's Arthashastra emphasises consultation, justice, and ethical governance, resonating with modern democratic ideals. The emergence of Buddhism and Jainism from the Hindu cultural matrix reinforced democratic values. The Buddhist sangha employed consensus-based decision-making, influencing societal norms, while the Bhakti movement (7th–17th centuries CE) transcended social and sectarian boundaries, promoting egalitarianism. These traditions shaped a cultural ethos conducive to dialogue and coexistence, evident in India's post-independence ability to manage diversity. The Hindu majority has historically supported persecuted communities. Jewish settlements thrived in Kerala and Mumbai since the 2nd century BCE. Zoroastrians (Parsis) found refuge in Gujarat after fleeing Islamic conquests in the 7th–8th centuries. Tibetans escaping Chinese oppression in the 20th century preserved their culture in India. This openness, without requiring conversion, reflects Hindutva's pluralistic ethos. Constituent Assembly's flawed framework: India's Constituent Assembly, predominantly Hindu, instinctively enshrined secular democracy, reflecting the Hindu civilisational pluralistic ethos. However, influenced by a colonial, Abrahamic lens, it crafted a constitution that denied Hindus equal rights. Articles 25–30 grant minorities special privileges while subjecting Hindu temples to state control, creating an imbalance that marginalises Hindu identity under the guise of secularism. This pseudo-secularism ignores the lesson of India's 1947 partition, driven by Muslim demands for a separate state, which underscored the Hindu majority's role as a shield against divisive forces, ensuring India's unity and democratic resilience. Misrepresentations of Hindutva: Two ideological streams undermine the contributions of India's Hindu majority: pseudo-secularism and pseudo-Hindutva. The left-liberal establishment, rooted in the Constituent Assembly's flawed pseudo-secular framework, misinterprets secularism as suppressing Hindu identity. It dismisses Hindutva's pluralistic ethos as divisive, distorts history by downplaying Islamic atrocities and temple destruction, and blames Hindus for the partition. This alienates the majority, fostering cultural dispossession and weakening India's secular democratic cohesion. Conversely, the Sangh Parivar claims to champion Hindu identity but distorts Hindutva's inclusive essence for political gain. Labelled as pseudo-Hindutva, their approach manipulates Hindu symbols and rhetoric to mobilise support while sidelining Hindutva's philosophical core. By focusing on socio-religious divides rather than addressing key Hindu grievances—such as constitutional inequalities, state control over temples, and legal disadvantages—it deepens polarisation and undermines India's democratic framework. Preserving Hindu majority: India's secular democracy relies on its Hindu majority to sustain its pluralistic ethos. However, aggressive conversion campaigns by Christianity and Islam threaten this foundation. The 1956 Niyogi Committee Report exposed predatory conversion tactics and recommended a constitutional amendment to ban it. Yet, Article 25's inclusion of the right to "propagate" religion enables demographic and cultural subversion under the guise of religious freedom. Religious freedom, though a democratic cornerstone, is not absolute. Just as the state criminalises suicide to protect life, it cannot allow the erosion of millennia-old traditions through conversion. To address this, India should amend Article 25 to remove "propagate," curbing conversions while preserving the right to practice faith. By safeguarding its Hindu majority, India can protect the cultural ethos that anchors its secular democracy and ensure its civilisational legacy endures. Strengthening democracy through Hindutva: To bolster its secular democracy, India must integrate Hindutva's universal values: Education Reform: Revise textbooks to reflect historical accuracy, highlighting Hindutva's democratic roots while avoiding exclusionary nationalism. Constitutional equality: Amend Articles 25–30 to grant Hindus equal rights, freeing temples from state control, ensuring fairness. Dharma-based policy: Develop policies rooted in dharma, promoting justice and harmony through community-driven interfaith dialogues. Interfaith coexistence: Leverage Hindutva's historical inclusivity to foster dialogue among religious communities, strengthening democratic resilience. Conclusion Critics may argue that emphasising India's Hindu majority risks promoting majoritarianism. However, recognising the Hindu civilisational ethos is not about privileging Hindus but acknowledging the cultural framework that has historically enabled pluralism. Secularism, in this context, does not reject religion or civilisational identity but ensures equal treatment for all. India's secular democracy thrives not because of its colonial constitution but due to the Hindu majority's cultural ethos, deeply rooted in Hindutva's pluralistic values. Unlike its neighbours, India's Hindu foundation has fostered inclusivity, contributing to its democratic resilience. By integrating Hindutva's universal principles through education, constitutional reforms, and inclusive policies, India can strengthen its secular democracy. This approach offers a model of governance that harmonises cultural heritage with secular principles, providing a balanced framework for a polarised world. (The writer is a retired IPS officer, and a former Director of CBI. Views are personal)
