ews considered ‘modern’ (albeit the modernity part was a joke since there is no view which was never explored in this society. Also colonialism had nothing to with modernity, infact they were sick people, religion inspired ‘white man’s burden’. Yes the exposure to systematic experimentation (read science) and its technological miracles dented understanding on ‘apara vidya’. Although Hinduism never denied experimentation, science, maths and so on…unlike in west where the prosecution from religion was imminent, but the failure of Hinduism was overwhelming significance on ‘beyond’ (nothing wrong quite normal for any contemplating human) but it undermined the practical realities ….so the best brains of the time searched the ‘mystery of God’ considering practical pursuits demeaning. This imbalance was where degradation set in, since it became excuse for overwhelming mediocrity, devious ways of control (caste and patriarchal norms), at crass level contempt of working class and thus large section of society denied any chance to contribute, the loss was immense. It is not surprising that Indian civilization’s contribution to humanity is the concept of ‘zero’, the idea that comes through contemplation, vagueness (the beauty of OM)…..and that’s where it ends. The practical aspect of Hinduism, some say, ends there!Plethora of philosophies (and lots of cacophony in the name of discussion) is what is left. One may say ‘nothing practical’ but if it helps people to face crisis in life with equanimity then nothing can be more practical, further Hindu way of life may have lots of contradictions, absurdities, contemptuous practices….it has to a large extend paved way for tolerance and cohabitation of different views and beliefs, which in modern world referred to as ‘secularism’. This led to acceptance of Democracy as natural extension. Nothing can explain how one billion people of god knows how many sects, beliefs, faith, languages, race…..and many living in abject poverty, with problems of corruption and nepotism…and what not, are able to live together with not much major problems.
The rise of right wing can be traced to a large extend to the practices the political elite followed for last one century or so, most even contemptuous of Hindu religious expressions, alienating the mainstream Hindus. It also was a direct consequence of organized religion and political positioning of Hindu elite to compensate their loosening hold. Early 20th century was initiation of India as a political entity, post independence the political consolidation gave way to assimilation of Hinduism through popular medium, later prevailing socio-political hypocrisy led to spectacular rise of political parties that also had some extreme fringe elements. To see this as assault to democracy or secularism is stretching the evangelist’s idea of apocalypse. BJP ruling the centre was natural outcome as natural were the reason they were booted out. It is also the failure of self-serving leaders who couldn’t provide an alternative to Congress. Repeating ‘secular’ word doesn’t cut much ice with common people, they can see through the diversions. InIIndeed for last few centuries there have been prosecutions in the name of religion, the status quo was maintained after the Independence (essentially transfer of power), so expressing Hinduism was either equated to regressive practice or even superstition. Not denying there are serious problems here but to dismiss Hinduism as superstition and ridiculing the practices while on the same hand organized religions practices are eulogized is confusing. The reality is superstition can be handled with logic while fundamentals arising of ‘sacred texts’ is considered beyond logic and so misused (here I am not saying logic can explain everything but practices, conventions…can be explained to the context. The idea is religion cannot explain all things. If tried on contemporary problems of the world as also personal problems, it leads to tragedies). The threat to the world is from these sources. Zealots need rallying point and some excuse, if ‘holy books’ provides (however misconstrued or not) the rallying point where civil society is not given space, and excuse provided by neighborhood leaders (substantiated by ‘secular’ media-columnists) we have catastrophe waiting. The ‘red Indians’, the Africans, the aborigines, as also most people in India have faced (and are) facing significant oppressions but they never become ‘crusaders’ or ‘jehadis’, this is not a coincidence. The history of humanity in the later part (referred to as medieval) was about marauding armies most instigated by religion to a significant extent (colonialism was also about Christianity). To call them ‘brave’ is an insult. Any group of people motivated by reason of religion and otherworldly assurance can be turned into killing machines; to call them brave is travesty. The reason why brave people in Africa or ‘red Indians’ never turned vicious marauding Army decimating other culture is not because they didn’t have the potential (killing doesn’t need much potential!) just that they had ‘animistic traditions’, meaning respecting nature, meaning not organized. That doesn’t mean they didn’t kill or invade but it was very limited, motivation may have been immediate gratifications or existential reality. Unlike proselytizing religion- the compelling reason for peace (in islam or christainity), people are ready to kill themselves and ‘others’. The other gets defined as ‘evil’ (in an acute sense unlike animistic traditions) and the killers as ‘sacred’, the contradictions explained as 'path to salvation'. With such motivated ‘army or soldiers of god’ planning the war requires minimal expertise. The worst forms of crimes have been done in the name of religion.
