Secularism is the most misused term
in this part of the world, there is an attempt made to take the definitions and
understandings of the western societies and somehow coalesce it into Indian
reality. This superimposition goes well with the elitist notions and
requirements. It’s a Faustian deal by the Indian elite –masquerading liberal,
that this society suffers, as primitive identities are sought to be hidden in
cloak of civilised. The West gawking elite have tutored themselves the values
of modernity and notions of democracy. This fake sophistication as identity is
sought to be further chiselled and practised in the form of their visceral
dislike for brethren, the erstwhile collaborators of brutal atrocities. This opposing,
the conflict, acts as a means to consolidate position, posited as beacon of
values, thus copyright over idioms of culture and egalitarianism that is
packaged herein is the easiest route chosen to connect to the vagaries of
modernity, with immense success. It keeps primitive frameworks intact, feudalistic
norms static and exploitative minds in constant hunt for greener pastures that
could be cleverly morphed as modern. The grip over narration has created these
debased anachronism to persist as culture as traditions. Hence they position themselves
as compassionate souls concerned about the wellbeing of the society. Nothing
could be farthest from the truth, and there is no irony in this audacity that comes
with the feudal ease of being tethered to the brutal framework, that has
degraded the society and continues to cause untold miseries.
Hinduism is not a religion as is
understood from the western framework, it doesn’t fall into definitions that
has origin in Semitic religion. Indeed under such framework it cannot even be classified as a religion. It is not an irony that even the reference of the
word Hinduism has alien origin and was meant to describe people living in
certain geographical region, i.e. beyond the river Sindhu (or Indus). The
‘believers’ carrying the burden of semitic worldview when came in contact with
this part of the world, were most likely bewildered by the way of life here,
and had to assign some meaning. The reference was to a set of people, and began
as a secular allusion devoid of religion but that didn’t stick for long. They had
to ascribe based on the faith, any other understanding of a society and people was
beyond their understanding, hence Hindus. A set of people with myriad number of
gods/goddesses –that could be living or dead, animals, trees or stones,
thoughts, counter thoughts and what not. Amazingly fertile and crazily
polytheist, with no specific references of single holy text or scripture that can
take primacy over different views. Nor was there any god that is supreme, that
guides all values, morals so on. Indeed god was just a convenience to suit the occasion.
They found solace in amalgamation of enlightened saints, stories, myths,
hearsay and superstitions, that sought to consolidate the moral fibres in the meanwhile
kept them connected to the natural forces. The forces of Nature were ready
reference for superior forces hence respect, hence reverence and fear,
therefore god. For people of this region everything had the potential of
greatness, that which glimpsed the superior power of nature was worthy of
reverence, hence god. This god wasn’t something beyond but part of everyday
reference, so shouldn’t be mistaken for god as understood by semitic faiths. It
needed no miracles or special messages. The understanding of god and expression
of faith is entirely different.
Since Hindu religion in itself is
in different premise it is but natural that the ideas of secularism,
essentially tolerance or acceptance of different versions of faith, will be
quite different from what is understood by the West through the influence of
Christianity or other semitic ways that forms the basis of liberal values and
democracy herein. To understand that we need to look much deeper into the
process of Hinduism. If you were placed in Indian subcontinent about two
thousand years back or more you wouldn’t even know that the ideas of faith you
carry will soon be referred to as Hinduism. In the myriad ways of life that
accommodated different views and thoughts something sinister was taking its
roots. The power structures were being consolidated, rituals were being refined
for manipulation. Places of worships were being sanitised and taken away from
the sites of common people. You can see that even now: A huge tree that is
rallying point of villagers very soon acquires a shed, later a structure, then
the tree vanishes and you have a temple. Hence the connection with nature is
removed and becomes a scene for greed, egos and petty politics. As these aligned
with rulers and created a self-servicing system they spread with the reach of
state machinery. The primitive system as it percolated brought in savages among ordinary well meaning people while the elite negotiated these by being the arbitrators of this cannibalism. It was the worst known system of society in human
As Hinduism was being
consolidated into power structures by depraved vested interests, grand
philosophies were being eloquently proposed that sought to take the experience
away from the common people. Faith was being ripped away from the premise of common
people and closeted in elevated pedestals. The decadence was couched in
languages and nuances that perpetuated amazing level of cruelty. The elite was
slowly cocooning itself into spiteful crafty ways that could even baffle modern
day psychiatrists, meanwhile the society slipped into incredible levels of
mediocrity, indeed temples became site of debauchery. They hobnobbed with
power, and included divine blessings in their repertory. Kings and sundry
queued up for blessings. Gods started to acquire characteristics of crudeness,
devious ways were now divinely attributes, hence squatters opened the field for
myths that perpetuated heaven in their own justification. The appalling nature,
indeed unethical in most cases, of divinely figures will deeply disturb any
sane person. Therefore now in a clever sleight God was perpetuating squatter’s
worldview. Deceitful acts were sought to be put in broader perspective of
goodness in clever interpretations that became mainstay of squatter’s storytelling
and myth building. In the process ethics was kept ambiguous and hinged on
context, thus easily manipulatable entity. This therefore acquired the core of
Hinduism, hence a way of life among the elites. Now compare the Hindu mythology,
the stories herein, deceitful ways of even gods that will leave you appalled,
and the charming stories of Jataka. The Buddhism exhibited its compassion by
using animals and nature as tellers and consolidators of morals. I need to
point here that the much quoted king Ashoka –as torchbearer of secularism, is
flawed, it wasn’t secularism it was compassion. Some vested interests have
created a narration of Ashoka to work out their narrow end. Compassion is a way
of life in an enlightened surrounding, hence respect for myriad ways, it is not
to be mistaken for a structure that sought to oversee other faiths, hence secularism.
This compassion is where values that defined morals, hence secularism, emerged. Ashoka is not and cannot be a secular
icon, for the simple reason secularism has no meaning without compassion, and
secondly, pushing the western framework to find one’s traction among civilised will
be resisted. Those tethered to primitive framework with burden of mahatmas on their back
shouldn’t be allowed to usurp these legacies.
It need be noted that all the
while enlightened saints and sages, as also common people protested against this
decadence and depraved ways that was being consolidated as Hinduism. And one can assert that all the egalitarian
thoughts and values can be traced to this tradition of protest and enlightenment herein that existed much before
the squatters (or even the temples) and has carried on guiding common people
through the ages. This is space for compassion and benevolence. This is the
tradition of tolerance that has come to be defined as secularism as people know
and have ingrained as a way of life. This is what binds the society. It was not
complementing squatter’s world, it was defending and resisting this negative
pull. In the meanwhile in these protests sects were created, some even acquired
status of religions. Common people associated with these without any thought of
otherness or superiority. It is the same
way they negotiated semitic religions, although the terms of reference of these
were harsh, but they amalgamated it well. Some even converted but carried these
characteristics of leniency in matter of faith, a space untouched by competing
forces. The degree of fracture is what separates Bangladesh from Pakistan, and
prevents radicalisation instigated by crude semitism. It need be pointed out
that common people constantly sought to resist the attempts by ritual driven
squatters as they were exploited. But were increasingly sucked in and trapped
into the crude squatter’s framework, as it dealt with tribulation of life,
matters of death so on, they capitulated. Squatters grip was tight, with acknowledgement
and patronage of rulers they gained credibility and prospered as temples became
pits of depravity. In the feudal nature of the society these were grievous, as exploitations
reached heinous level.
Saints and egalitarian souls were
not in a complementary role to squatters, indeed it was very definitively a
role that was antagonistic. It was a strident opposition to squatter’s depravity
and the crude world they pursued. They sided with the truth and ethical values,
that were vacated from religious precincts. They brought in sanity into the
society that was being cannibalised. In the meanwhile the debauched squatters
dealt these with characteristic ease, instead of comforting the gravity of
issue, they obfuscated the matter by questioning the credentials of the accusers,
and went on constructing the most inhuman sort of worldviews. Credentials here
meant the identity, the status in pecking order, the degree of ordain. This is
so ingrained that this is now replicated as Indians appetite for status and
position. It is not what you do that is important but what is your position,
the ego and sensitivities around it defines the everyday work scenarios, whatever
maybe one’s professional competence. It is not what is said but who is saying? Since it
is not what you do but the position you hold there is a stampede for fancier meaningless designations. Unfortunately
they fail to distinguish between identity and reference. As they are not able
to shirk their entitled world hence mistake position for identity and bring in
squatter’s deviant pattern and debauched value system. Their main aim being to consolidate the position and accrue
benefits. It is this constant strive that defines jobs and aspirations. Qualifications
can be acquired by mugging up or even be bought but attitude cannot be. The despicable attitude
that emerges severely handicapped from the squatter's framework, it is shocking that it is
being connected to god. Such unenlightened self-assured people. The arrogance and pretension of high culture in savage surroundings is what gets me.
Hinduism therefore shouldn’t be
taken in context to other religion. What is being defined as Hinduism is the degenerated
part that is consolidated through feudal power and elaborate structure of control
through cash rich temples and compelling narrations. Traditions herein are
expressions of decadence and unfortunate prominence of these due to firm grip
on narration that they manipulated at their will. People tethered with these
are part of debauchery. Now we see them espousing values and in the name of
western framework of secularism they seek credibility. ‘We must respect religion’
is being posited as egalitarian value hence secularism. Hinduism is not a religion
nor what we see are expressions of Hinduism, these are coalesce of inhuman crudity
that seeks credibility through modern nuances and power structures. Ironically what
is being pushed as secularism, from the evolutionary aspect of ideas of Hinduism
–hence the idea of India to a larger extend, isn’t even considered secularism
at all. Anything that emerges from squatter’s framework is being rejected in
this tradition that is foundation of this society. Indian secularism establishes
and flourishes in rejecting squatter (i.e. caste cannibal) traditions;
it was and is inimical to these expressions. Secularism in Indian context emerges
from the expression of compassion; it was not about state versus religion paradigm.
Indeed it is so secular that it doesn’t even recognise religion nor distinguish
gods. The way Hinduism finds its expression and has consolidated now under the
tutelage of power is the puss that is collected over the centuries from the
gangrene of this society, the places of worship hence temples are putrid pits
and people safeguarding these or tethered to these in anyway are dangerously
decadent. It is no surprise that these decadents when they espouse secularism
it makes us puke. And that they invariably come out as arrogant, cunning and corrupt.
So by adhering to western understanding of secularism they shrewdly classify Hinduism
as religion for their own benefits, while seeking credibility for their primitive
conceptions. In the meanwhile, in the tradition of Indian compassion and tolerance, people kept away from these deceits, they bow to whatever god and move on. There is
nothing to theorise or pontificate, nor do they have tricks to save the world. If
a stone serves purpose, god so be it! The tradition of Jejuri is what defines
it, Kolatkar caught it so well (unfortunately on my recent visit I see signs of
squatters moving in, slow but relentless push of the power structure and exploitative mechanisms, now being replaced by market). In
the best of bhakti tradition that defines this society, and is indeed core of Hinduism
or whatever one may refer it, away from squatters and temples, they sing, dance,
drop some food for the animals and move on. I guess that does really explains it.
