Evaluating Mahatma Gandhi

Mohan R. Limaye

Professor Emeritus

Boise State University

Evaluating Mahatma Gandhi

This is not a research paper; hence, there are no footnotes, just a very few quotes or citations.  It is like an Op Ed, a personal opinion buttressed by evidence.

My focal points

(1)              Mahatma Gandhi was committed to achieving justice through non-violent mass protests, civil disobedience, and non-cooperation with oppressors.

(2)              Purity of means, primacy of ethics, and transparency of behavior were his life-long pursuits and preoccupations.  He called them his “Experiments with Truth.”

Important dates in Gandhi’s life

      1869    Was born in today’s state of Gujarat in India
      1888-91 Lived in England to study to become a barrister

1890s       Suffered racial discrimination just like the other Indians in South Africa

1907        Organized non-violent protests against the mandatory registration of Asians in South Africa

1930         Undertook the famous “salt” march as a symbolic protest against the British-imposed taxes (Upheld the “American” No-taxation-without-representation principle)

1930s  Continued working toward the removal of untouchability

1942         Began a non-violent, non-cooperation mass movement demanding that the British “Quit India”

1948    Was assassinated in his 78^th year in Delhi

Mahatma Gandhi, to my knowledge, was the first person in human history to use (consistently) non-violent and non-cooperation mass movement as a form of protest to achieve measurable and specific political (in this case, independence for India) goals.  Individual protesters abound in history.  Some Indian leaders (like Lokmanya Tilak) before Mahatma Gandhi had indeed begun awakening the lower classes of India against the British rule.  Gandhi had encouraged pride and self-esteem among his compatriots, East Indians of South Africa during the two decades he lived there.  After his arrival in India for good in 1915, he was also the first one to mobilize the masses on such a grand scale (not to mention, for the first time, India’s women) against injustice and foreign rule in essentially non-violent protests.    He strengthened the newly cultivated confident self-image of even the lowly and the oppressed, of the illiterate and the poor, of India.

 Gandhi’s struggles against various kinds of oppression

§         Racism:  In South Africa, where Gandhi’s first experiments in non-violent protests began, he had his initial encounter with racism. He was thrown out of a first-class railroad car by a white man because of his skin color, his brownness. The British attitudes towards Indians were racist.  Even though it was in India that the British finally (in 1947) gave up in the face of increasingly large protests against their rule, through ceaseless protests in South Africa, Gandhi had already secured some measure of success in the removal of the discriminatory regulation for Indians to carry special identity cards.

§         Sexism:  Even though Gandhi’s views on women’s education, on what they should be taught were rather antiquated, women in India (except princesses or monarchs) had rarely any public and political voice before Gandhi. He inspired women’s full and active participation in the mass civil disobedience campaigns he led against the British rule in India. Women courted jail in the thousands during these protests. As Stanley Wolpert, an American scholar of Indian history, has said Gandhi did more to advance women’s freedom or emancipation in India than any other single individual in four thousand years of India’s history.  The post-independent India, consequently, had a higher presence of women as governors and legislators than the U.S. and many other western countries (that were trumpeting their democracies) had in the 1950’s and the 1960’s. Ordinary non-privileged women thus, for the first time in Indian history, became vocal and recognized.

§         Casteism: Over several decades, Gandhi and his followers protested against the blight of untouchability among the Hindus. Finally, the upper castes had to recognize the right of the untouchables to worship in public temples. Many occupations formerly closed to them opened up. As a result of Gandhi’s  (and, even more so, because of Ambedkar’s, a leader of the untouchables or Dalits) influence, the first major social legislative reform of independent India was the outlawing of untouchability and the instituting of reservation of seats (compensatory affirmative action) for the former untouchables in public-sector jobs and colleges.

·         Principles of Non-Violent Protest

§         The cause must be just. Non-violence, as a method of protest, establishes still further the moral superiority of the protesters and the issues they advocate.

§         The leader sets a single, identifiable, and specific goal. After each goal is attained, further goals are pursued, one at a time, according to the urgency felt by those oppressed or unjustly treated.

§         Total non-cooperation, non-collaboration with the oppressor is one important instrument/strategy used in the struggle. Breaking unjust laws openly and non-violently is the process. Willingness to die (if it comes to that), readiness to court arrests, and patience to sit indefinitely in jail is the kind of fierce commitment or loyalty to the cause expected of each protester. Boycotts of the businesses of the unjust to hit their pocketbooks and non-payment of taxes are some more effective methods used for the success of the movement.

§         Mass or ever-widening support is crucial for effective non-violent protests. Large numbers of dedicated followers are essential for success. Lone acts of protest will be useless (like Thoreau’s).  The power of the media must also be used to the optimum.  If Gandhi were alive today, he would have used the power of the Internet fully.  He certainly used the press optimally.

§         Through persistence, patience, and dedication, the protesters wear out the oppressors. No power can afford to keep hundreds of thousands of protesters in jail for long sentences.  Economic boycotts and long prison terms handed out to the protesters result in a double whammy that creates havoc for the economy of the oppressive power, which inevitably yields.

§         No personal hatred or animosity can be entertained by the protester (Satyaagrahi). In other words, the “enemy” is not demonized.  A proof of Gandhi’s success in this regard lies in the fact that the British and the Indians have not retained hostility toward each other as people.

§         The oppressor’s conscience must be aroused or appealed to. Ultimately, enemy persuasion, not enemy elimination, is the aim of the protester. The oppressor’s civilized mind or sense of humanity, which is capable of feeling guilty and embarrassed, needs to be addressed by a non-violent leader.  That is why non-violence will not work in every situation.

Under favorable circumstances, however, non-violent protests are a more powerful force than brute strength or sheer military power.  In a later decade (in the 1970s) in India, an avowed Gandhian like Jaya Prakash Narayan led a successful non-violent movement against Indira Gandhi’s autocratic rule, which led to her ouster in the general election of 1977.  In the following examples, the successes were a result of specific and achievable goals and persistence in attaining them (not one-time attempts), while the failures could be attributed to the absence of such goals and lack of persistence.

·         Modern Applications 

§         Successful protests:

     _Solidarity Movement under the leadership of Lech Walesa in Poland

            _Black Africans’ boycotts of white apartheid businesses in South Africa

_Liberian women’s (both Christian and Muslim) struggle for winning peace in that war-torn country under the leadership of Leymah Gbowee

§         Unsuccessful protests:

-        Several scattered anti-WTO (World Trade Organization) protests

-        “Occupy Wall Street” protests

-        The Tiananmen Square protest in Beijing, China in 1989

-        The 1996 “Million Men March” by Louis Farrakhan (an African-American leader)

§         Half-successful protests:

- Japanese protests in Okinawa against the U.S. military bases in Japan

- In Puerto Rico, protests against the U.S. bombing exercises as part of military training

·         Potential Applications

§         Demand for the removal of American troops stationed in various parts of the world (if the people from these regions do not want them), for instance, from:

-        The Korean demilitarized zone

-        The Middle-East (Kuwait)

-        European countries including Turkey

Within the United States, the demands for universal health insurance and for bringing American troops home abroad, from Iraq and Afghanistan could similarly succeed through Gandhian methods.

All the above principles apply precisely in these cases.  My purpose in mentioning modern applications as possible or feasible is to insist that Gandhian principles and methods are as relevant and effective today as they were half or a full century ago.   They could be tested again and again in our world.

Some More Aspects of Gandhi’s Uniqueness

(1) Gandhi believed in the imperative of total reform or thorough change within one’s own self.  He set an example for others by his own behavior.  If you do not change yourself, you cannot hope to (nor do you have a moral right to) change others.  This insistence of his led to other movements by his followers that sought total change, inside out, such as voluntarily giving away lands to the landless (bhoo-daan) and committing one’s life to a cause (jeevan-daan).  It is beside the point whether these movements succeeded or not in achieving their goals.  What is crucial is that Gandhi’s example inspired such movements.

(2) Gandhi exploded the conventional wisdom and ideology about self-interest, foreign relations, and war.  Ever since the days of Chanakya/Kautilya (India’s 4^th century BCE ideologue on statecraft), Machiavelli, and our modern-day realpolitik gurus like Henry Kissinger, the unchallenged wisdom has been to regard your enemy’s enemy as your friend, or to maintain that everything is fair in love and war, and to assert that national interest comes before everything else.  Of course, the flaw in this kind of thinking is the proponents’ very short-term view of national interest and their ignorance or inability to recognize who one’s real friends are.  Gandhi asserted the primacy of ethics over expediency as the foundation for state policy as well as for individual conduct. 

Human history has proven repeatedly that, though it might seem a nation’s interest is being served through the pursuit of age-honored, conventional wisdom and strategies, it is just a mirage.  Short-sighted policies and actions come to haunt the perpetrator, sooner or later.  I may cite a few instances:  During the American War of Independence, the French assisted the colonists in their fight against the British by providing them with weapons, soldiers, and money (which, incidentally, contributed to French bankruptcy).  French assistance was triggered by the above quoted dictum that your enemy’s enemy is your friend—the French and the British had been enemies and rivals in empire building for centuries.  However, in the aftermath of the war, the newly independent Americans and the British made a truce and became friends (except when they fought the War of 1812).  And the French found themselves left in the lurch.  Similarly, during Reagan’s presidency, American policy makers thought that the enemies of the Soviet Union, the Mujahaddins, whom he called “freedom fighters,” were the friends of the U.S.  The United States, therefore, funneled to them large sums of money and sophisticated weapons through Pakistan’s spy agency.  The subsequent history of the new manifestation of the Mujahaddins, the Taliban and Al Qaida, who attacked Americans, proved the fallacy of the wisdom (!) contained in the proverb “your enemy’s enemy is your friend.”  To reiterate Gandhi’s ethical stand, he would have disapproved of such expedient but morally dubious (and, in the long run, harmful) policies.

(3) Gandhi was a practical strategist, a hard-nosed planner, not a dreamer.  He had a good sense of drama.  His protests, whether with political or social goals in mind, were well planned, well advertised, and publicly performed with a good deal of theater.  He would make sure that the media were present to watch and report on the whole drama.  Even the international press was present as, for instance, during the Salt March at the end of which he picked a pinch of salt off the shore of a small fishing village on the Arabian Sea in the present state of Gujarat in 1930.  And the whole nation of India was energized, as also the whole civilized world read about it.

(4) His speeches reveal his persuasive power to win the minds and hearts of his audience, not just of those who were favorably disposed to his cause but also of those who could have had a reason to be hostile toward him.  Two examples should suffice: When Mahatma Gandhi was in England for the Round Table Conference in 1931, he addressed the textile mill workers of Lancashire who had lost their jobs because of the boycott of foreign cloths he had called in India.  He actually lived with them during that period, and they were convinced of the justness of his cause.  Similarly, when Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in 1947 around the time of the partition of India, Gandhi preached peace and forgiveness to those bent on revenge and on “an eye for an eye”, again living in the midst of raging hatred and carnage in Bengal, “wiping every tear” and pacified the rioters, at least temporarily.  No other Indian leader then dared to walk in that inferno.

5. Gandhi’s insistence on ethics was an all-encompassing preoccupation and a yardstick he applied to his private as well as his public life. His life was an open book.  Another aspect of this ideology was his insistence on the purity of means.  I quote, “Means and ends are convertible terms in my philosophy of life” (Young India, December 26, 1924).  In light of Gandhi’s philosophy, he would have strongly condemned various U.S. actions, for instance, from its aggression against Mexico in the 1840s all the way to the snooping and spying of the National Security Agency (NSA).

6. In evaluating Gandhi’s legacy, one must however note his one conspicuous failure: his inability to achieve Hindu-Muslim amity.  He could not move Indians to overcome the 1000-year old animosity between the adherents of the two religions.  Many historians and sociologists writing about India have commented on the fact that no two religions are as far apart as Hinduism and Islam.  No wonder he could not succeed, though he tried his best; and he had to see the partition of his beloved country into two entities—India and Pakistan.  Incidentally, the enmity between the two nations is palpable even today in their seemingly unending feud.  Other critics have noted his coercive tendency exercised through his fasts, his induction of religiosity in politics, and his outmoded (even for his times) views about the education and social “role” of women.   

  

Conclusion: My Opinion about Gandhi’s Legacy

Finally, what makes Mahatma Gandhi the greatest person of the last one thousand years, in my eyes, is the fact that he refused to participate in the “game” people had always played throughout human history to achieve political freedom, namely, a violent war, and invented a new game of non-violence and loving kindness.  An Indian poet once asked a rhetorical question, “Whoever gained freedom without war?”  This question after 1947 (when India earned its freedom) has been answered resoundingly and decisively—“Every country can”, if it has the will, the commitment, and the stamina.

Hinduism versus Monotheism

The following article on Hinduism was written with the average American university student in mind. I wrote it as a supplementary reading for my "India: Tradition and Modernity" course for the Honors College at Boise State University in Boise, Idaho, USA.

  Hinduism versus Monotheism 

Mohan R. Limaye
Professor Emeritus
Boise State University

 Today there are over 800 million Hindus in the world, and most of them are concentrated in India. In fact, historically, geographically and culturally, the idea of Hinduism is closely bound with the idea of India. After all, the word “Hindu” comes from the Sanskrit word “Sindhu” (the name of the river, which the Ancient Greeks called “Indus”). The diaspora -- the Hindus living outside India -- try to preserve the traditions they took with them from India to their new homes. Any “worthwhile” changes or movements in Hinduism originate in India. Hinduism almost defies definition—so much so that a famous Indian author once quipped that Hindus are those that call themselves Hindus. In addition, beliefs and practices vary from region to region in India and, within the same region, from caste to caste, and from even sub-caste to sub-caste. As a result, a Hindu cannot assert with certainty that all Hindus observe any specific ritual or doctrine without exception. Any Hindu who, therefore, ventures to write about Hinduism has to begin with a warning or caveat that other Hindus are likely to disagree with him/her on several points. Hence, I need to emphasize that the following description is my individual interpretation, my personal take on what Hinduism is all about. Another caveat, regarding this essay, is my admission that it will not go into any deeply scholarly discussion of the subtle theological areas of Hinduism. First, I am not qualified to do it. I do not have a Ph.D. in theology or Hinduism. Secondly, my audience being mainly American – familiar with the Judaic-Christian tradition – may only want an overview of Hinduism. Let me first attempt to describe what Hinduism is, and then what it is not. Incidentally, it is very important to talk about what Hinduism is not because that is easier to do and easier for a non-Hindu to grasp because the complexities of Hinduism will become clearer that way. I think that a comparison of Hinduism with the Abrahamic faiths may also enrich non-Hindus’ understanding of Hinduism.

 WHAT IS HINDUISM?

According to Hindus, man is not a “fallen” being or a born sinner. Neither man nor woman fell from grace. Therefore, there is no question of any god or god’s son or daughter sacrificing his/her life for man’s original sin. Nirvana, Moksha (Release), or “salvation” for Hindus is a consequence of one’s personal effort. Even though tradition is more important to Hindus than doctrine (rudhihi shaastraat baliiyasii), there are some commonly shared beliefs and doctrines among Hindus. Hinduism works on at least two levels: one is the spiritual or “transcendental” level—the teaching of the Upanishads that the individual soul (atman) and the universal soul (param-atman) are identical. Such understanding or “knowledge” leads to release (moksha or nirvana) from the round of existences, termed “samsara” in Sanskrit. On this level, there is no heaven or no hell. On this level, there is neither god, nor need for one. However, it cannot be overemphasized (and as many scholars have noted) that dogma is less important in Hinduism than behavior or social conventions. On the second, more “practical,” level where most Hindus lead their daily lives, they worship many gods and goddesses. One may trace the origin of these Hindu deities in the sacred texts called the Vedas, the Puranas, and the two famous ancient epics of India – the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Not monotheism but multiplicity of deities is the reality of Hindu faith. Hindus pray to them and make offerings to them for specific favors, for averting bad luck and disease or achieving sound health and general well-being. In this respect, Hindu deities are rather similar to Catholic saints. Hinduism is openly and unashamedly transactional: One good turn deserves another. Hindus are constantly striking bargains, entering into contracts, with their gods: “I will pray to you, worship you, make offerings to you, etc. if you grant me such and such boons.” And, in my opinion, that is the way it should be. In an ancient Indian play by Kalidasa (The Recognition of Shakuntala), an ascetic says to the hero king, “Propitiate Indra—the King of the gods—by means of regular offerings. He is then sure to be pleased to bring optimal rains for the benefit of your subjects!” (Incidentally, Indra is a deity in charge of rain). A character in another equally famous Sanskrit play of almost 2000 years ago (The Little Clay Cart—Mruchhakatikam) expresses a similar sentiment when he says to his friend, “What good is worshiping the gods if they don’t reciprocate, if they don’t show any favors?” Citing examples from literary classics is crucial because of the realism, veracity and credibility they bring to bear on the issue. Unlike religious texts, they do not have a moralistic or didactic axe to grind. These examples demonstrate that Hinduism has been transactional for thousands of years, virtually from its very beginning. Hindus in everyday life and discourse often refer to God in a generic sense. They use words like “dev”, eeshwar, bhagavan, etc. depending upon the language they are using. For instance, they may say, “devaachi marji” or “eeshwarechhaa” (in my language, Marathi), meaning “God’s discretion,” (or “God willing” as Muslims say). This generic God has no temples erected to him, no idols representing him. An intensely personal form of worship among Hindus is termed bhakti, the path of “devotion”, and it is directed to the deity of your family, your caste, or your personal preference. In devotional songs and prayers, the Hindu devotee looks upon the deity of his personal preference, not as someone to be feared (as the Deity in the Old Testament), but to be loved as a friend, a counselor, a mother and, at times, even as a lover. This kind of devotion at times leads to what is described in Sanskrit as ananda or param-ananda, intense spiritual joy, a trance-like state. It is not like “happiness” because of the frequent associations of happiness with external stimuli. It is more akin to “shaanti”, internal peace or “peace that passeth understanding.” It may remind us of the lines from Wordsworth’s famous ode, “Intimations of Immortality”, where he mourns the loss of a similar joy, what he calls the glory and the dream: Whither is fled the visionary gleam? Where is it now, the glory and the dream? It is like the haunting chant or invocation from one of the Upanishads, “tamaso maa jyotir gamaya”: Lead me from Darkness to Light. Going back to the Hindu deities, some gods and goddesses are more commonly worshiped all over India, like the elephant-headed Ganesha who wards off disasters and the goddess Durga (especially in Bengal), also known as the demon-killing warrior deity, Kaali, in many of her manifold names and manifestations. Then there are Lukshmi, the goddess of wealth, and Shiva, the ascetic god, the all-renouncer. Most Hindus (and Buddhists) believe in Karma, the idea that people’s present life is influenced, even determined, by their actions in their past lives. Some Christians may find an echo of predestination in the concept of Karma. But the ideas are different in that people are responsible for their Karma, while God (of monotheistic religions) determines arbitrarily (?) who is going to be saved and who is not. Hindus, therefore, do not go through crises of faith as some Christians or Jews seem to go through, troubled by thoughts such as “Why do bad things happen to good people? If God is kindly, why does he allow evil to exist and even prosper?” (Apparently, the notion of “free will” does not squelch such doubts among at least some monotheists). Hindus ultimately hold themselves -- that is their Karma (not deities) -- responsible for what happens to them. They, however, believe that though Karma is destiny its undesirable effects can be mitigated, diluted through fasts, pilgrimages, and ritualistic vows. One must admit that, over the centuries, Hindu upper castes abused and misappropriated the concept of Karma to justify and perpetuate their discriminatory practices directed toward the lower castes and, particularly, to maintain the exploitation, and close-to-slavery status of the former untouchables by arguing that they had none to blame but their own Karma. (Sounds familiar? It is like the Republican argument: The poor are responsible for their poverty; they deserve to be poor, etc.) But when the Dalits (the oppressed) in India began their “revolt” from the early decades of the twentieth century, they could argue that it was (now) the Karma of the upper castes to see their power eroded, their payback or reckoning time. Personally, I feel that upper caste Hindus should recognize and acknowledge the necessity and value of “compensatory discrimination” and stop complaining about quotas and reservations in modern India. One of my younger relatives was whining to me once about how the reservations were supposed to remain in place in India only for a few decades. In my judgment, the quotas are one way to atone for the sins of hundreds of years of discrimination against the Dalits (the former untouchables). The upper, well-to-do, castes can always come to the United States, any way. Besides the all-pervasive power of Karma, other concepts guiding Hindu beliefs and behaviors include the cycle of births, deaths, and rebirths (reincarnation or punar-junma); the sacredness of the cow; four major castes; four stages of life; and four goals of human beings. Educated Westerners are somewhat familiar with the institution of caste – priests and scholars (Brahmins); warriors and administrators (Kshatriyas); farmers, artisans, and pursuers of various crafts (Vyashyas); and menial laborers (Shudras). It is generally known in the West that many Hindus marry within their own castes, but not many Westerners know about the Hindu goals of life: right conduct or duty (dharma), acquisition and consumption of wealth (artha), sexual pleasure and procreation (kama), and release from the cycle of birth and death (moksha). Moksha can be attained by following any of the four paths recommended by the sages: the Path of Knowledge, the Path of Karma or Action, the Path of Devotion (to one’s personal deity), and the Path of Renunciation. As mentioned above, Moksha (unlike in the Abrahamic religions) is a result of one’s personal effort, not a consequence of anybody’s grace or favor. The Upanishads also enjoin every Hindu to venerate his or her mother, father, teacher, and guest (in that order of priority). The ideal most Hindus strive for is selfless action, duty, without hankering after the fruit of action. This is what the Bhagvad Gita (The Song of the Lord), a didactic and spiritual text many Hindus revere, teaches. How many, however, reach this goal is another matter. The four stages or passages of life include scholar (when celibacy is recommended), householder, retiree, and renouncer or ascetic, the last stage when all desires are extinguished (Not many, however, achieve this last stage). There is a strong strain of asceticism in Hinduism; however, it is balanced by material pursuits in the householder stage of life when the goal is acquisition and consumption of wealth. The crowning goal of an individual Hindu is, of course, Moksha – Release from the cycle of births and deaths.

WHAT HINDUISM IS NOT: COMPARING HINDUISM WITH MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS

 Hindu society is hierarchically structured and divided in numerous castes and sub-castes; a Hindu’s caste is determined by birth. The origin of castes is mythical and, as such, is inseparably linked with the Hindu religion. Monotheistic societies like Jewish, Christian, and Moslem societies are also divided, but mainly by class. In addition to caste, class too is a divisive factor in Hindu society with attendant intercaste and interclass strife and jockeying for power. However, it does not have doctrinally determined “horizontal” schisms such as Hinayana and Mahayana within Buddhism, Catholicism and Protestantism within Christianity, or Sunni and Shia within Islam. As a result, no war has occurred among Hindus because of differences of dogma or religious ideology. It is true that there were strong tensions until the recent past between, say, the devotees of Vishnu and those of Shiva. Similarly, in the remote past, there were struggles between Hindus and Buddhists. But there are no authenticated reports of any bloody wars among Hindus on the scale of the wars between Catholics and Protestants or Sunnis and Shias. Differing interpretations among Hindus themselves of what Hinduism means have been the result of the fact that (unlike Christians, Jews, and Muslims) Hindus do not have one authoritative scripture. They recognize and cite (as expediency dictates or as the mood strikes them) many texts which have gained “scriptural” authority among them over the last several thousand years. The Vedas, the Upanishads, the various Puranas, a number of law books (Dharmashastras), and the Bhagvad Gita (referred to above) are some of them. Add to this the fact (which is the case among the followers of other religions too) that the interpretations of sacred texts vary depending upon who is citing and explaining them. Some Hindus maintain that Hinduism is monotheistic, but I think there is some confusion of terms here. What they mean is that some Hindu philosophers (like Shakaracharya in the 9th century) propounded a theory more accurately named “monism” (advaita). Monism, in rather over-simplified terms, means that the only “reality” is one, namely, Brahman, roughly translated as “the universal soul.” On the other hand, monotheism refers to the belief in one God. Monists (advaita-vadins) assert that when one attains the realization that there is “no two,” that there is only Brahman, the question of worshiping any god does not arise. “You are It” (Tut Twum Asi, meaning “your individual soul is identical with the Universal soul”). But this is the esoteric, mystical, transcendental part of Hinduism, the Vedanta meaning “the essence of the Vedas.” Most Hindus do not dwell on this plane. They believe in many gods and goddesses and, consequently, end their prayers or rituals often with salutations to all their gods. From this perspective, Hindus are indisputably polytheists. When I examine the first two commandments of the Old Testament (which form two major articles of faith for the three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam), I’m proud to be either a polytheist or an atheist, depending on what mood I am in. The first “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” will strike many Hindus (including me) as the dictate of a despot or autocrat since Hindus believe in many gods. I am aware that monotheists may retort, “If you truly believe in one omnipotent God who will protect and provide for you, why would you need other gods?” However, I think most Hindus would want a choice. Hindu gods and goddesses are like candidates running for elective offices in a democracy. They all have to promote themselves by claiming that they are the best among what the “market” has to offer. Similarly, most Hindus would be very disturbed by a god who subjects a man to an unnatural act just to test his loyalty. I am referring to the story of Abraham in the Old Testament where a disaster, a son’s sacrifice, is averted at the last moment. It is beside the point that God sends one of his angels to stop the human sacrifice that He had demanded in the first place. At least in the region where I was born and brought up in India, there is a myth, a legend, that one of the gods has been waiting patiently (for “twenty eight eons”) for his devotee to finish massaging his aged parents’ feet. So here is a God of the monotheists, an instigator of a cruel and unnatural act because He wants proof of His devotee’s faith, because he is so insecure as all tyrants are, while in the pantheon of Hindu deities, there is one who does not mind waiting because his devotee is busy fulfilling his duties toward his parents. In the same vein, in Hindu eyes, the second commandment “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” is quite unreasonable and counter-productive because Hindus find concentrating on worship much easier when they have an image in front of them. In addition, they will respond, “If God made man (and woman) in His own image, shouldn’t God look like people? Why not then make likenesses of Him (for instance, like men and women with some additional or “superhuman” features)?” Again, I grant that devotees of Abrahamic religions may argue that you cannot capture or “portray” through human means the essence of an all-powerful, all-encompassing, entirely metaphysical entity. It is important to note that Hinduism is not an institutional religion; it has no Pope, no bishops, no clergy, no mullahs, no ministers, or no rabbis. Those who chant the mantras and assist at worship in Hindu households on religious festivals or ceremonies such as weddings, or those who narrate and sing the stories and myths of gods and goddesses in temples do not necessarily represent any institutions. These “service providers” are paid fees piecemeal for their work, though some wealthy temples and households retain “priests” for this purpose. Among Hindus, there are no weekly scheduled congregational gatherings. There is no Friday prayer at a mosque or no Sunday service at a church. Hindus go to temples when they want to and not as assemblies guided by “leaders.” For Hindus, a daily worship (pooja) in one’s home is the observance that matters rather than attendance at a public place of worship. As an aside, many Hindus claim to be more “spiritual” than the adherents of other religions. They very carefully omit to define what spiritual means. However, among the Hindus I grew up with (the Kokanastha or Chitpaawan sub-caste of Maharashtrian or Western Indian Brahmins), I have seen some people more materialistic, acquisitive, and consumption oriented than most Americans I have met in all my long years of stay in this country. Part of the freewheeling milieu and open attitudes toward belief and doctrine among Hindus can be attributed to the fact there is no doctrinal rigidity in Hinduism. Hence, there is no such thing as doctrinal heresy among Hindus. They do not have to declare that there is no God but God. In fact, they can be atheists and still claim to be Hindus. Nor do they have to recite “The Lord’s Prayer”. One does not have to profess exclusive loyalty to any dogma to be a Hindu. That is why Hindus are not “afraid” to attend a church service, enter a mosque, or go to a synagogue. They are not worried that, as a result, they will lose their anchor, their faith will waver, or they will be lured into another religion. In fact, over the centuries very few conversions have occurred voluntarily out of Hinduism. Most conversions have taken place through force or coercion and bribery. From approximately the 13th century to the 18th century, political power was so closely associated with Islam at least in Northern India that when a Hindu king or a petty aristocrat (sardaar) converted to Islam his subjects almost automatically and routinely accepted the new religion. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the British were in power in India. Christian missionaries (from the U.S., for instance) have been very active in India for decades. Of course, since India’s independence overt coercion has not been a possibility.

HINDU ATTITUDES TODAY TOWARD CONVERSION

 Though bribery in various forms and religious institutions of learning are the prevailing modes now used by non-Hindu missionaries to spread their faiths in India, educated and financially well-placed Hindus of today are proof against bribery because they do not need money that badly. They are generally not likely to convert to other religions because they do not think that any other religion is superior to Hinduism in philosophy, doctrine, or practice. They do not therefore freak out just because they happen to like some practice or idea in another religion. They will continue as Hindus while admiring that one particular idea. Hinduism is not an evangelizing religion; Hindus do not have proselytizing zeal because they believe that all paths to salvation are legitimate and effective. Prior to the arrival of the monotheists in India (Muslims and Christians), either by means of invasions, through migrations, missionary activities or trade contacts, there was no violence caused by religious strife in India because in earlier eras the outsiders coming in were pagans, who worshiped many gods and goddesses. They were not religious zealots; their deities mingled with Hindu and Buddhist deities. The more, the merrier! India then was a religious and ethnic melting pot. Monotheistic iconoclasts (attacking Hindu gods and goddesses) and polytheistic idol-worshippers, however, do not mix well. Acceptance is not a one-way street. A situation where Hindus tolerate (even accept) other religions while missionaries from other (monotheistic) religions despise Hinduism and go on converting Hindus cannot last forever. That is why it should not surprise anyone that many modern Hindus resist all forms of covert and overt coercion or bribery that Christian and Muslim missionaries have been employing for ages to convert Hindus, especially the poor, to their religions. Some may argue that Hindus did not always in the past resist the aggressive and violent encroachments of other religions against them and that a great number of Hindus were lost to the onslaught of other religions. Be that as it may, I for one am full of respect and admiration for the courage of the Hindus of those times. I am astonished by the historical phenomenon that while the aggressive and expansive Islam totally extinguished the earlier or native religions from a wide swath of the then-known world, from North Africa and the Middle-East to West China, South Asians (by and large) tenaciously and bravely held on to Hinduism in India and, say, Buddhism in Sri Lanka and today’s Myanmar. It is not ferocious adherence to any dogma but the attachment for a unique way of life and culture that those Hindus must have defended. Because modern Hindus do not take that kind of aggression from other religions quietly any more, we hear about clashes in India between Christian missionaries and Hindu activists. Another reason for Hindu resistance to evangelizing efforts is that these conversion activities have resulted in insurrectional tendencies among the converts who have been demanding secession from India and agitating for new sovereign homelands of their own. No patriot or nationalist in India is going to tolerate secessionist talk. Of course, Hindus (especially the upper caste and the rich) cannot disown their culpability, their guilt, in neglecting or ignoring the wretched poor among their midst who have no other recourse or relief but to go to the missionaries who are ready to lend a helping hand in exchange for conversion. CONCLUSION In my judgment, Hinduism has had the following social/cultural, political, and economic consequences for today’s India: 

 Positive

1. After independence, India chose a democratic form of government: Democracy in India is a direct result of Hindu belief in polytheism and acceptance of doctrinal diversity. For a non-homogeneous country like India, democracy is the most effective and the only workable polity.

 2. Indians avoid extremes: They reject the run-away, unregulated capitalism on the one hand and the innovation/creativity-stifling communism on the other. This moderation or the middle path is a reflection of Hindu contempt for rigidity of dogma. It also explains why revolutions are unlikely in India.

 3. India did not build empires: When Hindus and Buddhists migrated to Southeast Asia and built kingdoms (in parts of what are today’s Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam) starting around the seventh century, the “mother country” did not keep imperial ties with those political entities.

 4. India has welcomed various followers of non-Hindu religions seeking refuge over the centuries. Iranians or Parsees in the remote past to Tibetan Buddhists under the Dalai Lama in the recent past are some instances. However, from only in the last few decades have Christians in the West begun allowing the immigration of non-Christians (maybe, with the lone exception of Jews) in their countries.

 5. Because of doctrinal flexibility in Hinduism (almost like “anything goes”), there is no such thing as Hindu religious fundamentalism. Hindu fundamentalism is a political phenomenon: what it means is a protest against coddling of religious minorities. When commentators, particularly Western, label some parties as “Hindu Fundamentalist” I hope these pundits/scholars are aware and capable of understanding that this is about power and about sharing or giving up of political advantage vis-à-vis non-Hindu Indians. It is totally different from the doctrinal purity battles among the adherents of Abrahamic religions. It is unlike, say, Christian fundamentalists or Wahabi Muslims accusing their co-religionists of swerving from the “true” path.

 6. What the upper castes in India may (should, by now) have realized is that Karma can be a double-edged sword. What held the former untouchables and the lowest castes down and oppressed for centuries, the Karma theory, is itself in the last 80 years or so leading to their emancipation. Evidence? The recent election of a former untouchable single woman to the CEO (Chief Minister) position of the most populous state of India—Uttar Pradesh. Of course, the exposure to Western ideas of equality and modern forms of democracy during the British Raj may have facilitated this emancipation.

  Negative

 1. The caste system has historically restricted Hindus’ freedom to act and pursue individual goals.

 2. A status quo mentality dampened for a long time entrepreneurship and prudent risk-taking – However, of late, more and more Hindus are becoming entrepreneurs.

 3. In the past (and even now, in some areas of India) women have been held back because of their low status and the horrific treatment given to them, though the situation is gradually changing for the better.

 4. A lack of personal freedom due to rigid social customs and practices, and blind faith or superstitions (not to mention poverty) often discourage original, rational thinking and creative activity.

Conclusion 

However, when all is said and done, one observation can be made with certainty about Hinduism: Not just tolerance but accommodation or acceptance of the other is its hallmark. In addition, when several Christian denominations are losing their members and finding it difficult to attract new members and when fundamentalist Muslims have to keep Islamic adherents in line with threats of savage punishments, Hinduism has remained dynamic precisely because it allows total freedom of belief and doctrine to those who call themselves Hindus.

NOTE:

 This is an opinion piece, not an academic or scholarly paper; therefore, I am acknowledging my debt to the following persons collectively, without quoting them individually. They read various earlier versions and made excellent usable suggestions for the improvement of this document. They are Prof. Emeritus Jerry Alred, Prof. Madhav Deshpande, Prof. Emeritus Charudatta Hajarnavis, Vishwas Kolhatkar, Aniruddha Limaye, Sara Hartje, Sanika Sathe, Prof. Murli Nagasundaram, Prof. Dattatraya Patil, Anand Dabak, and Prashant and Alaka Valanju. I also wish to thank those other anonymous individuals who, without my being consciously aware of it, may have influenced my thinking about religion.

My Views on the Use of India's Regional Languages

The issue of India’s Regional Languages

Mohan R. Limaye
Professor Emeritus
Boise State University

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO WORRIES?

What worries me now is the upper class urban Indians’ disregard and total unawareness of the danger in cultivating English proficiency at the cost of India’s regional languages. 

It seems as if these Indians are raising the next generation not to live in India but either to live abroad or to be the loyal troopers of the English-speaking world.  I have concerns about the loss of intellectual independence or sovereignty and also of an Indian worldview, not to mention, the resultant mono-cultural Anglo worldview among upper class Indians. That is why the growing neglect/under-use of India’s regional languages is extremely worrisome to me.  Hence, I think, the next round of slavery will not involve territorial swaps, may not even have an economic aspect to it.  I believe it will be cultural, and the imperial onslaught in this battle will come from the English language and the United States.  What is sad about this grim prospect is that it will be slavery voluntarily accepted, nay, rejoiced in. 

Since modernization and globalization have been mainly coming to India, at least recently, from the U.S., the danger of only the American worldview spreading in India without any alternate points of view is very real.  This is U.S. soft power at play.  As it is, India has so many divides – religious, economic, ethnic, and caste-based.  Added to these, there will be a growing chasm between those who know (only) English and those who don’t.

As far as I know, the English language has been a compulsory subject in Indian schools for over 150 years.  But I don’t think (and correct me if I’m wrong) that until the 1980s/1990s it was taught at the expense of, at the cost of, the regional languages.  What I mean is that public figures in those days-- in business, politics, or any other field – even though using English for interstate/international discourse were fluent in their respective mother tongues, the regional languages of India.

      I think that the "cultural/linguistic" disconnect in a period of three generations (at           least among the upper classes of Maharashtra) may be unprecedented in the                   history of any really INDEPENDENT nation, INDEPENDENT in spirit and not just in       letter.