by Dr. Maguni Charan Behera
India is home to religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism. The country is also shelter to world religions like Islam and Christianity. There are some other faiths and beliefs professed in a small scale. The citizens of the country mainly belong to any one of the above religions. Despite the diversity, RSS and several other outfits advocate that the Hindus are ‘responsible communities’ for the security of the country. Is there any logic behind this argument? Why not citizens belonging to other religions? In this essay, I try to see how far the claim of RSS and others is authentic.
Hindu is a generic term, inclusive of all Indian origin faiths and beliefs like Sikhism, Buddhism, adivasi religions, etc. In its specific sense it is one of the religions like Buddhism, Jainism, etc. The term Hindu is used in its inclusive sense but in some context in its specific sense. Incisive sense is synonymous with traditional sense of Hindus.
Who are Hindus? Article 25 (2) b, Explanation II includes Sikh, Buddhist and Jaina under Hindu fold. There are several Acts which uphold the above definition. For example, The Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 states that ‘Persons professing the Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion or persons professing the Hindu religion in any of its forms or developments including Virashaivas, Lingyats,Adivasis, followers of Brahmao, Prarthana, Arya Samaj and the Swami Narayan Sampradaya shall be deemed to be Hindus’. Looking through the lens of colonial knowledge that is based on the principle of categorisation (in specific sense) of apparent differences in name or practice, some of us see Hinduism as a category different from Sikhism, Buddhism, etc. In fact there was no name for Hinduism; the Hindu word is an exonym and the developments in Hinduism by reformers like Guru Nanak, Siddhartha Gautama and Mahavir in later years assumed distinct names which are endonymies. The diversity of Indian tradition unfortunately has been looked through the lens of categorisation. But the Constitution recognises the diversity in tradition as a unity, called the Hindus or Hinduism.
The citizens of India who own responsibility of protection of tradition, people and territory are (i) traditional, and (ii) migrant Indians. The time line between the two could be beginning of the Christian era because major migrants after this era are Muslim invaders and colonisers who maintain their distinct religious identity. While maintaining their religious identity they are converting traditional Indians. Other invaders like Saka, Hun and Ahom have assimilated with Indian tradition, i.e. the Hindu tradition. The adivasis who are Hindus as mentioned in the above Act are traditional Indians and migrants. Some migrant tribes like Monpa, Khamti, Singphow, Meyor, Memba, etc. have adopted Buddhism and embedded in traditional fold of India. Even the adivasis who are converted have traditional origin contributing in the making of the pluralistic culture of India. Then why Hindus only are responsible communities?
Generally,what one thinks, one executes thought through words and deeds. Behind the behaviour and action of a person are mental forces. One thinks or one’s metal force is shaped on the basis of the image formed in mind. Formation of image in mind depends on person’s exposure to ideas, education, and environment. One becomes Marxist, forming an image on the basis of Marxian ideology and it reflects in his or her communication, action and behaviour.
The religion that is not based on Indian tradition contains a different ideology having suitability to a different context and tradition. Certainly, Christianity and Islam do not belong to India’s tradition. The ideology behind Christianity or Islam does not believe in diversity like Hinduism where many apparent gods and goddesses are worshipped. The person, who is born and grows in diversity, recognises and respects differences in beliefs and faiths. Therefore, a traditional tribesperson is never a fundamentalist; never kills another tribesperson if his belief and faith differ. One who lives in diversity does not attach exclusivity to life or any aspect of it though due to ignorance of the core principle one may consider one’s faith superior but does not claim to be the only best and true. Idea of exclusiveness in Islam or Christianity is behind the practice of preaching their tenets to be the only belief and only the truth. This belief accompanied by ego leads to forceful conversion also. Buddhism is also propaganda type; but it does not propagate a belief around a Supreme Being or Beings. It advocates right behaviour; it is relational and is based on cause and effect rationality. It does not teach fanaticism. The claim of only the truth has caused many wars to show superiority of a religion. A few important ones are mentioned below.
Crusade- The Holy War (1096-1291), history of Jihads and several research works like Bernard Lewis’s The Roots of Muslim Rage (1990), Basil Mathews ‘s Young Islam on Trek: A Study in the Clash of Civilisations (1926) with reference to Middle East, and Ahemed Al-Dawoody’s Islamic Law of War Justifications and Regulations (2011) state about the tradition of war in Christianity and Islam. These wars are primarily based on religion unlike political wars between kingdoms and nations. Clash of Civilisations (1996) by Samuel P. Huntington believes in the clashes of all civilizations, though some civilisations like Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism have no history of fighting on religious ground. Recent Israel and Palestine war between Islamic and Jewish tradition or Armenia and Azerbaijan war in 2023 has religious essence at the core. In Israel-Palestine war, Jerusalem, the birth place of Jesus is the bone of contention.
When one is trained in an ideology and attaches exclusiveness, the person is blind to other truths. For the person the loyalty to religion supersedes loyalty to a nation based on secularism or is different religions.
In India the loyalty to Hinduism(specific sense), Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or adivasi religions do not expose followers to a foreign land. That is why adivasi and other Indian origin Christians demand for Indianisation or Indigenigetion of Church. Their loyalty to religion and territory is balanced because they lived in the territory before converted to Christianity. Muslims of Indian origin have started understanding of territorial loyalty. It is to be informed that a large section of Christians and Islam has exposure to religious ideology than valuing territorial importance because narratives about the former make round through their own men. Other religions in India have remote possibility of being influenced by outside ideology. Though a section of Sikhs demand for Khalistan-a separate state, it is not the influence of Sikh ideology. It is rather against the principle of what Sikhs have been struggling against- to protect Hinduism and the country. History stands as testimony. Derailed sections of the Sikhs is an aberration.
But there is a larger possibility that more of Indian Christians and Muslims could be influenced by narratives which hold superiority of religion than the territory they live in. There could be also misguided Hindus who are likely to fall victim to it due to exposure to non-Indian narratives. Hindu unity is the call to avoid such aberrations because they have no outside loyalty like Muslims and Christians. They have greater potentiality than Hindus for outside influence, for their religion has outside existence and origin, which may be fatal for the country. However, as they have started understanding the importance of territorial loyalty and religious loyalty simultaneously, the future will have a different consideration. But at present, caution is the need. Territorial loyalty and religious loyalty of Hindu communities have no outside influence and so the country will be safe in their hands till others balance between outside loyalty and territorial loyalty and recognition to the cruciality of diversity.
(The Author is a Retired Professor; can be contacted… email : mcbehera1959@gmail.com)
