Rarely does one find an article
that has no polite beginning. And yet, I put this one forth to the public as an
exasperated plea. Could we please just learn about Indian-- well, to put it
more blatantly, Hindu—philosophy, taking a logical, secular approach?
For armchair philosophers,
YouTube presents a goldmine, with channels like The School of Life, Wisecrack
and John Green’s CrashCourse. For those(like me) without a bookworm’s
patience or a scholar’s attention span, these provide the best platform to
explore different ways of thinking and approaches to life, the universe and
everything—and, if not fully satiate, suffice to temporarily quench the
existential thirst for meaning that so many of us experience more often than
we’d like to admit.
There’s one problem with these
educative sources, though, and it’s this: they all focus on western philosophy.
The issue with the Indian schools
of philosophy is that many of them are inherently spiritual (if the word religious doesn’t quite capture it), and
as a result they’re a touchy subject. Hot coals, they’ve been juggled with
awkwardly in the past and we’ve ended up with burned fingers. Like Wendy
Donniger’s book The Hindus, other attempts to understand the maze that
Hinduism is have ended up resisted, criticised, deemed offensive and finally
pigeonholed as having been a product of a ‘western’ construct and ways of
thinking. To the open-minded, the fence sitters and the curious, the best
approach to this conundrum is not to denounce these allegations, but to explore
where they come from and whether they carry any weight at all.
Perhaps the reason why Hinduism
as a way of thought, and the question of what Hinduism really is, has become
such a sensitive topic is that people simply do not know enough about it. Most
of us grew up in one of these three scenarios: a) A liberal family that hardly
gave a hoot to critiquing religion -- or critiquing anything at all; b) A very
religious home environment that discouraged any critical inquiry into religion
or tradition in general or c) An English-speaking home where you were
encouraged to question everything under the sun – including the bits that
intrigued you the most -- but didn’t have the resources to do so because, well,
none of them were in English.
Hinduism, much like other ways of
thought (since that’s what it is believed to have been), tends to be criticised,
judged or endorsed based on second-hand knowledge and watered down, half-baked
bits of information we read for ourselves. This is why we find no secular or
objective videos on Indian philosophy on the internet: because people either
shy away from it due to lack of understanding or pursue it passionately with their
own religious biases and underpinnings.
This, in turn, is responsible for
the discrepancy between Savarkar’s Hindutva philosophy, and what many people
believe to be its non-violent sibling: Hinduism. There has been no formal
comparative study undertaken on the two to find out what each implies in light
of the other. The nation is content to carry on in its way without a sense of cultural
self-awareness.
And as recent events would have
us believe, this is a rather dangerous path.
I am not as alarmed by what the
government thinks (since its ties to the RSS are no longer hidden) as much as I
am about what -- and more importantly -- how
the layman does. After all, we have seen time and time again that an ideology,
if not critically examined before being accepted, can wreak havoc. We have the historic
example of Marist thought being implemented and failing miserably, and we have
the more recent instance of Islam as an ideology taking a radically violent
turn. I do not wish to say we must do away with ideologies such as these, I
merely ask that we take the opportunity to examine our ideas with an objective
sharpness so as to make sure they are free from biases or emotional investment,
especially if they are intended for imposition on others.
The
recent trend that has been emerging, more prominently among my peer group, the
youth, has been the overwhelming endorsement of the phrase ‘Ahimsa Paramo Dharma; Dharma himsa tathaiva
cha’, or ‘Non-violence is the
ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma’. While possessing
a relatively sound, albeit caste-based argument in and of itself, the aspect
that’s worrisome is that there is no single, concrete meaning for the Sanskrit
word dharma, which could denote anything from eternal cosmic law to duty
to righteousness. If the issue I’m
hinting at isn’t evident yet, let’s look at that quoted line a little closer.
‘Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too
is violence in service of Dharma’.
In
the first sentence, dharma is the object; it is passively being defined as
non-violence, or ahimsa. This is quite made clear and rather uncomplicated,
although it does not explain explicitly what the word non-violence implies.
From a simplistic approach, non-violence might imply an action that is the
opposite of violence, the absence of such. Therefore we might include all peaceful
or passive actions, words and thoughts as part of this category of
‘non-violence’.
What
about the second half, however? Here, Dharma is the subject of the sentence. It
is no longer the cleanly defined term of the first half of the saying. It now
falls into the fluid realm of subjectivity. Dharma could now become the
personal kind -- a duty. Or it could take the meaning given to it by a
particular group of individuals. This is where things begin to get hairy,
because now that group has a loophole to condone violence, carried out in the
name of their belief, sanctioned by sacred ideology, and directed toward a
transgression or non-conformity to their ideal of Dharma.
Why
do we need Hindu philosophy, and why have I digressed so far to arrive full
circle at the same point?
Because
when this saying, lifted from the Mahabharata, is taken within its context, its
meaning becomes more utilitarian; political and legal rather than social. Since
Hinduism was largely based on the caste system, it follows that this adage also
has its roots in caste. In order for a king, a Kshatriya, to live up to his
dharma, his divine duty, he would have to punish and even execute criminals in
order to secure the safety of his subjects (which was his responsibility), and
to ensure that justice be meted out to them. All other castes, being
home-makers, had a divine duty to protect their families, and therefore could
use violence in order to prevent any harm done to their loved ones. This is
perfectly rational. A Brahmin or sanyasi
could not do the same, as to attain nirvana he would have to practise a strict
code of Ahimsa, or total non-violence. His physical form was of no value as he
was supposed to be connected to a higher power through his soul.
In
this context, it becomes clear that the phrase is quite dated for today’s
world, but may yet be applied to one’s personal life if it provides a sense of
religious comfort. However, it is rather dangerous when used to fuel
nationalistic pride. Who decides what kind of Dharma we are talking about here?
Would adopting certain western ideals imply a threat to that Dharma? Would criticism of the nation or government
jar this ideal of Dharma? Perhaps a foreign threat of invasion, then? Or,
simply, a meal that involves consuming a certain bovine species? When context
is not kept clearly in mind, the ensuing though and action that flows from this
understanding is not always rational.
I
will not go so far as to suggest that Indian Philosophy be incorporated into
school syllabi; doing so would imply coercion and doubtlessly many a student
will most likely hate the subject. Perhaps the best course of action is for
each individual to educate themselves on the topic as much as possible and
examine their notions on the subject critically, or, as Comedian Tim Minchin
would say, take your ideas out and ‘hit them with a cricket bat’. And if you truly believe your argument to be
sound then, by all means, share it. You may not find anyone who readily agrees,
but you will be contributing to a healthy debate in society which is very
important for us as Indians. We are, after all, a nation who prides itself on
its diversity.
Image sourced from: http://ayurvedicbliss.com/what-is-ayurveda-2/
