The greatest war of Indian history, the war between the
liberal and the fanatical in Hinduism, has raged for 5000 years
and more and its end is not yet in sight. No attempt has been
made, as it should have been, to make of this war the loom on
which India’s history could be woven. Even incidental mention
of it is rare and sketchy in books of history . And yet it is the
continuing motive of much that moves in the country.
All religions have in the course of their career suffered
from a conflict between the liberal and the fanatical. But with
the exception of Hinduism, they split up and have often drawn
blood and, after a long or short period of slaughter, succeeded
in overcoming the conflict. With Hinduism, a perpetual see-
saw between the liberal and fanatical goes on and, while open
slaughter has never taken place, the conflict remains unsolved to
this day and a haze covers up the issues involved.
Christianity, Islam and Buddhism have all had their schisms.
The fanatical elements that the Catholic faith had at one time-
accumulated led to what was then the liberal challenge of
Protestant Christianity. But every body knows the Reformation led
to the Counter-reformation. Catholicism and Protestantism still
differ in many of their doctrines but it would be hard to call one
liberal and the other fanatical. If Christianity stays split on
doctrinal and organisational issues, the Shia-Sunni schism in Islam
relates to a detail of chronology. Buddhism likewise split into
the two sects of Heenayana and Mahayana and, although they
never drew blood from each other, their differences relate to
doctrine and have nothing to do with the ordering of society.
Hinduism has known no such split. It has indeed conti-
nually disintegrated into sects. The innovating sect has as often
come back to it as an additional unit. Doctrinal issues have
therefore never been sharply defined and social conflicts have
stayed unresolved. While Hinduism is as prolific as Protestantism
in giving birth to sects, it casts over tliem all and undefinable
mantle of unity such as is secured by the Catholic organisation
through the prohibition of sects. Hinduism has thus become a
system of expanding exploration as much as it is the hunting
ground of the irrational and the fanatical.
Before an attempt could be made to discover why Hinduism
has so far been unable to work this conflict between the fanatical
and the liberal out of its system, it is necessary to recall the broad
differences of view that have always prevailed. On four major
and concrete issues, those of caste, woman, property and tolerance,
Hinduism has suffered from a perpetual swing between the liberal
and fanatical attitudes.
Over four thousand years ago and more, molten lead was
poured into the ears of some Hindus and their tongues pulled
out by other Hindus, for the caste system ordained that no
untouchable shall hear or read the Vedas. Over three hundred years
ago Shivaji had to agree that his dynasty shall ever choose its
ministers from among the Brahmins in order to be crowned king
according to the Hindu custom. Around two hundred years ago
when the last battle of Panipat was fought, and the crown of India
passed into British hands as a consequence, one Hindu general
quarreled with another for he wanted to pitch his tent on higher
land corresponding to his caste. Nearly fifteen years ago a
zealous Hindu wished to save Hinduism by throwing a bomb at
Mahatma Gandhi, for he had then set out to destroy untouch-
ability. Until recently, and in certain areas to this day, the
Hindu barber would not shave untouchable Hindus, while he
would be only too willing to serve the non-Hindu.
At the same time two formidable revolts seem to have taken
place against the caste system in ancient times. A whole Upanishad
is devoted to the complete and entire demolition of the caste
system'. From the nature, tone and compass of attacks made on
the caste system in ancient Indian literature, these appear to
belong to two different periods — a period of criticism and another
of condemnation. While this question may be left to future
investigations, it is obvious that the two bright periods of the
Mauryas and the Guptas follow a comprehensive attack on the
caste system. But caste never quite dies out. It is at times
severely rigid while it loosens during other periods. The fana-
tical and the liberal continue intertwined in respect of the caste
system and the difference between any two periods of Hindu
history consists in the dominance of one or the other strand. At
the moment, the liberal is dominant and the fanatical dare not
become vocal. But the fanatical is seeking to preserve itself .by
entering into liberal thought. If it is too late in the day to talk
of caste by birth, people are talking of caste by vocation. ' Even
if men will not argue for the caste system they rarely act against
it, and a climate grows in which the reasoning mind and the
habitual mind of the Hindu are in conflict. Caste may slacken
as an institution in some of its forms, but as a habit of mind it
has not yet been dislodged. The conflict between the liberal and
fanatical in Hinduism in respect of the caste system threatens to
continue unresolved.
While modern fiction has made us aware of the woman alone
knowing who the father of the child is, Jabala, 3,000 years ago
or more, was not herself sure who the father of her child was
and her name is remembered with pride as a truthful woman in
ancient literature. In parenthesis it may be remarked that the
caste system swallowed her up by turning her son into a Brahmin.
Literature of the liberal period has warned us against too close
an enquiry into geneologies of families, for like the sources of
rivers they too are muddy. Rape under coercion which could
not be fought successfully brings the woman no harm nor dirt,
for, as this literature says, she renews herself every month. The
woman has also the right to divorce and property. While this
liberal attitude towards woman prevails in the luminous periods
of Hinduism, fanatical periods reduce her to a bit of property to
be taken care of by the father, the husband or the son.
At the moment the Hindu woman finds herself in a strange
situation, both liberal and fanatical. She finds it easier than any-
where else in the world to rise to positions of eminence. But
her claim to a single standard with men in respect of marriage
and property continues to be assailed. I have read fanciful leaf-
lets denying the claim of Hindu woman to property on the plea
that she might fall in love with a man of another faith and so
change her own, as if this could not happen perhaps even -more
frequently to a Hindu man. That land should not be further frag-
mented is quite another question and applies both to male and
female inheritors, and some way should be found to keep a
holding, under the permissible maximum, intact. As long as law
or custom and habits of thinking discriminate between man and
woman with respect to property and marriage, the fanatical in
Hinduism will not quite die out. The hankering of the Hindu
to see in his woman a goddess who never descends from her
pedestal opens the most liberal among them to dull and dubious
wishes. The fanatical and the liberal shall remain intertwined
as long as the Hindu refuses to accept his woman as a human
being same as he.
The sense of property in Hinduism is liberalised by its faith
in non-accumulation and non-attachment. Fanatical Hinduism,
however, so interprets the theory of Karma as to give the men of
wealth and birth or power a superior status and to sanction as
right whatever exists. The question of property in its present
form of private versus social ownership is a recent one. But in
its old form of non-attachment versus sanctioned order, it has
continually been present in the Hindu mind. As with the other
issues, the Hindu has never been able to carry his thinking on
the question of property and power to its logical conclusion.
Hinduism has varied both in time and with the individual only
in so far as the one or the other concept of property holds primacy.
Tolerance is commonly reputed to be an unfailing feature of
Hinduism. That is not so except in the sense that open slaughter
has hitherto been abhorrent to it. The fanatical in Hinduism
has always tried to establish unity through uniformity, through the
suppression of- sects and faiths other than the one that was seeking
to dominate, but such attempts have never achieved success. These
have in the past been treated more or less like the antics of little
children, for Hinduism until recently was called upon to apply
the principle of unity in diversity only to its own sects. The
element of tolerance in Hinduism has therefore been almost always
stronger than the element of coercion. But this tolerance must
be distinguished from a similar attitude of mind which European
rationalism has brought into the world. Voltaire knew his oppo-
nent to be wrong and yet he was willing to fight the battle for
tolerance, for his opponent’s right to say w-hat he wanted.
Hinduism on the other hand bases its case for tolerance .on
various possibilities of what is right. It concedes that doctrines
and usages may varj' with climes and classes and is not prepared
to aribitrate among them. It wishes for no uniform pattern in
the conduct of men’s lives, not even a voluntarj'- uniformity and
what it wishes for is that undefinable unity in diversity- which it
has in the past so successfully threaded through all its sects. Its
quality of tolerance, therefore, rises out of the creed of non-inter-
ference, out of the belief that variations need not necessarily be
wrong, but are perhaps different expressions of what is right. .
Fanaticism has often tried to impose the unity of uniformity
on Hinduism. Its motives have not always been suspect. Its
driving power may well at times have been the desire for stability
and strength, but the consequences of its acts have always been
disastrous. I do not know of a single period of Indian history
when fanatical Hinduism was able to give India unity or well-being.
Whenever India has been united and prosperous, the liberal in
Hinduism in respect of caste, woman, property and tolerance has
always predominated. The upswing of fanatical fervour in
Hinduism has always led to the social and political break up of
the country, to the disintegration of the Indian people as a State
and as a community. I do not know if all. those periods when
India got broken up into numerous states and kingdoms were
characterised by fanatical zeal, but it is indisputable that the unity
of the country took place only when liberal Hinduism held sway
over the Hindu mind.
Some great failures of modern history' to integrate the country
stand out. What started as the liberal faith of Gyaneshwar
reached its climax in .Sivaji and Bajirao but fell just a little short
of ultimate success by degenerating into the Peshwa fanaticism.
Again, what started as the liberal faith of Guru Nanak reached
its climax in Ranjit Singh but degenerated early into the fana-
tical squabbles of the Sikh confederacy. These efforts that once
failed have also sought bitterly to repeat themselves in contem-
porary times, for some deep and dark stirrings of the soul connect
them with the fanatical streams now flowing out from sources in
Maharashtra and Punjab. To a student of Indian history, all
this is rich material for study from various angles such as the
close connexion between the teacher of the religious word and the
political effort to build an Indian union or the problems of where
the seeds of degeneracy lie, whether right at the beginning or as
the result of a later mix-up and of the drive that impels groups
to repeat their fanatical failures. A similar study of the
Vizianagram effort and whether it had its roots in Shankar or
Nimbarak and what rotten seed lay beneath the glory that Humpi
once attained would be of great interest and benefit. Again, what
lay at the source of the liberal efforts of Shershah and Akbar and
why did they lose to the fanaticism of an Aurangzeb?
The recentmost effort of the Indian people and Mahatma
Gandhi to integrate the country has succeeded, but only partially.
Undoubtedly, all the liberal streams of five thousand years and
more have pushed forward this effort, but what lies at its imme-
diate source, whether Tulsi or Kabir and Chaitanya and the great
line of the Sants or the more modern religious politicians like
Rammohan Roy and the rebel Maulvi of Faizabad, apart, of
course, from the liberalising influences of Europe. Again, all the
fanatical streams of the past five thousand years seem to be com-
bining to deluge this effort and, should fanaticism meet its
defeat, it will not rise again.
The liberal alone can unite the country. India is too ancient
and vast a countrj'. No force can unite it except the voluntary
human will. Fanatical Hinduism cannot by its nature mould such
a will, while liberal Hinduism can, as it has often done in the past.
Hinduism of course is not a political religion, in the narrow
sense, a religion of doctrines or organisation. But it has been
the eminent medium and inspiration for the great impulsion of
the Indian political history- towards the unity of the country. The
great war between liberal and fanatical Hinduism may well be
called a conflict between the two processes of unification and
disintegration of the country.
Liberal Hinduism has, however, been unable to solve the
problem completely. Within the principle of unify in diversify
lies concealed the seed of decay and disintegration. Not to talk
of the fanatical elements which always sneak into the most liberal
of Hindu concepts and which always hinder the achievement of
intellectual clarity, the principle of unify in diversify gives rise
to a mind which is both rich and lethargic. It is tiresome to
watch Hinduism continually splitting into sects, each with its own
jarring noises, and, however much liberal Hinduism may seek to
cover them with the mantle of unify, they inevitably produce a
weakness in corporate living of the state. An amazing non-
chalance comes to prevail. No one worries about the continual
splitting, as if every one is sure that the)’’ are parts of one another.
This is what gives fanatical Hinduism its chance and driving
power, the desire for strength, although the result of its endeavour
produces further weakening.
The great war between liberal and fanatical Hinduism has
at present taken the outward form' of their differing attitudes to
Muslims. Nevertheless let it not be forgotten even for a moment
that this is only an outward form and all the old unresolved con-
flicts continue and are potentially more deciding. The assassina-
tion of Mahatma Gandhi was not so much an episode of the
Hindu-Muslim fight as of the war between the liberal and the
fanatical in Hinduism. Never had a Hindu delivered greater
blows on fanaticism in respect of caste, woman, propeify' or
tolerance. All the bitterness was accumulating. Once before an
attempt had been made on Gandhi ji’s life. It was then obviously
and openly for the purpose of saving Hinduism in the sense of
saving caste. The last and successful attempt was outwardly
made for the purpose of saving Hinduism in the sense of protecting
it from Muslim engulfment, but no student of Hindu history
can be in doubt that it was the greatest and the most heinous
gamble that retreating fanaticism risked in its war on liberal
Hinduism. Gandhiji’s murderer was the fanatical element that
always lies embedded in the Hindu mind, sometimes quiescent and
sometimes pronounced, in some Hindus dominant and in others
passive. When pages of history shall try the murder of Mahatma
Gandhi as an episode in the war between the fanatical and the
liberal in Hinduism and arraign all those whom Gandhiji’s acts
against caste and for woman, against property and for tolerance
had enraged, the composure and non-chalance of Hinduism may
well be shattered.
Why the liberal and fanatical have continued intertwined in
the Hindu faith and have never hitherto challenged each other
to a clean and decisive battle is a subject rich in exploration to
students of Indian history. That the complete cleansing of the
Hindu mind in respect of the fanatical never took place is beyond
doubt. The disastrous consequences of this unresolved conflict
are also beyond doubt. As long as caste is not completely erased
from the Hindu mind or woman treated as an equal being with
man, or property dissociated from the concept of order, the
fanatical will from time to time play havoc with Indian history
and also impart to it a continuing lethargy. Unlike other religions,
Hinduism is not a faith of doctrines and the church bat a way of
social organisation, and that is why the war between liberalism
and fanaticism has never been fought out to its end and the
Brahmin-Bania combination has ruled India for good or evil
through centuries, a rule alternating between the liberal and the
fanatical.
Mere liberalisation of the four issues will not do; they have
to be once for all resolved of the conflict and eliminated completely
from the Hindu mind.
Back of all these unresolved conflicts is the metaphysical
problem of the relationship between appearance and reality. There
is indeed little difference in the attitudes of liberal and fanatical
Hinduism with regard to this problem. Hinduism by and large
seeks to go beyond appearance in search of the reality, does not
indeed decry phenomenon as false, but only of a lower, order to
be submerged in the mind’s ascent to the higher reality. All philo-
sophy in all lands has indeed concerned itself with this problem.
What distinguishes Hinduism from other faiths and theologies
is that, while this problem has been largely confined to philosophy
in other lands, it has in India seeped into the faith of the mass
of the people. Philosophy has been set to tunes of music and
turned into faith. But in other lands, the philosopher has gene-
rally denied appearance in search of reality. His effect on the
modem world has therefore been very limited. The scientific
and secular spirit has hungrily collected all data of appearance,
sifted them, tabulated them and discovered laws that hold them
together. This has given the modern man, his type being pre-
eminently the European, a habit of life and thinking. He accepts
ardently facts as they appear. The ethical content of Christianity
has furthermore lent to the good acts of man the status of the
works of God. All this works towards a scientific and ethical
exploitation of the facts of life. Hinduism, however, has never
been able to get rid of its metaphysical basis. Even the common
faith of the people goes beyond the visible and sensible for a
glimpse of that reality which appears not. The middle ages in
Europe had also shared such a perspective, but, let me repeat this
was confined to the philosopher and denied appearance altogether
or took it as a reduction of truth, while the mass of the people
accepted Christianity as an ethical faith and to that extent accepted
appearance. Hinduism has never denied facts of life altogether,
but only concedes them the status of events of a lower order and
has always, so to this day, tried to go in search of reality of the
higher order. This is the common faith of the people.
A vivid illustration comes to my mind. On the great but
half destroyed temple of Konarak, one can see thousands upon
thousands of sculptured images carved on the stones of the
building. There is no miserliness nor coyness in the artist’s
acceptance of appearance; he has indeed accepted them in all
their rich variety. Even here there seems to be a certain order
of arrangement. From the lowest to the highest block, the
sculptured images run in the series of unsorted variety to that
of the hunt, to the love play, to music, then to power. Everything
is rich movement and activity. But, inside the temple is almost
bare and such images as there are speak of stillness and peace.
From a moving and active exterior to a still and static interior
seems to have been the basic design of this temple. The search
for the ultimate reality was never abandoned.
The comparative development of architecture and sculpture
as compared to painting might well have its own story to tell. In
fact, such paintings as are still available to us from ancient times
are more architectural than otherwise. Man has probably greater
scope to project his notions of ultimate reality into architecture
and sculpture than painting.
The Hindu has therefore acquired a split personality. At
his best, a Hindu accepts appearance without losing insight into
the ultimate and is ever striving to enrich his insight, at his worst,
his hyprocrisy is matchless. The Hindu is probably the world’s
greatest hypocrite, for he not only deceives others as hypocrites
all the world over do, but he also deceives himself to his own
disadvantage. His split mind between appearance and reality
often encourages him to do so. What an amazing spectacle has
Hinduism presented in the past and does so today. Hinduism has
given its votaries, the commonest among them, the faith of meta-
physical equality or oneness between man and man and things,
such as has never fallen to the lot of man elsewhere. Alongside
of this faith in metaphysical equality goes the most heinous
conduct of social inequality. I have often wondered if this meta-
physical Hindu when he is well placed, does not treat the poor
and low caste as animals and animals as stones and everyone as
everything else. Vegetarianism and non-violence obviously
degenerate into concealed cruelty. While it can be said of all
human endeavour hitherto that truth at some stage turns into
cruelty and beauty into profligacy, this is perhaps more so true of
Hinduism which has attained scales of truth and beauty unsur-
passed in their lands, but which has also descended into pits of
darkness unplumbed by man elsewhere. Not until the Hindu
learns to accept the facts of life in the scientific and secular spirit,
facts relating to work and machine and output and family and
growth of population and hunger and tyranny and the like, is
there any hope for him to overcome his split personality or to
deal a death-blow to fanaticism which has so often been his
undoing in the past.
This is not to say that Hinduism must give up its emotive
basis and the search for oneness of all life and things. That is
perhaps its greatest quality. The awareness and universalising
of that sudden onrush of feeling, which makes a village boy pick
up the kid of the goat and clasp it as if it were his life, when
the automobile speeds along or which sees the tree with its
gnarled roots and green branches as part of oneself, is perhaps
a quality common to all faiths, but no where has it acquired a
deep and abiding emotion as in Hinduism. The God of Reason
is completely without the God of Mercy. I do not know whether
God exists or does not, but this I know that the feeling that makes
one kin of all life and things exists although as a rare emotion
yet. To make of this feeling a background for all activity even
of strife is perhaps an unrealisable adventure. But Europe is dying
of strife born out of a too one-sided acceptance of appearance
and India is dying of stagnation resulting from an equally
one-sided acceptance of the reality behind things. I have no doubt
that I would prefer to die of strife than of stagnation. But are
these the only two courses of thinking and conduct open to man?
Is it not possible to adjust the scientific spirit of enquiry with
the emotive spirit of oneness without subordinating the one to the
other and in full equality as two processes of like merit. The
scientific spirit will work against caste and for woman, against
property and for tolerance and of course yield the processes of
producing wealth such as will dispel hunger and want. The
creative spirit of oneness may secure that ballast without which
men’s highest endeavour turns into greed and envy and hatred.
It is difficult to say whether Hinduism' is capable of acquiring
this new mind and to achieving adjustment of the scientific and
the emotive spirit. But then what exactly is Hinduism? To this
there is no one answer, but -a series of answers. This much is
certain that Hinduism is no precise doctrine nor organiza-
tion, nor can any one article of faith or conduct be consi-
dered indispensable for Hinduism. There is a whole world
of memories and mythology, of philosophy and customs and
practices, part of which grossly evil and another which can be of
service to man. The whole of it makes the Hindu mind, an
essential quality of which some scholars have seen in the principle
of tolerance or of unit)’' in diversity. We have seen the limita-
tions of this principle and where it needs to be revised so as to
dispel mental inertia. A common error however in the under-
standing of this principle consists in the belief that liberal
Hinduism has always been open to good ideas and influences no
matter where they came from, while fanatical Hinduism is not.
This is to my mind an illiterate belief. I have not come across
in pages of Indian history any period when the free Hindu searched
for ideas and objects in foreign lands or was willing to accept
them. In all the long connection between India and China, I have
only been able to list five fancy articles, including vermilion,
imported into India, and of imports of ideas there is nothing
at all.
Free India had essentially a oneway traffic with the outside
world, no import of ideas and very little of objects, except silver
and the like, unless when communities of foreigners settled in
India and tried to become a Hindu sect or caste with the passage
of time. On the other hand enslaved India and with it Hinduism
have shown a remarkable alacrity to ape the conqueror, his
language, his habits and ways of living. Self-sufficiency of mind
in freedom is matched with its total supineness under slavery.
This weakness of Hinduism has never been recognised and it is
unfortunate that liberal Hindus in their illiteracy are spreading
contrary ideas for propagandist purposes. In the state of freedom,
the Hindu mind is indeed open, but only to events taking place
within India’s frontiers, but remains closed to ideas and
influences from outside. This is one of its major weaknesses and
a reason for India to fall a prey to foreign rule. The Hindu mind
must now become open not only to what happens in India, but
also to the outside world and it must apply its principle of unity
in diversity to all the achievements of human thinking and practice.
Strenuous effort must be made to rid it of'its habit to alternate
between outright indifference to and uncoordinated acceptance
of foreign thought.
The war between the liberal and the fanatical in Hinduism has
today taken the surface expression of the Hindu-Muslim conflict,
but no Hindu who is aware of the history- of his faith and country
will fail to take equal notice of the other unresolved conflicts raging
for 5000 years and more. No Hindu can be genuinely- tolerant to
[Muslims unless he acts at the same time actively against caste
and property and for woman. Likewise, a Hindu who is genuinely
against caste and property and for woman will inevitably be
tolerant to Muslims. The war between liberal and fanatical
Hinduism has reached its most complex stage and it may well
be that its end is in sight. Fanatical Hindus, no matter what
their motives are, must break up the Indian State, should they ever
succeed, not only from the Hindu-Muslim point of view, but also
from that of caste and' provinces. Liberal Hindus alone can
sustain this state. This war of five thousand years or more has
therefore entered a stage in which the very existence of the
Indian people as a political community and a State depends upon
the History of the liberal over the fanatical in Hinduism.
The religious and the human problem is today eminently
a poh’tical problem. The Hindu is faced with the serious choice
of accomplishing a complete mental revolution or else of going
under. He must be a [Muslim and a Christian and feel like one.
I am not talking of Hindu-Muslim unity, for that is a political,
institutional or at best a cultural problem. I am talking of the
emotional identification of the Hindu with the Muslim or the
Christian, not in religious faith and practices, but in the feeling
that I am he. Such an emotional identification may appear difficult
to achieve, for, often it may have to be one-sided and bear the pain
of murder and slaughter. I may here recall the American Civil
War in which brother killed brother for four years and six hundred
thousand died, but Abraham Lincoln and the American people
crowned their hour of victory with precisely such an emotion
between the Northern and Southern brother. No matter v-hat
the future has in store for India, the Hindu must turn himself
inside out to achieve this emotional oneness with the Muslim.
The Hindu faith of emotive oneness of all -life and things is also
the political necessity of the Indian States that the Hindu shall feel
one with the Muslim. On the path may yet lie setbacks and defeats,
but the direction that the Hindu mind should take is clear.
It may be suggested that the best way to put an end to this
war between liberal and fanatical Hinduism is to combat religion.
That may indeed be so, but the process is tardy and where is the
guarantee that the clever old rogue might not swallow up the
anti-religious as one of its numerous sects? Furthermore the
fanatical elements in Hinduism obtain their systematic supporters,
when they do, from the semi-educated and from the townsmen,
while the illiterate village-folk, however much they might get
excited for the moment, cannot be their steady base. The long
wisdom of centuries makes the village-folk as much as the
educated, tolerant. In their search for sustenance from anti-
democratic doctrines like communism and fascism that base them-
selves on somewhat similar concepts of caste and leadership,
fanatical elements in Hinduism may as well assume the anti-religious garb. The time has come when the Hindu must bathe his
mind and cleanse it of the dirt that centuries have accumulated.
He must indeed establish an honest and fruitful relationship
between the facts of life and his awareness of ultimate reality.
Only on this base will he be able to crush for ever the fanatical
elements in Hinduism in respect of caste, woman, property and
tolerance, which have so long vitiated his faith and disintegrated
his country’s history. In the days of retreat the fanatical has
often sneaked into the liberal in Hinduism. Let that not happen
again. The issues are clear and sharply defined. Compromise
will once again repeat the errors of the past. This hideous war
must now be brought to a close. A new endeavour of the Indian
mind will then start which shall combine the rational with the
emotive, which shall make of unity in diversity not an inert but
a vital doctrine which shall accept the clean joy of the sensible
world without losing insight into the oneness of all life and things.
July, 1950.
No comments:
Post a Comment