|
by Jayaram V
Truly,
the new generation of Hindus is the gift of India to the mankind. We hope
that their lives and actions become a source of inspiration to others to
follow.
Many people
tend to believe that since the present day Hindus exhibit a
greater degree of
religious tolerance, the same must be true in the past also. It is true that
today, many Hindus display a rare degree of religious tolerance, which is very
much in harmony with their religious beliefs and practices.
But this
concept was evidently not present to the same degree among the Hindus in the
past. The secular attitude of the present day Hindus is a product of their
recent past, of their modern education, of their increased sense of
responsibility and of their awareness of their great heritage and ancient
religion. In some ways, it is also a social and political compromise, something
which they do not like, but cannot wish away or avoid in the light of the
realities that confront them.
The ancient
Indians were hardly tolerant of other religions or religious sects that opposed
their faith in some way. The vedic people used the most derogatory
epithets to describe those who were different from them either in their body
color or in their religious beliefs. Perhaps the word kafir might look less
objectionable compared to the epithets the Vedic people used to describe their
opponents who practiced different religions or worshipped different gods.
The situation
did not change much during the later vedic period or during the post Mauryan
period. A number of religious sects headed by new religious teachers came into
prominence during the seventh and sixth century B.C. These sects preached
radical philosophies. Some of them doubted the very existence of God and the
possibility of any after life. Some believed in the existence of soul, but
not in the existence of a Creator.
No amity
existed among these diverse sects. They hardly tolerated each other and tried
their best to prove each other wrong. They quarreled among themselves frequently
and used derogatory epithets to describe each other. The vedic brahmins of this
period were excessively vehement in their description of these heretics, to whom
they showed little sympathy and understanding. They regarded these otherwise
very wise teachers as perverted philosophers, cursing them vehemently and
wishing them prolonged suffering in the darkest hells! It is true
that in course of time most of these schools became integrated into Indian
philosophy as different schools of thought.
Even the Buddha
could not remain free from the attacks of his opponents. The Ajivakas with whom
he had several debates never liked him, nor appreciated his teachings. Under the
leadership of his cousin Devadutta, some of his followers formed a separate
religious movement and always schemed against him. The rivalry between the two
groups was so vehement that there were even attempts on the life and reputation
of the Buddha.
The Mauryas
came from a lower caste hindu family from eastern India. Because of this they
probably never liked Brahmanism. Chandragupta Maurya became a Jain during the
end of his rule, while Asoka became an avowed Buddhist. We do not have much
information about the religious tolerance of the Maurya kings, though we have
reasons to believe that the Mauryas might have been very practical in their
approach to religion. We have definite information that the religious policy of
Asoka annoyed the brahmins of his time and contributed to the down fall of his
empire after his death resulting in the emergence of Sungas as the ruling
dynasty.
The Sungas were
brahmin kings. They supported Brahmanism and had little sympathy for any other
religion, especially Buddhism. They opposed Buddhism and even persecuted
Buddhists, destroying some of their monasteries and forcing them to leave their
empire.
The post
Mauryan period was characterized by the emergence of many new religious sects in
Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. The most prominent sects of Hinduism were
Saivism and Bhagavatism or Vaishnavism. Hardly any amity existed among these two
sects. Rivalry between the two sects often led to serious religious clashes,
which generated a great deal of ill will and religious tension. The rivalry
between these two sects continued for very long, for several centuries, until
recently, often dividing the Hindu society vertically into two sections. Some
form of subtle rivalry between these two sects exists even today!
The followers
of Saivism quarreled not only with the followers of Vishnu, but also with the
Buddhists, whom they criticized and ridiculed in several ways. Some of the south
Indian saints of Saivism were particularly vehement in their criticism of
Buddhism and Jainism.
Great rivalry
existed between the Mahayana and Hinayana sects of Buddhism. Besides these two
major groups, there were other groups with in Buddhism, which did not tolerate
one another. Some of them had to remain secretive for fear of reappraisals. The
different sects of Buddhism expelled those from their respective Order who did
not agree with their views. Same kind of tension prevailed between the
Svetambara and Digambara sects of Jainism also.
The Brahmins of
ancient India never appreciated the foreign rulers, who invaded India and
established their rule in the country. They placed the aliens on par with
the untouchables of their society, unless those in positions of power and
authority converted themselves to the Brahmanical faith and gave them rich
grants. They described the foreigners in the most derogatory way and considered
them as unclean people. They personally avoided all form of contact with them
and abhorred any kind of social relationship with them such as marriage.
The Guptas were
great worshippers of Vishnu and we have reasons to believe that during their
time Saivism must have suffered a set back in the north! By the end of the Gupta
period, the conservative sections of Hindu society grew weary of Buddhism.
Sasanka, who ruled some parts of eastern India during the reign of
Harshavardhana was so intolerant of Buddhism that he even burnt the temple at
Bodhgaya as well as the sacred bodhi tree itself! One reason why Buddhism
disappeared from the land of its origin completely was because of the high
degree of intolerance displayed by the majority of the orthodox Hindus during
the post Gupta period.
The religious
rivalry remained strong in the post Guptas period. The conservative
sections of
Hindu society never accepted Tantricism whole heartedly and condemned it as a
perverted and demonic practice. Neither in the past nor in the present, Hindus
ever accepted Tantricism whole heartedly. For a majority of them sex as a way of
salvation, or worship of the physical body as a means of self realization was
abhorrent. Even in modern times, teachers like Acharya Rajneesh, who preached
sex as the way to salvation, remain condemned by the conservative Hindus.
Sri Adi
Shankaracharya is considered by many as the most prominent reformer
of Hinduism in ancient India. His life is a story of intense struggle against
the orthodoxy and superstition of his times. in his short life span of 32 or 33
years he had to cope with a lot of opposition from various Hindu scholars of his
time. Any one who is familiar with his life and teachings understand the extent
of trouble he took to convince people to accept his views and ideas.
It is fact that
he died a mysterious and sudden death at a very young age of about 32 years. It
would not surprise us if some modern historian comes out with an unquestionable
proof that he did not die a natural or sudden death but was killed by some
fanatic of a different sect!
The religious
attitude of the Hindus during the medieval and the British periods
remained mostly suppressed because of the fear psychosis created by the
aggressive policies, politics and tactics of the foreign rulers. But in their
hearts of hearts a majority of the natives never liked or accepted the ways of
the Muslims or of the Christians. Since they had little scope to express
their inner feelings without risking their safety and security, most of them
remained innerly hostile, unwilling to make any reconciliation with the
outsiders. The upper caste Hindus abhorred the very idea of any personal
contact with these groups and regarded them socially on par with the
untouchables.
It is true that
the Hindus never subjected other religious groups and sects to either inhuman
treatment or physical torture. They believed that religion was a matter of an
individual's life style and his past karma and that each individual should be
left to follow whatever dharma that suited him best. They also believed
that it was better to follow ones dharma, however inferior it might be, rather
than adopting another's dharma. So they did not appreciate the idea of forcing
any one to change his or her religion and they never appreciated any one who
tried to convert people from one religion to another in a an organized manner,
under the pressure of some material gain or physical threat.
But it does not
mean they appreciated the new religions that came from outside and challenged
their own. In the face of stiff opposition from these religions, they
willingly underwent great suffering or withdrew into a shell. They distanced
themselves physically as well as socially from these foreigners and also
from those who succumbed to the pressures and joined the new faiths.
Thus we can see
that secularism was never a common practice in ancient or medieval India. The
people of the subcontinent hardly behaved tolerantly towards the other faiths in
the past. They neither approved the new faiths nor accepted them socially. In
their opinion, the emergence of theses religions was a sign of Kaliyuga, a
product of their past collective karma, which could be resolved only by becoming
more religious.
The following
points further prove our argument that the Hindus in the past were rarely
tolerant of other religious groups.
1.The Brahmins
never allowed the lower castes to enjoy equal status. They had little tolerance
for the lower sections of Hindu society, their very people. Till modern times,
these unfortunate souls were not allowed to read the vedas or other important
religious scriptures. They were not allowed to enter the temples, where the
brahmins also worshipped, and worship the gods. They had no permission to draw
water from the same well from where they also drew water or share food with the
higher castes sitting in the same line during a social or religious function. We
have little doubt that higher caste Hindus in the past were racist and casteist
in many ways, cruelly and inhumanly intolerant of their own people who
belonged to a lower strata of the society. Some of the hindu law books even
hinted that killing these unfortunate people for some valid reason was not a
ghastly crime, especially when such a crime was perpetrated by a Brahmin!
2.The ancient
Indians never appreciated the ways of the tribal people who lived in the forests
and whose practices were in many ways were different. They also did not permit
any one other than a Brahmin priest to recite mantras on important religious
occasions. The punishment prescribed for those who recited mantras against the
prescribed injunctions was to pour hot lead in the mouth of the reciter and in
the ears for those who were not authorized to listen!
3.The Parsis
who fled Iran and came to India to escape persecution, did escape persecution
but found dealing with the conservative elements of Hindu society a really
tough option. If the Parsis survived in India subsequently and prospered, it was
not because of the tolerant nature of the Hindus of western coast, but despite
of it. Those who doubt this are advised to read the early history of Parsis in
India. We have evidence to suggest that some degree of tension existed between
the Parsis and the Hindus even during the early British rule.
4. We are made
to understand that when St.Thomas, one of the apostles of Christ, landed in
Kerala and began preaching a new religion, he was met with a strong resistance
and ultimately killed by the local people.
Our aim in
presenting this article is not to prove that hindus were bad because they were
not secular or that religious intolerance is acceptable. We want to state that
the present Hindu is a better Hindu, whose approach to other religions is in
line with his religious beliefs than his ancestors who hardly tolerated
other religions and beliefs.
Religious
intolerance is an undeniable reality common to all religious groups. There is
hardly any religious group in the world today, other than the Hindus, who are
willing to let other religions coexist peacefully without any organized attempt
to convert them or coerce them. The wars are still fought in this world more
frequently in the name of religion.
Every one knows
that if the world were to become one, religious tolerance should become an
universal practice. In this regard we believe that the Hindus of today are a way
ahead of the followers of other religions. They show a great degree of religious
tolerance and do not mind to worship god in all possible forms and with all
possible names. Truly, the new generation of Hindus is the gift of India to
the mankind. We hope that their lives and actions become a source of inspiration
to others to follow.
Suggested Further Reading
|
