The Hindu movement after Ayodhya
| Dr Koenraad Elst was born in Leuven, Belgium into a Flemish Catholic family. He graduated in Philosophy, Chinese Studies and Indo-Iranian Studies at Leuven. During a stay at the Benares Hindu University, he discovered India’s communal problem and wrote his first book about the budding Ayodhya conflict. |
The Ayodhya issue is a symbolic issue. Non-sympathetic people will say only a symbolic issue. But for people who are part of it, symbols do matter.
The Indian Constitution specifically demands respect for the Flag and the Anthem, even though these are only symbols. So, all due respect for symbols. Nevertheless, a symbol is only a symbol of something. It is this something that makes the symbol into something that matters. And the care extended to the symbol, is only a symbol of the care extended to that something.
Ram is the symbol of Dharma. Ram Rajya represents Dharma Rajya, the Rule of Righteousness. The attention which in a symbolic moment like the present Janmabhoomi-building is given to the symbolizing entity, Ram, is itself a local-temporal representation of the general attention given to the symbolized entity, the Dharma.
So, the Hindu activists should impress upon their minds that the struggle is not for a brick structure, though that is a legitimate symbolic part of it, but for Dharma. After centuries of Muslim oppression and Western indoctrination, even activist Hindus have become self- alienated and forgetful of the true values of their own civilization.
Do they know what Dharma means ?
In all modesty, let us attempt to define the fundamental distinction between Hindu Dharma and the monotheistic religions. The fundamental problem in Hinduism is avidya, lack of consciousness. The goal of life is peace or happiness, the place and means to achieve it is consciousness. Therefore, techniques of consciousness culture have been developed, and they are available for everyone to choose from, according to one’s own character and level of development.
In Islam, consciousness has no role at all. It suffices to be in the right club, the Muslim millat. Secondarily, it is expected that you conform to the common rules of Islamic law and morality, and that you serve the interests of Islam, if need be through armed struggle against the unbelievers. Consciousness is nowhere in the picture.
In Christianity also, there is a strong stress or morality, though ultimately it is not your moral calibre but only Jesus who has the power to save you. At any rate, it is not consciousness.
In Marxism, consciousness is even denied any independent status. Mao Tse-tung rejected all soul culture as bourgeois diversion from the class struggle.
When some secularists have said that the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was not truly a Hindu movement, they were right in the sense that it was a consciousness movement. It involved a lot of physical locomotion, a lot of people giving their lives, and all that for a physical structure that would undo the physical harm which Islam has done to the physical temples of Hinduism. But then again, in the circumstances, such a physical movement was probably the best reminder and consciousness-raiser.
Hindu society may take up several more symbolic issues after this temple business is over.
Cow protection is not a symbolic issue !
A very important one for most Hindus is cow protection. In fact, in calling it merely a symbolic issue, I may well betray a bias or lack of empathy resulting from my non-Hindu roots. I have never been taught to venerate the cow, but it a majority of the people in India think that what is sacred them, deserves protection, then they can enact a law enforcing cow protection in every nook and corner of the country. It is in keeping with the injunction of the Constitution.
Is it ‘unsecular’ to ban cow-slaughter ?
To answer that question, let us first make a comparison. The Catholic Church is very strongly opposed to abortion, and encourages Catholic politicians and votes to prevent its legalization. In Ireland, the people recently voted in a referendum to ban abortion not just by law, but in the Constitution. So now, the unborn children are the sacred cows of Ireland.
Was this unsecular ? No, it was perfectly secular, because the secular democratic procedures laid down by law were followed, the sovereign people and no one but the people made the decision, and the Church or any other religious authorities were nowhere in the picture. If some people had based their viewpoint an abortion on their commitment to the Catholic faith, then that was their own private affair, with which the secular state had no business.
Conversely, in Belgium, a law allowing abortion was passed, in spite of the Catholic bishops’ opposition to it, but in conformity with an appeal by the Humanist [i.e. atheist] League.
The same thing happened in Italy. In these countries, the voters who were sufficiently committed to the Catholic faith to uphold its rejection of abortion, as well as the non-Catholic opponents of the abortion law, had dwindled and become a minority. So the secular procedure was to count the votes and legislate accordingly, without anyhow bothering about the religious or non-religious reason why people had voted the way they did.
So, a secular democratic decision is not defined as that one which will make the bigots the most unhappy. It is simply the decision supported by the majority in the relevant round of voting.
It is secular from the moment no religious Scripture or authority came between the voters’ preference and the actual legislation. So, if cow-slaughter is banned because the Shankaracharya demands it, it is not secular. If it is banned because a majority in Parliament decides so, it is secular. And it remains that, even if the politicians or their constituents have autonomously chosen to follow the Shankaracharya’s advice.
My impression is that a clear majority of the citizens of Bharat would favour a comprehensive legal ban on cow-slaughter. Given the right intellectual climate, talented politicians should be able to transform this majority opinion into a parliamentary majority, and finally into a law.
If sacred places can be protected by law, so can sacred animals. Of course, if another community has another sacred animal, that can be protected as well. A law protecting animals is in fact much more humane and progressive than a law conserving the status quo of places of worship.
Restoring old names is not a symbolic issue !
Another symbolic issue, in fact symbolic par excellence, is the question of restoring old names. Local Hindu groups have demanded and sometimes enacted the adoption of re-adoption of Hindu names for cities, replacing names like Aurangabad which only served to eternalize Muslim fanatics like Aurangzeb. One that would be a very resounding international statement, is the replacement of Delhi by Indraprastha.
Some people who think a centuries-old name is more sacrosanct than a millennia-old name, predictably come out with their bored non-interest, asserting that there are better things to do.
When you oppose a change, you say there are so much more important things to do !
It is an old trick : When you oppose a change, you say there are so much more important things to do. Thus, when the Link Language problem became acute in 1965 (according to the Constitution, the change-over from English to Hindi had to be completed by then, but those in power had sabotaged the process completely), the English-speaking elite had no intention of giving up its language privileges, so it said that you cannot feed Hindi to the poor, and such hollow excuses more. A cartoon showed ship sinking into an ocean of problems (unemployment, poverty, etc., the real problems), with the crew fighting each other over English and Hindi instead of saving the ship. This disgusting trick of declaring other people’s demands (even if they are for the implementation of the democratically accepted Constitution) to be beside the point, instead of addressing them, is always used by people who have arrived and settled into the comfort of power.
There is no conflict between solving the real problems, and taking decisions regarding symbolic issues. The two are not in each other’s way. Other countries, far poorer than India, have changed names. Burma became Myanmar, Batavia become Jakarta, Leopoldville became Krishnasa, Lourenzo Marques became Maputo, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, etc. These countries also took down most statues of the colonial heroes, unhindered by any Babri Masjid Committee. So it is entirely in the hands of the sovereign people whether they want to retain the imposed name or restore the indigenous name, and whether they want to create, abolish or change national symbols.
(Courtesy : Excerpts from the Book ‘Ayodhya and After’ published in 1991; and an article on VoiceOfDharma.org/books/ayodhya/ch15.htm)
| Hindu activists should impress upon their minds that the struggle is not for a brick structure, but for Dharma ! |