That’s why Hinduism is such a wonderful religion. It’s because people are allowed to have their own texts: there was no Pope or ulemas to say you may not tell the story that way—until now. You have groups that say Rama would never have sent Sita away so we have the shadow Sita who went to Lanka instead of the real Sita. Then you have other stories that say that in fact Lakshman was really in love with Sita , which of course Tulsidas doesn’t say, and neither does Valmiki. And you have stories in which Sita is the sister of Ravana. Until recently, there was no one who said there was only one way to tell the Ramayana.
She is right, of course. What could have been termed a weakness when foreign invasions began in the 8th century, became our strength after British came. Hindu-majority India didn't go the way of Pakistan, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia -- where religion became tyrant -- precisely because there is no one book, no Vatican who has authority to tell Hindus what's right and what's wrong.
Having an organised religion (one book, one set of rules) might have helped us resist the invaders from the North-West Asia. It might have united all those who lived south of Hindukush to come together, and perceive foreigners as foreigners. But now? Now Hindus have imbibed the idea that they are one nation. And their nation has come into being, is fairly stable, it's boundaries are well-defined, except in Kashmir. .
This is what Hindu nationalists should have got into their heads long back: once we got the nation, and the idea of it, there was no need for the religion to underpin the nationalism. Religion can be allowed to become irrelevant in the public affairs, and in the politics. If you aspire to a `pure, distilled' Hinduism , on the lines of Semitic religions, what you will get is orthodoxy, madness of "going by the book". The madness which makes young men beat up girls because they go to the pub.
0 comments:
Post a Comment