Indians in blood and colour have united, and are on a
carnival of self-denial, self-denigration and
self-incrimination, the like of which we have not seen
since raj "toadies" were silenced by the fervour of the
nationalist movement. There can be no other explanation
for the spontaneous expressions of scorn that erupted at
the recitation of the Saraswati Vandana (invocation to the
Goddess of Knowledge) at the recent Education Ministers
Conference in the Capital.
Critics of the BJP rationalise their opposition to the
move to "Indianise" and "spiritualise" education on the
ground that it promotes the religious values and culture
of "a section" (read Hindus), and thus runs counter to the
countrys "pluralist" traditions. After five decades of
freedom, the time has come to reject such perverse
arguments, redress the injuries inflicted upon the
national psyche, and call a spade a spade. Those seeking
to invest Saraswati Vandana with sectarian colours and
proclaiming a wholly untenable parity for all religions at
all official functions, must be given a fitting reply.
There is no need for the Government to go on the defensive
regarding the merits of the hymn, or its own secular
credentials. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee must
unequivocally declare his Governments commitment to the
civilisational unity and ethos of India, which is not
going to be negated by claims of a grotesque
religion-based parity, which will degrade Hinduism to one
of many faiths in the land.
Unlike other creeds, Hinduism does not have a linear,
one-dimensional character. The Sanatan Dharma is an
eternal way of life as well as a religion; it is possible
to owe allegiance to the former without observing the
forms and rituals of the faith. The Sanatan Dharma thus
epitomises the foundational ethos of India; its
development parallels (if not pre-dates) the Egyptian
civilisation that gave the world the Sphinx and Great
Pyramids. What is more, unlike Egypt, we have maintained a
continuity of civilisation (notwithstanding losses over
time), proof of which can be seen in the fact that India
has no collective memory of a pre-Vedic past.
This is in sharp contrast to the manner in which Christian
and Islamic civilisations are haunted by the suppressed
elements of their pre-Christian and pre-Islamic past. It
would seem that as Vedic civilisation developed, it
enveloped and cemented the pre-Vedic (if any) culture
within its multiple folds. There was no eradication or
intolerance, but a mature realisation that there are as
many routes to the divine as there are souls on earth.
This makes the Sanatan Dharma unique among all
civilisations the world has known, and gifts us an
unmatched ethos, to which all Indians are equal heirs.
In this context, it would be instructive to look at
Mahatma Gandhis view on the study of Sanskrit, the latest
object of vilification by our secular brethren. The Father
of the Nation had stated unequivocally: "All Hindus should
learn Sanskrit. Not just Hindus, but Muslims also, because
Ram and Krishna are their ancestors too. Therefore, to
know them, they should know Sanskrit" (Navjivan, March 23,
1927).
I think the founding fathers subtly acknowledged this
truth when they inserted the otherwise inexplicable phrase
"India, that is Bharat", in the Constitution. For a modern
nation that shunned an explicitly religious identity as
that asserted by the newly-created Pakistan, the statement
seems unduly mystical in an otherwise dry document. It
makes sense only if we see it as asserting the common
nationhood of all Indians as deriving from the legendary
king Bharat, with all its Vedic connotations.
The unfortunate walkout by some education ministers during
the Saraswati Vandana is not simply a matter of "insulting
Hindus in their own country" as VHP supremo Ashok Singhal
has claimed. This would imply that the Sanatan Dharma
constitutes the foundational ethos of India merely because
Hindus are the majority. This "statistical" argument was
used by early Christians and Muslims to stamp out the
original culture in the lands they overran.
My point is that because it is the original seed and root
of the civilisation that grew and flourished here, the
Sanatan Dharma (preserved in the golden verses of the
Vedas and Upanishads) has pre-eminent claim to our loyalty
and respect, irrespective of the religion we practice. As
for Hinduism, the religion, it is a matter of private
belief and shall ever remain so.
Any right thinking citizen would have no quarrel with this
position. I recollect that some years ago, when a similar
brand of intolerance was being aired in society, the
singer Yesudas made precisely this point when he lit a
lamp at a public function and denied that this amounted to
"forced Hinduisation". The Akalis, the Telugu Desam and
the National Conference leaders, not to mention Ms
Jayalalitha, should be ashamed of the perverse and
short-sighted stand they have taken in the matter.
It is not a question of whether these parties are allies
or enemies of the Government. The Akali leadership would
do well to remember that from Nanak to Gobind Singh, the
Sikh faith has derived almost entirely from Hindu sources.
And before I am told of its Islamic roots and Islam-like
aversion to idol worship (shared, incidentally, by a Jain
sect), I may point out that Sikhism has borrowed from the
indigenous, popular Islam of Sufis, bhakti saints like
Kabir, pirs and dervishes. This Islam is reviled by
purists, who have no empathy with Sikhism. In fact,
Sikhism has a history of painful conflict with orthodox
Islam, which does not bear repetition. Be that as it may,
even if the Akalis have now forgotten that Sikhism was
created as the sword arm of Hinduism, they should not
label Hinduism as just another faith in India.
As for Dr Jayalalitha, one expects her to respect herself
and stand up for what is right. The last time she was
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, she caused a stampede in
which a number of people died, because she went to bathe
in a holy river at an auspicious time, and the crowd
rushed to get a glimpse of that sacred spectacle.
There remains the issue of the imposition of Sanskrit that
seems to have agitated Congress president Sonia Gandhi.
Certainly Human Resource Development Minister Murli
Manohar Joshis moves were uninformed, as the battle for
the three-language formula has already been won. Dr Joshi
should know that the proposal to scuttle Sanskrit learning
and reduce the language to a 25-mark section of the Hindi
paper had been mooted during the premiership of Rajiv
Gandhi.
It provoked a nation-wide furore, not because of
"incipient Christianisation", but because the principals
of leading public schools, students and parents, argued
that Sanskrit being grammatically perfect and
computer-friendly, was a language of the future. Since
then, it is being taught with vigour in leading public
(and Government) schools, at least in the Capital. It is
taught orally from kindergarten, and formally from Class
III onwards. This may not be the situation all over the
country, as a recent Supreme Court ruling makes clear. But
the matter of tardy implementation could have been taken
up with the states concerned without raking up a
controversy at a national conference called to discuss
stagnating literacy rates.
At the same time, Mr Joshis secular critics should know
that modern middle class parents today are proud to claim
their heritage and teach their children Sanskrit,
Hindustani or Carnatic music, dance, et al. Nor do they
fudge issues by de-linking religion from culture and
tradition.