|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Hindus: An Alternative History HINDUISM has been an enigma for those who are not Hindus. Historically, the practitioners of the religion neither called themselves ‘Hindus’, nor called the religion practiced by them ‘Hinduism’. To identify and individuate their religion from other religions, when the need arose to do so, they named it ‘Santana Dharma’—perennial or eternal dharma.
One may go to the temple once or twice daily, once a week, or once a month or once a year or never at all. One may be a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian; one may keep a fast on particular days of the month, or on the birthdays of the innumerable gods and goddesses, or on some other special occasions. Even if one never keeps a fast, one will still remain a Hindu, as there is no place for dogmas or obligatory practices in Hinduism. One may follow or refuse to follow any predetermined moral code of conduct and still be a Hindu as there is no specified moral code in it. One may believe in one or a plethora of gods or goddesses or in none of them at all, one will still be a Hindu as the notion of God is not central to Hinduism. One may believe in any of the several scriptures or not believe in any of them, he would still fall in the category of Hindus, as there is no one authoritative universally accepted scripture in Hinduism. A ‘Hindu’, therefore, is not someone with a particular set of beliefs or practices but rather someone who is not a foreigner. "For the Hindu", according to Radhakrishnan, "the aim of religion is the integration of personality which reconciles the individual to his own nature, his fellowmen and the Supreme Spirit. To realise this goal there are no set paths. Each individual may adopt the method which most appeals to him, and in the atmosphere of Hinduism, even inferior modes of approach get refined." Because of the innate malleability what an outsider understands from the term ‘Hindu’ and how s/he defines ‘Hinduism’ is largely predetermined by what s/he wants to say about it. As a result, the insiders as well as the outsiders are likely to interpret Hinduism differently in the light of their own culture, tradition, background, ethos and genre. However, when the description of a religion departs too much from the self-understanding of its adherents, it runs the risk of becoming fiction. This gives rise to many erroneous beliefs and misgivings in the mindset of the outsiders. This indeed is true of Hinduism. The purpose of Wendy Doniger’s rather voluminous book is to counteract the wild misconceptions that most Americans have of Hinduism "by making Americans aware of the richness and human depth of Hindu texts and practices". She believes that "an American interlocutor is often the best person to build that bridge". Therefore, this alternative history of the Hindus is by an outsider for an outsider. Doniger being an outsider does not have access and sensitivity that a practicing Hindu has to the experiential quality of reading the texts, practices, their factual details and other related religious phenomena. She adopts ‘an academic approach’ to the study of "essentially inclusive and ever growing, ever responsive" vibrant and ever evolving religion. She has an eye for detail and is generally careful with her research. That is why she admits, "This is a history, not the history of the Hindus". Yet, one fails to understand how she concludes from the reported reply to Dr Bowers question "What shall I give you to eat?" by Vivekananda "Give me beef" that Vivekananda "advised people to eat beef" (p.639). What kind of alternative history, or even narration is that? This history is based on subaltern sources—women, pariahs, tribal, as opposed to male Brahmins’ accounts, and is a must read for nonprofessionals, experts, Hindus and non-Hindus. Each of its 25 chapters is an exemplar of the subjective element in history. An insider can easily counter the thesis contained in them.
|
||
|
|
||
The
puzzle about Hinduism deepens when the outsider or ‘the other’
comprehends that it is a religion which owes its allegiance not just
to one book, or one set doctrine, or does not have any set of
pre-determined universal dos and don’ts. That is, it does not have
any set religious practices or dogmas.