Monday, September 04, 2006
"Tolerant" Hindus
Very often i come accross the statement 'Hindus' are 'tolerant'. I have always wondered about this assertion. So i decided to check if there is any rational basis to assert the same. I have come accorss the following justifications to say why are Hindus tolerant (with my comments of course) :-)
1. Hindus are tolerant because hinduism is a "non-proselysing", religion - I agree completely. Hinduism does not advocate proselytism, i.e. it does not demand conversion of non-hindus and does not expressively proclaim to 'spread the faith'. Most world religions are otherwise. The reason is that most major world religions began 'at a point'. The new faith could not flourish without sufficient followers who had to be won over one-way-or-other. This leads to the missionary zeal of these religions. The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and also some of the occidental religions like Buddhism and Confuciansim were started by personalities. The Hindu religion was not 'started' by anybody. It is also referred to as the 'sanatan dharma' (the 'always existing'). An example of this tolerance is perhaps the fact that India is perhaps the only country in the world where jews were not persecuted.
2. Hindus are tolerant because they have never attacked any other nation in history - Dont agree with this one. Hindus (as a single entity or otherwise) have never attacked any other nation simply because perhaps India was never one nation before the colonial era. Moreover, perhaps the Indian (read Hindu) rulers never had the gumption or the resources to carry out any meaningful external attack. They were simply incapable. I believe that real tolerace is when one has the capability to do act but knowingly walks away. The moral high-ground should not be claimed because of the inability to carry-out an action. And there is no point in painting the others as 'agressors'. Everyone was an 'aggressor' back then and Hindu rulers were simply too venal, incompetent and unprepared to put up any resistance. Hence everybody who came, looted india with impunity. Hindus here have no right to preen about their 'non-agression'. In fact it is a shame that every agressor could so easily trample upon the Indian subcontinet as it were a walk in the park. Yes there were heroic individual hindu rajas who defended themselves (chandragupta maurya, prithwiraj chauhan, rana pratap etc.) but there was never a coherent and united response to the agressors.
3. Hindus are tolerant because they consider all religions to be equal (the climbing the mountain from differnt paths metaphor) - Dont agree with this again. A very cogent refutation of this common misconception is presented by Dr. Frank Morales's recent paper. Hinduism i believe does not say that 'all religions are equal'. Hinduism rests on a robust philosophical base (it has six schools of philosphy). It has a very clearly posits its own point-of-view including its own way of solving man's existential dilemna (through moksha). However it has always encouraged dissent. And it gives the individual the choice and the freedom to seek the divine in your own way.
So all-in-all, are Hindus tolerant ? Well Yes and No. The truth lies somewhere in between.
Yes because the religion has in some way tempered hindus to listen to other religions without the burden of forcible proselytism. And without the baggage of a 'with-us-or-against-us' mindset.
No because Hindus are no less violent than other people. They are not creatures from some other planet. And while universalism has been a theme, it is not the fundamental one. (One only needs to look squarely at that divisions within the Hindu society)
1. Hindus are tolerant because hinduism is a "non-proselysing", religion - I agree completely. Hinduism does not advocate proselytism, i.e. it does not demand conversion of non-hindus and does not expressively proclaim to 'spread the faith'. Most world religions are otherwise. The reason is that most major world religions began 'at a point'. The new faith could not flourish without sufficient followers who had to be won over one-way-or-other. This leads to the missionary zeal of these religions. The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and also some of the occidental religions like Buddhism and Confuciansim were started by personalities. The Hindu religion was not 'started' by anybody. It is also referred to as the 'sanatan dharma' (the 'always existing'). An example of this tolerance is perhaps the fact that India is perhaps the only country in the world where jews were not persecuted.
2. Hindus are tolerant because they have never attacked any other nation in history - Dont agree with this one. Hindus (as a single entity or otherwise) have never attacked any other nation simply because perhaps India was never one nation before the colonial era. Moreover, perhaps the Indian (read Hindu) rulers never had the gumption or the resources to carry out any meaningful external attack. They were simply incapable. I believe that real tolerace is when one has the capability to do act but knowingly walks away. The moral high-ground should not be claimed because of the inability to carry-out an action. And there is no point in painting the others as 'agressors'. Everyone was an 'aggressor' back then and Hindu rulers were simply too venal, incompetent and unprepared to put up any resistance. Hence everybody who came, looted india with impunity. Hindus here have no right to preen about their 'non-agression'. In fact it is a shame that every agressor could so easily trample upon the Indian subcontinet as it were a walk in the park. Yes there were heroic individual hindu rajas who defended themselves (chandragupta maurya, prithwiraj chauhan, rana pratap etc.) but there was never a coherent and united response to the agressors.
3. Hindus are tolerant because they consider all religions to be equal (the climbing the mountain from differnt paths metaphor) - Dont agree with this again. A very cogent refutation of this common misconception is presented by Dr. Frank Morales's recent paper. Hinduism i believe does not say that 'all religions are equal'. Hinduism rests on a robust philosophical base (it has six schools of philosphy). It has a very clearly posits its own point-of-view including its own way of solving man's existential dilemna (through moksha). However it has always encouraged dissent. And it gives the individual the choice and the freedom to seek the divine in your own way.
So all-in-all, are Hindus tolerant ? Well Yes and No. The truth lies somewhere in between.
Yes because the religion has in some way tempered hindus to listen to other religions without the burden of forcible proselytism. And without the baggage of a 'with-us-or-against-us' mindset.
No because Hindus are no less violent than other people. They are not creatures from some other planet. And while universalism has been a theme, it is not the fundamental one. (One only needs to look squarely at that divisions within the Hindu society)
# posted by Abhijat @ 5:25 AM 
