WHAT IS HINDUISM?

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

 

WHAT IS HINDUISM?

 

 

 A dear friend send me a letter (published elsewhere) gently criticizing the manner of my defence of Maulana Mahomed Ali’s now famous speech regarding his comparison of creeds. The friend says that I have not been fair to Hinduism in that I have said a Hindu will fare no better than the Maulana. He quarrels with my illustration about marriage and then goes on it show the beauties of Hinduism. Another friend, too, has made a similar remonstrance and added that many others share his opinion. These friends have, in my opinion, mixed up the question of propriety of comparing creeds with that of the allocation of their respective merits. Indeed, in arguing that Hinduism is not like Islam and that a Hindu could not think like the Maulana, the friends themselves have subscribed to the Maulana’s argument that it is not only perfectly correct, but it is the logical outcome of one’s preferring a particular belief to every other, that for oneself that particular belief, though held by a bad man, is superior to that of another howsoever saintly. I adhere to the marriage illustration chosen by me, though I now see that it would have been better for me to have avoided it.

It is not a conclusive illustration. There are, I admit with my critics, many reasons for confining the choice of a husband to a particular class. But I do claim that the predominant reason for excluding the best man if he happens to belong, as he often does, to another class or caste is his creed. A Brahmin parent chooses a Brahmin as a husband for his daughter because he prefers the general body of opinion, which may be called creed, held by his clan. Underlying the preference is no doubt the belief that acceptance of a creed ultimately involves practice in accordance with it. A narrow creed, if it is honestly believed, has necessarily a limited field for practice. A creed, for instance, that makes it obligatory to offer human sacrifice will never free the believer from the taint of religious murder unless he gives up the creed. Thus it is that we find people otherwise most moral disappointing us when they fall short of the highest because of their narrow creed. Many sincere and otherwise noble-minded Hindus consider untouchability as a part of the Hindu creed and would, therefore, regard the reformers as outcastes. If untouchability was a part of the Hindu creed, I should decline to call myself a Hindu and most decidedly embrace some other faith if it satisfied my highest aspirations. Fortunately for me, I hold that untouchability is no part of Hinduism. On the contrary, it is a serious blot upon it, which every lover of it must sacrifice himself to remove. Suppose, however, I discover that untouchability was really an integral part of Hinduism, I should have to wander in the wilderness because the other creeds, as I know them through their accepted interpreters, would not satisfy my highest aspirations. My correspondent accuses me of the crime of using the ambiguous middle in that I have confused Truth and non-violence with the Hindu creed. The crime is deliberate. It is the good fortune or the misfortune of Hinduism that it has no official creed. In order, therefore, to protect myself against any misunderstanding, I have said Truth and non-violence is my creed. If I were asked to define the Hindu creed, I should simply say: search after Truth through nonviolent means.

A man may not believe even in God and still call himself a Hindu. Hinduism is a relentless pursuit after truth and, if today it has become moribund, inactive, irresponsive to growth, it is because we are fatigued, and as soon as the fatigue is over, Hinduism will burst forth upon the world with brilliance perhaps unknown before. Of course, therefore, Hinduism is the most tolerant of all religions. Its creed is all-embracing. But to claim that is to claim superiority for the Hindu creed over all the other creeds of the world. As I write these lines, I feel a crowd of sectarians whispering to me. “That is no Hinduism you are defining come to us and we will show you the Truth.” I am confounding all these whisperers by saying,‘ ,’ ‘not that, my friends, not that, and they make confusion worse confounded by retorting with redoubled fury, ‘not that, not that.’ But still another voice whispers to me, “Why all this dueling-this war of words? I can show you a way out of it. It lies through silent prayer.” For the moment I propose to listen to that voice and observe silence and ask my friends to do likewise. Possibly I have failed to convince them and their co-sharers in their opinion. If I have failed to convince, it is because I have not seen the light. I can give my assurance that I have not indulged in special pleading in order to defend Maulana Mahomed Ali. If I discover my error, I hope I shall have the courage to own it. The Maulana needs no defence forms me. And I should be a false friend if, in order to defend him, I sacrificed an iota of truth. It is the special privilege of a friend to own the other’s faults and redeclare his affection in spite of faults.