[Reader-list] Fwd: (no subject)

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Venu jee

I am happy to read this perspective as well. The basic problem with
Vivekananda, was something I think he realized very late in his life. His
guru, the revered Shri Ramkrishna Paramhans was someone who used to meditate
a lot, and one day decided that having lived his life as a 'Hindu', he would
now convert to other religions and then see if there is any truth in the
statement, 'all religions say the same thing'.

He lived as a Muslim, as a Christian, and I think he converted to other
religions as well. At the end of all this, he was convinced that the
statement indeed is true. Unfortunately for Vivekananda, he could never feel
the same, how-so-ever much he tried. And this is ironic for Vivekananda is
known to possess very sharp concentration powers and also meditative powers,
probably even more than his Guru. But on this particular thing, he couldn't
match his Guru at all.

My perspective also comes somewhere from Gandhi's views. What is strange
about Gandhi is that, he completely changed Hinduism by using two constructs
(I have read Aashish Nandy's theory here, and I just repeat the same. Of
course, Gandhi himself probably never must have thought in this way, and so
don't other historians necessarily).

The two constructs were:

1) Anybody who renunciates the material comforts of life is considered
sacred or great. This is something which has been the case across ages.
Think of Buddha, of Vasistha, of Valmiki once he is supposed to have become
a sage, think of even Vishwamitra. The fact is that all sadhus and rishis,
who did this (in other words gave up moh-maya), are considered great human
beings, worthy of respect.

Gandhi used this to ask all, particularly women, to forget about their own
lives and its existence, and come out and fight for 'freedom'. He indirectly
preached out that this is the only way to get freedom and possibly achieve
greatness.

The interesting part is that this is something which is the feature of all
religions, and also of the folklore and stories told to us regarding 'Hindu'
traditions (Hindu simply means things excluding other religions). Gandhi
thought of Hindu as a religion, and hence he used it well.

2) This construct is interesting: Feminism is more powerful than
masculinity. This is interesting because unlike the first, till his time,
there were may be rare or possibly no examples to prove that this was right.
But Gandhi believed that Hindu religious texts actually stated this, or at
least said so, which is why he laid stress on ahimsa or non-violence. He
believed that it's very easy to hit back (which is what a male does or
masculinity demands), but it's difficult to experience the beating and
thereby make the attacker feel guilty in his conscience. (which he stated is
what feminity works on).

May be this came because he had utmost respect for his mother, because of
which he never touched non-vegetarian when outside India or never thought of
any extra-marital relationship. His devotion for Ram too came from his
mother.

This idea or construct is in direct contrast to the RSS thinking, which
believes that feminity is a substitute word for weakness, and what is
required for Hindus is to show off their masculinity. While Gandhi used Ram
mainly in his idea of Ram Rajya (as a word to depict just and fair rule in
India), RSS uses Ram as a warrior who is out to fight the Ravans (read
Muslims, Christians and secularists, or non-RSS ideologists) (Here RSS means
the Sangh Parivar and not just the RSS).

This is why even now, we see that sense of portraying themselves as victims
in the speeches of any of the leaders of this parivar. That is why they ask
for Hindus to be 'male'. Uma Bharati and Sadhvi Rithambara used to attack
the genitals of the Muslims for their being circumcised. Advani always used
to put Hindu as a victim who had been fooled in the name of Muslim
appeasement. Togadia asks Hindus to organize themselves and teach Muslims a
lesson. And Modi justified what happened after Godhra, through Godhra.

There's one problem though with Gandhi's ideas, as I see it. One can't be
always non-violent, though in principle it's a good value. There are times,
when unfortunately one has to be violent, because non-violence would simply
mean accepting injustice, which is the gravest sin according to his own
words. And here, the RSS struck roots by stating that violence is the
solution to remove injustice, and Gandhi was forgotten, thanks to the
Partition.

Regards

Rakesh