The Wave of the Future

The Wave of the Future

1991 4 April 21-25 The Wave of the Future (1550) In a two-page article published in the New Delhi Organiser Weekly on October 21, 1990, under the title of the ‘Hindu Wave’, Mr. J. Dubashi takes great pride in saying that the Hindus are the ‘wave of the future’, and that Advani’s Rath Yatra is a symbol of that Wave. He makes this point over and over again, and in a variety of ways, with specific reference to those who have launched violent movements to build the Ram Mandir after demolishing the Babari Masjid. In reality, this ‘Hindu Wave’ consists basically of large numbers of Hindus in northern India who have been brought together and worked up into a frenzy by their leaders making highly charged speeches on this issue.

Shree Advani’s rath, which had to reach Ayodhya by travelling a distance of ten thousand kilometers was not a true Ram Rath, but a rath of hatred and violence. Its aim was to unite Hindus on negative bases. The mentality at work behind this movement can be gauged by the statements made by Mr. Ashok Singhal, General Secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. For instance, in a speech he made on November 7, 1990, in New Delhi, he issued a warning to Muslims that they must stop opposing the plan to build the Ram Mandir after demolishing the Babari Masjid, otherwise they would launch movements to demolish three thousand mosques so that they could build temples on their site. (Times of India, November 8, 1990).

Such provocative statements are being made by the leaders of the Bhartiya Janta Party, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal etc. and great crowds of people are being collected on this issue. Is this what is called the ‘Hindu Wave’?

Anyone who is conversant with the Hindu religion, and who gives any serious thought to the matter, will be forced to acknowledge that this is not the ‘Hindu Wave’. It would be more appropriate to call it the anti-Hindu Wave.

Two concepts are fundamental to the teachings of Hindu dharm, one being tolerance and the other being non-violence. You may pick up any book on Hinduism and you will find in it these two ideals. Indeed, these characteristics of Hinduism have always been a source of pride to their thinkers and reformers.

There is detailed article on Hinduism in the 8th volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984) which says; “In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – whatever creed and worship practices suit them best.” (p. 888).

The teaching of non-violence, which is a very important part of Hinduism, has been described in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984) as follows:

Ahimsa (non-violence) consisting in respect of and consideration for life and fellow feeling with all living beings, is based on belief in the unity of all life. One of the cardinal virtues of Indian humanity, ahimsa is, according to Indian thinkers, the keystone of their ethics.” (p. 889)

Looked at from this viewpoint, the Ram Janam Bhumi movement, in its present form, is clearly at variance with true Hindu dharm, in that it tramples upon religious tolerance, deliberately propagates hatred and prefers the path of violence to that of nonviolence. It would, therefore, be correct to say that, as such, the wave caused by this movement is an anti-Hindu Wave rather than a Hindu wave, in the real sense of the word.

This is why Hindus themselves in their thousands have protested against this movement and dubbed it ‘non-Hindu’. For instance, the late Kamlapati Tripathi, an elder stateman and established scholar of the Hindu religion, wrote an article for a Hindi journal in his last days on the Babari Masjid – Ram Janam Bhumi problem entitled, ‘Sampardaik Samasya’, (communal problem), in which he lambasts the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, maintaining that the very idea of demolishing a mosque was” a negation of the Hindu ethos. It is a fascist idea and will break the country.”

If the present wave had been ‘Hindu Wave’ in the real sense of the word, the results produced would have borne the distinguishing characteristics of the Hindu religion. Then denial would have yielded to acceptance, because negation, according to Hindu teaching is an evil. Acceptance of others is a distinctive feature of Hinduism because of its belief in the many-sidedness of reality. Hinduism regards all differing views as new facets of truth. Had this new wave been genuinely Hindu in character, tolerance would ultimately have won the day, because Hindu thought holds that while believing that you are on the right path, you must also believe that others too, are on the right path, irrespective of how much the views of others appear to run counter to your own. After the spread of such a wave, an atmosphere of peace and goodwill and respect for others’ lives should have been in evidence all over the country, because Hindu dharm regards the taking of a life as the most heinous evil. A certain Hindu thinker has even maintained that the “killing of a sensation is a sin.”

But in practice, we are witnessing a totally different state of affairs. How then can we call this wave a ‘Hindu Wave’?

If a militant group managed to collect large crowds in public places by making rabble-rousing speeches and then launched a violent and destructive movement, could they conceivably call this a ‘Gandhi Wave’? They would certainly be wrong to give their activities this name because such a wave would be more correctly described as ‘anti-Gandhi’.

The campaign launched against the retention of the Babari Masjid is called Hindutve. But this movement is in reality directed against Muslims. As such, it has been explained by Mr. Advani as minorityism versus nationalism.’ (India Today, October 31, 1990, p.59)

The violence of the movement launched by our Hindu brothers on this issue is clearly against the spirit of tolerance, ahimsa and respect for others, which are the basic tenets of Hinduism. As such, this movement (i.e. being anti-minority) should be called the anti-Hindu rather than the Hindu wave.

Creed or History

A claim has been made that Ayodhya’s Babari Masjid was built on the exact site of the Ram Janam Bhumi, and that the Ram Mandir should, therefore, be built by demolishing the mosque. No attention has been paid to the fact that to date this claim remains unsubstantiated.

It is a matter of historical record that the Babari Masjid was built in 1528. Forty years after this building was erected, Tulsi Das (d. 1623 in Varanasi) went to Ayodhya. There he visited the mandirs and wrote a book on Ram’s life entitled, Ram Charit Manus (1574-76 in Avdhi language. This book gives full details of the life of Ram, but makes no mention of the Ram Mandir having been demolished to make way for a mosque.

This took place during the reign of Akbar the Great (1542-1605), who was generally known to be a pro-Hindu King. Even his queen was a Hindu lady. Had Babar’s governor, Mir Baqi, demolished a mandir and constructed a mosque on its site, Tulsi Das could have pointed this out to Akbar with impunity. And had Tulsi Das made this known to him, then either Akbar would have immediately issued a decree to hand over the building to the Hindus, or there would at least have been some mention of this in his book as a matter of record.

When such facts are set before the present Hindu militants, they say that, as far as they are concerned, it is all a matter of creed. Consequently, they will not listen to anything connected with history, nor will they accept the court’s verdict. They say this is because a matter of religious creed is the concern neither of history nor of the court.

This reply is quite illogical and, therefore, totally inappropriate. It may be true that religious creed has nothing to do with history or the court, but the “building of a mosque after having demolished a temple” is certainly more a matter of history than of creed. If it is stated, for example, that “Ram was the avtar of Vishnu”, that is undoubtedly a matter of creed. But if a certain mosque is built by demolishing a temple, that is undoubtedly a matter of history. And in case of controversy, it can certainly be brought under the jurisdiction of the law after consultation of historical records in order to settle the issue.

Upholders of such an illogical viewpoint do no great service to Hindu society. Their only achievement has been to divert Hindu society from its finest traditions. Right from the time of Swami Vivekananda’s speech at America’s Parliament of Religions (1893) till today, tens of thousand of Hindu religious leaders have been given a cordial welcome in western countries. The reason is Hinduisms traditions of tolerance and non-violeI1ce. Now, do the extremist Hindus want to close this whole chapter of their history? Do they want to deprive Hinduism of the attraction which has brought near a large number of people from the far corners of the globe?