Hinduism
Leanings
towards Militancy and Fundamentalism
Caste and Karma
It is claimed with some
degree of certainty that the division of Hindu society, starting from
the Vedic and Epic periods, into four castes (varna) with their
subsequent, innumerable, more practical divisions according to
profession (jati), gave stability to Indian society. Muslim
writers, who frequented India within hundred years after the birth of
Islam, give us a window into the Indian world in existence in the 8th
century. Sindh fell to Muslim occupation in the year 712 C.E. to
Muhammad bin Qasim, a cousin of Caliph of Baghdad. Chach-nama and
writings of al-Biruni, though written in the 13th and 11th centuries,
claim their sources from other contemporary writings. It appears as
though the systematic classification was not rigid in the 8th century
after all. Shudra as well as Brahmin kings were ruling and not all
royalty belonged to the Kshatriya class.
Moreover, caste system was not prohibitive or repressive. It only
conferred important rights of participation in the economic and
political process while providing certain social obligations. Rural as
well as urban assemblies like caste and guild councils gave endorsements
of a particular leadership. Caste was not the basis for any exclusion of
participation in the political process. The society became admirably
stable, even if excessively stratified; this was not detrimental to
progress but rather helped enhance it by systemizing it. Society was
vibrant and life harmonious. Kingdoms were generally prosperous and the
subjects contented with little discrimination or discord. Muslim writers
did not fail to see the prosperity of trade and safety of travel in the
highways, law and order in the society, despite the stratification into
caste system. However they had trouble correctly identifying the various
castes and many jatis, suggesting that the system appeared nebulous to
an outsider and definitely not rigid at that time.
The passivity and rigidity of the caste system became pronounced only
after the Muslims made their appearance on the shores of India, when
religious discrimination and oppressive taxation (Jizya – a
taxation on non-Muslims imposed by Muslim rulers), conspired to remove
certain segments of the population from the political system and
economic advancement. The Muslim rulers became quite adroit at
exploiting it. Some Brahmins and Buddhist monks were exempt from the
taxation. Caste system then became static, lost its influence in the
process and came to be known as a distinguishing characteristic of
orthodox Hinduism.
It was then that the notion of karma became the mainstream thinking of
Hinduism, mostly to the disadvantaged. The caste system that had
developed over thousands of years before now resulted in producing
privileged classes and the oppressed, less fortunate ones. The theory of
karma – whereby one’s status was predetermined by one’s conduct
in the past life and could improve in subsequent lives by one’s conduct
in the current life – became a rational explanation for the caste system
and provided much needed solace for those who were disadvantaged by it.
The exercise of caste rights became obligatory but only ephemeral, in
this present life, with better prospects in the life hereafter, if these
obligations are met without complaints. Spirituality and faith helped in
softening the effects of a harsh life. The fundamental beliefs of
Hinduism and Buddhism of karma, samsara and punarjanma
rescued the population from a wretched existence by offering them a
beacon of hope for a better next life. Even in the face of adversity and
hopelessness, desperate measures were not called for, as these were only
occurrences in this temporary life.
The Hindu religion itself became more orthodox as a direct result of the
external threat of a foreign religion with little tolerance to the
‘infidels’. Al-Biruni writes about a much admired Brahmin king of Sindh
in the 8th century called Chach (hence the historical journal:
Chach-nama), who ruled admirably but went ‘straight to Hell, when he
died, as he is an infidel’. Much of the freedom enjoyed by the citizens
had to be curtailed out of necessity and Islam had a profound negative
effect on the progress of the more liberal Hinduism. The rigid Islam was
only marginally influenced by Hindu religion as seen in Sufism, the
segment of Islam that incorporated Vedanta of the Upanishads in their
belief.
There were some Muslims, throughout history, that had tried to
assimilate Hinduism into their own religion, but these were few and far
in between. The ones who did try were ostracized by the rigid body of
ulema, the Muslim scholars whose business it was to interpret the
law in accordance to the Koran and Hadith. Akbar was somewhat successful
but when the most tolerant Mughal, Dara Shikoh, son of Shah Jahan
translated the Upanishads to Persian language, it was considered as
blasphemy by the ulema! Aurangzeb used it as ruse to attack Delhi
and kill his brother, in order to ‘save’ his father, the Emperor Shah
Jahan, from the ‘demonic influences’ of Dara Shikoh. Today the
fundamentalism of Islam has overshadowed every attempt at moderation and
Sufism is a distant memory. Even the more moderate sect of Aga Khanis (Nizari
Ismailis) have capitulated and are forced to follow the sharia laws,
with the threat of being ex-communication looming over their heads.
It is little wonder that the Hindu community has become more
fundamentalist in an attempt to confront the intolerant Islam. First the
peaceful religion of Sikhism became militant (Mughals were responsible
for this - three of their ten gurus were killed by the Mughals) and now
Hinduism is leaning towards militancy and fundamentalism.
Boloji.com is owned and managed by Boloji Media Inc Privacy Policy |
Disclaimer No part of this Internet site may
be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
