Hindu Fundamentalism:Does it really exist?

[Guest guest]

Hindu Fundamentalism

Does it really exist?

 

One can hardly read a newspaper or magazine now a days without coming

across the word 'Fundamentalism' or its adjectives. This expression

has acquired wide currency in media, and evokes negative sentiments.

Although the Western media labels various religious groups as

fundamentalists easily, it is very difficult to

define 'Fundamentalism'. This term was first coined in 1920 in the US

by a Baptist journalist, Curtis Lee Laws, following the publication

of a series of pamphlets titled "The Fundamentals: A testimony to the

Truth" between 1915-1920 (www.religiousmovements.lib). Since then,

any religious movement that promotes the "Back to basics" approach in

an aggressive and flaunting fashion is labeled by the Western media

as Fundamentalist.

Ever since a few thousand militant Hindus demolished a historical

mosque in the town of Ayodhya in India, certain Hindu groups there,

Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSSS),

in particular, have also earned the dubious title of being

fundamentalists. Does such a thing as Hindu Fundamentalism really

exist? To answer this question, one must determine the

characteristics that are found to be common to all fundamentalist

movements around the world.

Fundamentalists are absolutists who interpret their scriptures

literally, and hold rigidly to their beliefs. They insist their

scriptures alone represent the divine truth revealed only to their

prophet; all other scriptures and prophets are false or redundant.

 

David Frawley

 

 

 

According to professor David Frawley, the author of many books on

Hinduism, fundamentalists are absolutists who interpret their

scriptures literally, and hold rigidly to their beliefs. They insist

their scriptures alone represent the divine truth revealed only to

their prophet; all other scriptures and prophets are false or

redundant. They are monotheists, and totally reject pluralism. They

are hostile to any renovation or critical scrutiny of their religion.

Since they consider their religion alone to be true, they are

intolerant to other faiths. Fundamentalists, generally, adhere to

their religion's original social customs, and practice modernism

selectively. Fundamentalist groups are always headed by authoritarian

autocrats. Let us see if these characteristics apply to the two

aforementioned Hindu groups. We have to judge their members and

leaders by their religious beliefs and practices.

 

Unlike Islam and Christianity, Hinduism is not a "One Prophet, One

Book" religion. All Hindus consider the four Vedas as their primary

scriptures, but also highly revere other sacred books like Geeta,

Ramayana, Puranas and many other supplementary literature that may

offer differing interpretations of the Vedas. Hinduism has no single

founder or prophet, as Vedas were revealed to a series of seers

called Rishis over a period of time. Pluralism is the corner stone of

Hinduism. Hinduism does not claim to be the only true religion and

ladder to salvation. According to the ancient Vedas, there is only

one God who has many names and faces; there are many paths to reach

Him. Other religions may have different beliefs, but they all have

the same goal- to elevate the human soul. The rudimentary but strong

elements of democracy can be found in Hindu scriptures; each village

was managed by an elected council before the monarchy system emerged.

 

There is nothing in Hinduism, despite its antiquity, that a

fundamentalist group can interpret to suit or justify its extremist

ideology. If fact, the ancient version of Hinduism practiced during

the Vedic period was lot more liberal and moderate than what Hindus

have practiced over the last two thousand years. Can such a religion

produce Hindu counterparts of Pat Robertson, leader of the Christian

Coalition of America or Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, let alone Mullah

Omar, the Taleban leader?

 

I come from a family of Leftist political background, but I have

personally met many members and officials of the RSSS and the VHP in

India and Canada. I have always found them to be sophisticated and

well informed people with a very progressive, modern outlook. They

are not secretive organizations; anyone can join them. They promote

Hindu culture and have an extensive network of social development

projects, run by dedicated volunteers, in the poorest regions of

India. They draw their general membership from well educated, modern

urbanite Hindus who follow different versions of Hinduism. They are

staunchly committed to democracy and human rights. Their leaders are

much more tolerant of other faiths than Christian evangelists in the

US or leaders of the major religious organizations in Pakistan,

Indonesia or Bangladesh; they are now supporting the Taleban. The

Pope who blatantly supports and promotes proselytization in non-

Christian countries, can hardly be considered tolerant of other

faiths.

 

The current Prime Minster of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee has been a

life long member of the RSS. He can hardly be considered a

belligerent and intolerant fundamentalist autocrat, a threat to

minorities in India. I believe that Hindu fundamentalism is a myth

created by the media. "Over time, I looked into these Hindu

organizations to find these so-called intolerant and militant

elements. I have never found them even until today." Concluded Prof.

David Frawley in How I became a Hindu.

 

– Ajit Adhopia

December 9, 2001

[Guest guest]

Regarding to the point of fundamentalism, Vrin Parker has been gived

a nice defitiniton. But in the same time, the fundamentalims is also

the leader of the others facims, like nationalism, comunism and nor

in the sphere of religion only.Futhermore, it is a truth that

casteism in india, is a tipe of fundamentalism and there are some (

may be many) Hindu organitation and scholars that are racists, and

are agains the vaisnavims show by the Lord Caitanya movement of

ISKCON, and are had been criticed ISKCON devotees and deride the

philosophy of convertion. The are also are hindu-nationalism

fundamentalism. In fact, the word Hindu, is a legacy of arabic

barbarim of Shindu river. Therefore, Prabhupada never like so much to

be inditificate the ISKCON Vaisnava Movement like a Hindu nationalism

and atnographic doctrin. More well, vedica vaisnava movement. So,

some time the scholars of hindu nationalism, are so apasionate in

his enthusiams, that show sintoms of hinduitis, in such way, that

reject the wenstern brahmanhood and vaisnavahood of ISKCON devotess,

but also, identificate the America spanish word of Mr. Americo

Bespucio, a geograper maker of the firts American Continent map, like

amaraka, so called sanscrit word. This is sintome of fundamentalism

in full pasion. So, with all respect, India, with out the

contribution of ISKCON Prabhupada vaisnava sanga, It has the fame of

a starvation death, poor country, etc...

Pranam Other times.

Horacio F. Araganis Juarez

(Hare Krishna das)