Indian virtues pre-date ‘secularism’!

[Guest guest]

Indian virtues pre-date `secularism'!

By Chinmay Bajekal

 

Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of Religions in Chicago (1893)

mentioned in his speech that he was proud to belong to a nation that

gave safe refuge to several persecuted communities of the world. In

history we find examples of the Jews, Syrian Christians,

Zoroastrians, and in recent times, the Tibetan Buddhists who after

being driven out of their homeland sought safe refuge in India. The

native Indians backed them—the Hindus not only accommodated these

refugees but also gave them the freedom to practice their respective

faiths.

 

Long ago, even before the birth of the Greek and Roman Empires, our

Vedic seers

 

had declared `vasudaiva kutumbakam'—`the world is one family". Long

before the modern world came out with the concept of `universal

welfare' our Vedic prayer throughout the ages has been `loka

samastha sukinau bhavantu'—`may the entire world attain bliss'. Even

the modern concept of freedom of thought is respected in the Vedic

verse, `ekam sat vipraha, bahudha vadanti'—`truth is one, the wise

call it by various names'. The verse expresses a mature

understanding of the human mind that the ancient thinkers of India

possessed.

 

Centuries ago when sects like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism came as

reformist movements to correct what their founders perceived as

wrong or unwanted in the society, the Hindus did not suppress these

reformers but gave them the freedom and space to grow. Sri Adi

Shankaracharya brought many back to the Hindu fold not through

force, coercion, incentives or threat but by preaching in the form

of debates.

 

Thus, Indian virtues like `pluralism', 'tolerance', 'freedom of

thought' and `universal welfare' pre-date the arrival of

the `secular' concept in India. This point needs to be emphasised as

in today's India `secularism' is unjustifiably credited for all

these Indian virtues and the term is being misused to suppress the

movement of `national renaissance', also known as Hindutva that aims

at preserving the very culture which actually deserves credit for

these age-old virtues of India.

 

Secularism originated in Europe centuries ago when the kings

revolted and overthrew the theocratic hegemony of the Pope from over

their kingdoms and established their own rule. But India has never

known such a conflict; thus the Western concept of secularism was

never relevant for India. However, today many Indians

perceive `secularism' to be a synonym of `pluralism'

and `tolerance'; they also perceive the very culture that blessed

the Indian society with these noble features from the Western

perspective of being a `religion'.

 

The pseudo-seculars in India who swear by secularism would like to

have us believe that any threat or challenge to the concept of

secularism in India would endanger the age-old pluralism of the

country. Little do these self-proclaimed defenders of secularism

realise that wherever in the Indian sub-continent Hinduism declines,

with it declines the support for secularism too (whichever kind of

secularism that may be). Pakistan and Bangladesh, two of our

neighbouring countries, were formed out of the same territory and

people of undivided India, yet they are far from being secular.

 

The need of the hour for India is the recognition of the fact that

India does not owe its great virtues of pluralism, diversity and

tolerance to any Western concept or ideology, but to the influence

of Vedic culture and philosophy over India. And also to be

understood is the fact that India's age-old virtues shall not be

endangered by questioning the relevance of secularism to the world's

oldest and most pluralistic civilisation.

 

India has always been a country that has welcomed reforms and

encouraged new ideas. It has never resorted to prejudicial

behaviour. Unfor-tunately, the manner in which the self-proclaimed

seculars in India spew venom over the movement of `national

renaissance' and call for `de-saffronisation' is in reality an act

that is `de-Indianising', as it does not go well with the ethos of

our ancient country which tolerated different views