Idols and Icons

July 20, 2005

: The Misrepresentation of Hinduism in the Press By David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)There are a number of terms that are applied to Hinduism in the Press,not only in the West but in India itself, which foster a negativeimage of it. Hindus are routinely called worshippers of idols,polytheists, and various other denigrating stereotypes, which do notreflect any intelligent examination of the religion itself but what isoften an intentional campaign of misrepresentation and distortion. All the religions of the world - with the general exception ofProtestant

Christians, Muslims and Jews - use some sort of images orstatues in their religious worship. Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodoxchurches abound with statues, paintings and pictures of various types.Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Shinto groups use them as well. NativeAmerican, African and Asian religions abound with them. The ancientreligions of the entire world from Mexico to Greece, Egypt, Babylonia,Persia, India and China used images, as archeology so clearly reveals.The use of images appear as an integral part of human religiouspractices and no universal religion could be regarded as completewithout them. Even many Protestant Christians have pictures of Jesusin their house or church, and Muslims often have pictures of theirreligious or political leaders, occasionally even depictions ofMohammed. However, there is a strange dichotomy in how such religious imagesarejudged. When they are part of the

Christian tradition they are calledicons and classified as works of art and regarded as sacred in nature.When they are part of non-Christian or pagan traditions they arecalled "idols," which is a derogatory term that indicates not thesacred but mere superstition. In the case of native American andAfrican images, even when done by a culture as advanced as the Mayasof Central America - which built great pyramids and had many greatcities - they are lumped along with so-called primitive art. An image of Christ as the good shepherd is called an icon and viewedwith respect. An image of Krishna as the good cow herder - which is asimilar image of the Divine as watching over the souls of men - iscalled an idol, which encourages one to look down on it. This isprejudice and negative stereotyping in language of the worst order.What Christian would accept calling a depiction of Christ an idol?Would Christian

religious leaders approve of it in the pressof Christian countries? What Christians in India would accept it?And would not the govemment and news media of India change thelanguage in their favor? Yet Hindus routinely accept thatdepictions of their deities - who represent as high a standard inconsciousness and ethical behavior as Christ - are demeaned as idols.The news media of India does this commonly, which encourages theWestern news media to continue in this practice, which is part oftheir negative depiction of Hinduism. To call such images as idols implies that those who worship thempractice idolatry or take the image itself as a God. This adds yetmore prejudice and error to this judgement. The use of an image -whether we call it an icon or an idol - does not imply belief in thereality of the image. That we keep a photograph of our wife andchildren at our work desk does not mean that

we think our wife andchildren are the photograph. It is a reminder, not a false reality. Moreover, the use of the term idol inflames the sentiments ofanti-idolatry religions like Christianity and Islam, as both the Bibleand the Koran, at least in places, instruct their followers to opposeidolaters and smash their temples and images. The use of the termidol in the press, particularly in the Indian press, is thus careless,insensitive, inflammatory, and communal. It should be removed in aneffort to promote greater understanding and good will betweenreligious groups. The use of such terms indicates that the news mediaof India uncritically and unnecessarily uses terms that encourageanti-Hindu attitudes. It is a hold over from the British rule in theintellectual sphere, even though the British have long left thecountry. What majority community in the world is so unaware of itsnew media to

allow such practices to continue? Yet this issue onlyreflects many other prejudicial terms like Hindu chauvinism, Hindufundamentalism, and Hindu militancy which the often anti-Hindu Indiannews media frequently uses, while at the same time not using them inregard to Islam and Christianity, even when they are much moreappropriate relative to the exclusivistic attitudes and greaterintolerance of these belief-oriented religions. Using such terms as idols, the news media is not fosteringcommunication but promoting discrimination and violence. Such abuseof language should be challenged and replaced wherever it is found,whether relative to Hindus or anyone else.[ Above article was given to Hindu Students Council (An InternationalForum To Provide opportinity to learn Hindu Heritage) for publicity]

Start your day with - make it your home page