The prominent BJP leader Jaswant Singh recently published a book on the founding father of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, in which he praised Jinnah, and largely criticized Nehru and the Congress party for causing the Partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The book, which has not been released outside of India yet, is called Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence (interesting that Singh puts “India” rather than “Pakistan” in the title).
Praising Jinnah is heresy for BJP leaders, so this week, Jaswant Singh, who has been with the party for many years and served in several Cabinet posts under Vajpayee, was formally expelled from the party.
Update: There is a long interview (PDF) with Jaswant Singh and Karan Thapar from CNN-IBN, with a transcript up at The Hindu. I would highly recommended it, if you have the time. (Thanks Al Beruni)
Below are some excerpts from an article in Dawn [with quotes from the CNN-IBN interview] indicating the general outlines of Jaswant Singh’s perspective on Jinnah. Though Congress does come off badly in his account, which seems logical for a BJP leader, Jaswant Singh appears sincere in his desire to correct what he sees as a distortion in the popular perception of Jinnah in India. Surprisingly, he also seemingly bears no animus towards the idea of a two nations theory, or Jinnah’s use of religious loyalty for political ends:
It was historically not tenable to see Mr Jinnah as the villain of 1947, Mr Singh said. ‘It is not borne out of the facts… we need to correct it… Muslims saw that unless they had a voice in their own economic, political and social destiny they will be obliterated.’
Mr Singh said the 1946 election was a good example to show the fear held by Muslims. That year, he said: ‘Jinnah’s Muslim League wins all the Muslim seats and yet they don’t have sufficient numbers to be in office because the Congress Party has, without even a single Muslim, enough to form a government and they are outside of the government.
‘So it was realised that simply contesting elections was not enough… All of this was a search for some kind of autonomy of decision making in their own social and economy destiny.’[…]
‘He single-handedly stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who didn’t really like him … Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that?’
Mr Jinnah was as much a nationalist as any leader in India. ‘He fought the British for an independent India but also fought resolutely and relentlessly for the interest of the Muslims of India … the acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity.’
Among the aspects of Mr Jinnah’s personality Mr Singh said he admired his determination and will to rise. ‘He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) — Nehru and others — were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself. ‘He was so poor he had to walk to work … he told one of his biographers there was always room at the top but there’s no lift. And he never sought a lift.’ (link)
(Again, a longer interview can be found here)
I am at present agnostic on the claims Jaswant Singh is making. I don’t hold any particular animus against Jinnah — and I certainly understand where he was coming from — but I also question many of his (Jinnah’s) choices in the lead-up to Partition. (One bad choice that is often mentioned by critics of Jinnah is Direct Action Day, in 1946, which led to widespread communal rioting.) If people have specific historical accounts of Jinnah they would recommend (with links, if possible), which might either support or contradict Jaswant Singh’s take, it would be helpful to see them. I am also curious to hear from readers how this fits into their understanding of Jaswant Singh: what is he up to? What are the likely implications of this book and the controversy that’s followed it? In short: what is all this about?
A nice read on the controversy generated by Jaswant Singh’s book, with some competing historians’ interpretations of Jinnah’s role in the 1930s and 40s, is Soutik Biswas at the BBC. Biswas does address some of the “what is this all about?” questions.
We also had some discussions of Jinnah in the inaugural post from my short series on Ramachandra Guha’s book, “India After Gandhi.” Guha has a more critical take on Jinnah, though he distributes the blame for Partition amongst the three main players, including the Congress Party, Jinnah and the Muslim League, and the British.
For another take (more sympathetic to Jinnah than Guha), readers might be interested in reading some or all of Ayesh Jalal’s influential first book on Jinnah, “The Sole Spokesman.” The book is online for free at Google Books: here.
This is not accurate. It was an anniversary in the 1970s – I forget which one – when it emerged, then it got sidelined for a while, and now it is coming back (I think it’s detailed in ‘the decline of the subaltern in subaltern studies’ by Sumit Sarkar, who is a very good historian). And there are extremely good historians like Ayesha Jalal who have been around for a while now. But my comment was mainly on the influence of Bernard Cohn on history and anthropology and others to the point where you now have anthropologists doing political economy and legal studies more effectively than the people in those fields.
Dr A. Twice in a row you have publicised your Hindu heritage. Apart from being born in a Hindu family, what makes you identify as a Hindu? What do you do that makes feel Hindu, separate from, say, a Christian or a Muslim? Was this a purely rhetorical device?. I don’t mean any disrespect. I am not even looking for an argument. Just curious about what your idea of being Hindu is.
No worries. I am grappling with this question myself. I won’t describe it in opposition to other religions, i will simply tell you what i have experienced that relates to my understanding of Hinduism, which is only part of who i am, not its totality, and in the past i have described it as ‘goddess worshipping hindu’ ‘culturally …’ or something else – i dont’ think it necessarily needs to be pointed out, but i chose to do so in this context because it made sense:
cultural background to lay the roots: I grew up immersed in a Hindu household with a thakur ghar in my room, was read the ramayana and read mysedfl the ramayana, going to durga puja every year, being taught and participating in things like anjali ijncluding fasting, abstaining from eating meat (and onions and garlic at that point) during the puja, being instructed to abstain during the death of my paternal grandparents, witnessing my father shaving his head during both, having sayings from vivekananda etc on the walls, having my mother say a prayer to jai ma every time she started the car (usually when i missed the bus, etc.).
being part of the community that provided the above, on an ongoing basis, which I can’t recollect the impacts of outside of what my mother has told me (e.g. everything has a pran, etc etc) nor explain which facets of it relate to ‘hinduism’ and what has to do with class, caste, gender, or other categories, but that has to do wtih it.
a curiosity and interest in faith and the ideas and philosophy behind it – aside fro the books and ideas mentioned above, as i grew older, i read the gita on my own, took a course in hinduism at university, wrote on and studied ideology and a few figuers that were hindu and nationalist (taraknath das and aurbindo ghosh), and paid close attention to contemporary dialogues and conversations around hinduism, and later took courses at a masters level on south asia. this helped me undersatnd things like the diversity of belief in hinduism as it is described in various contexts today, some of the ideas that i had been unable to grasp that my family spoke of (example – never was able to understand the sudden switch from ‘ you absolutely should not date’ to tolerance for and discussion of dating and other such mattesr, phrases like ‘in student life you do…’ etc etc etc – until i learned about asramas and wahtnot), some of the myths that have been raised around hiunduism, the role of politics and colonialism in constructing contemporary legal notions of hinduism, the living tradition of interpreting what hinduism means in law, the roots of caste, etc.
awarenss of exclusion as part of a diaspora – growing up in a community that was not predominantly hindu int he united states, i was made aware and it is part of my basic worldview / outlook at some point that i ‘was hindu’ and that this was different, though like many hindus, i also celbrated christmas, etc.
practices in the household – this can be placed here because it is pure, this is impure, dont’ do this with your lefthand, don’t touch that, this is dirty this is clean don’t wear your shoes in the hosue, don’t eat food that other people have already eaten, don’t give someone a dish you’ve eatne from, etc etc etc etc etc. this tied in significantly to my understanding of caste, purity, pollution and OCD.
a trajectory – at first i understood myself as hindu, then i contemplated defining myself as a specific other faith – judaism, christianity, islam – instead i ended up taking various aspects of those faiths on that i liked and combining them in ways that made sense for me an called myself ‘eclectic.’ Later, i realised, to my bemusement, that ‘eclectic’ is what it means to be Hindu.
I think where I would depart from most contemporary cocneptions of Hinduism is that I am wiling to openly explore Islam and acknowledge that it is in part a South Asian faith tradition, and accept some of the things I like about it and relate them to other thigns I’ve learned – for example – i find the comparison between ‘submission’ to god and the call for submission to dharmic duty in the gita fairly interesting.
hpe that helps.
That was quite insightful, Dr A. In fact that is quite similar in parts to my own experience of being Hindu. Of course this is quite a complex issue, and a lot of factors can shape one’s political and ideological views. I feel that your educational background and growing up in a diaspora may have shaped yours to a great extent.
Yes, that is partly true. The eclecticism exists within a malleable dharmic framework. The difficulty is in accommodating exclusivist beliefs to this framework. Being a civilisation cultural and spiritual tradition rather than a ‘revealed’ religion, I feel that a crucial element of Hinduism is also a reverence for the civilisational land, the matrabhoomi.
Anyway, good to hear your views. Will discuss this issue at greater length probably on another thread.
Dr A,
In 153, you are being reasonably respectful about Hinduism. You even speak of the dharmic duty in the gita. Yet it was not so long ago that you were sarcastic about Krishna. So 153 cannot be the complete story. To complete the story, you also need to say where yo ur negative attitude to Hinduism came from.
I don’t believe in the historical accuracy of the gita, which makes it easier for me to be what other people consider blasphemous – I take it as a story or an allegory (is that the word?) that is designed to teach a certain lesson – which I believe is the way it’s to meant be taken. As I said in the comment that you’re mentioning (I think) I prefer an upanishadic reading which doesn’t have the anthropomorphic god that presents itself as overhwelming and magnificent in nature – i find that sort of approach cowing people into submission, in a sense, rather than appealing to their minds or, preferably, their emotions. that aspect of it is anathema to my still raw conception of what spirituality is.
on an emotional level, I am hurt that the book that is the book that is presented as the primary holy book in the faith that is usually ascribed to me does not suit me. i also resent the overemphasis on the book given that it was little part of my upbringing and has little to do with me beyond what i take to myself. I think religion is a very personal choice, does not have to involve god or gods, and for me, is not to be profaned with ideas that insult my capacity to think. That doesn’t mean I t6hink it always has positive effects even when all that is the case, but i think that is a necessary prerequisite for it to be something productive.
As for whether I am respectful or not – well I think you can only be respectful to people in this sense. Respectfulness to ideas entails representing them accurately, but beyond that, I don’t think they have feelings that can be wounded 🙂
With respect, I think this is a misreading of Hinduism, though obviously different people will have their own interpretations. I think it is extremely dangerous to tie religion and nationalism together (e.g. see Hinduism). I strongly believe that nationalism, in a contemporary context, can often be exactly the kind of exclusivist faith that you’re talking about. it quite literally bounds people and excludes people outside of those bounds, which is contrary to a spirit of openness that religion or spirituality or secular openness can – at its best – have.
Um, isn’t this true of everyone? 🙂 In the sense that the things that shape them, including formal education or lack thereof and their social and racial and national positions have an effect on hwo they see things? 🙂 The only difference is really if see it in themselves or not.
Vishwa swaroop that you read as an anthropomorphic god presenting himself in an overwhelming way is actually something quite different. Anyway, I will not debate theology with you. You are entitled to your opinions.
Well, that is my reading of the religion. Could you name one place in the mythology or history of Hinduism which is outside the subcontinent (including Tibet)?. I am not talking about nationalism for a political entity that came into being in 1947. Associating that with a 3000 year old creed would be extreme myopia.I am just defining it as a spiritual tradition that largely evolved in a particular geographical location. Of course, now with Hindu diaspora scattered across the globe, future evolution of the religion might occur differently in different places.
Um, isn’t this true of everyone? 🙂 In the sense that the things that shape them, including formal education or lack thereof and their social and racial and national positions have an effect on hwo they see things? 🙂
No I wasn’t being judgemental. I was just stating the obvious. Exactly what you said above.
Islam is the religion of 35% (more?)of South Asians. So there is no argument against it being a part of the SA faith tradition. I don’t know why you expect conceptions of Hinduism to explore Islam. It is a bit like expecting conceptions of Christianity to explore Buddhism. You are free to openly explore Islam, that is good too. I just hope you are able to do it truthfully and without any fear.
In keeping with the discussion Dr. A and Lupus are having, I would like to ask what we are to consider the preaching of those saints who attempted to combine the good elements from both Islam and Hinduism, for example Bhagat Kabir. Is his philosophy “Islam” or “Hinduism”? Even today, Kabir is a name given to both Muslim and Hindu boys. The legend goes that when the saint died, the Muslims claimed he was Muslim and the Hindus that he was Hindu, they respectively wanted to bury or burn his body. The body disappeared showing that the saint was above all such considerations. What about Sufism? What about Sikhism, which (correct me if I’m wrong) blends elements from Hinduism and Islam to create a distinct faith. I don’t know why people feel threatened by Hindus exploring Islam in a non-judgemental manner. After all, not all “Islam” is Wahabbi Sunni Islam.
Personally, I am in awe of the poetry of Meerabai, yet I cannot call myself a Hindu because I was born in a Muslim household (albeit an extremely liberal secular one). I don’t see the harm in appreciating our South Asian composite culture. Perhaps it will even help build greater tolerance in the subcontinent.
Kabir,
If you want to call yourself a hindu, whats stopping you ? In India you would find many hindus visiting the dargahs of various muslim saints, but you don’t have to mix hindu and muslim beliefs to appreciate a south asian composite culture.
I don’t think its just ‘wahabbi’ Islam that would have an issue with mixing hindu and muslim beliefs. Most of the orthodox and sufi orders that exist in India would frown upon such deviations. The key tenets of Islam are quite clear and I personally don’t see how you can honestly follow these and also incorporate this with hinduism.
In fact trying to blend hindu and muslim practices would in my view not build tolerance but could be viewed as an attempt to ‘assimilate’ muslims into the hindu fabric and would be perceived as an attack on Islam.
Sikhism is its own faith and I think it would be incorrect to see it just as a blend of hinduism and Islam.
Desi in DC, I don’t personally advocate blending of Hinduism and Islam. I was just trying to ask how one would classify certain philosophies such as those of Bhagat Kabir. Kabir stated in his bhajan “Where do you seek for me (god), I am with you” and “I (god) am in faith.” There’s also the bhajan “koee bolay ram ram koee khudai” which I believe is also by him. Basically, these type of philosophies make the point that there are multiple ways to approach god and that all these ways are fine.
Btw, I am also based in DC. I live in Foggy Bottom, if you are ever interested in taking these discussions offline:)
I am happy to discuss theology with you. The chapter in the Gita I am referring to is towards the end of the series of explantions that Krishna givres Arjun for why he should engage in the war, and ‘reveals’ himself to Arjun, in a sense overwhelming his senses (it’s chapter 11 – see here). this is very different both in tone and in style than the manner in which brahma is treated in at least one of them upanishads I’ve read as a force that is existent in the entire universe, but is not in the form of a human being and is not presented in a way that attempts to coerce (the reader, if not Arjun), in my opinion.
Well, there are places like Bali and the diaspora, where it’s still practiced, and many places where it once was but no longer is, like other parts of Southeast Asia.
As I stated above, the only comfortable way I have of undersatnding Hinduism as one that allows and even embraces eclecticism and syncretism of all faiths. Asking a Hindu who is concerned with faith and interested in faiths and is tied to the subcontinent to ignore Islam and Muslims doesn’t compute for me.
Yet this happens all the time, unfortunately. On a social level, if Hindus in the subcontinent cannot embrace the diversity of all tradtions witihin Hinduism, intermingling and exploring with people who identify with other faiths as well on the subcontinent, including those held by their neighbors whio are various kinds of Muslims, adivasis of various kinds, Sikhs, Jains and dalits – then what hope does India or South Asia have given how many Hindus live there?
It IS more difficult because its personal and an extensive history of mutual violence and discord intervene and, obviously, the deliberate state policy during the colonial era and subsequent fragmentation of british india– but it is also possible, if one truly cares about life, people, and social communities in South Asia or its diasporas. it is weird, actually, to imagine that someone from the subcontinent holds a faith that encourages exploration of other faiths anjd understands itself as a civlisational identity but does not explore the faith of 35% of the population and one that has existed in that geographic area for hundreds of years and profoundly shaped aspects of the place’s history. It undermines both the claim to a ‘civilisational’ status, sycreticism, broadmindedness, and respect for all faiths.
There is, as kabir points out, a tradition of interchange and sycreticism that has been – let’s say interrupted – and that need to begin to be remembered and renewed – on all sides. In some cases it is easier – for example, in cases of common language, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, or other ways in whcih people might come together in a common context. Even within the context of faith, for example – sufi and bhakti devotees might find in exploring the histories of their traditions that they would connect on some grounds.
<
blockquote>Desi in DC, I don’t personally advocate blending of Hinduism and Islam. I was just trying to ask how one would classify certain philosophies such as those of Bhagat Kabir.
Perhaps it is best not to classify sometimes, especially with regard to matters of faith in the subcontinent 🙂 But syncretic is generally the word they are given.
You might be interested in this paper:
Dr A– That’s really interesting thanks. I guess I would call myself a Hindu-Muslim (or Muslim-Hindu), though I think I’ve settled on “bhakti/sufi”:)
I totally agree with your point that it’s weird that Hindus and Muslims living on the Indian subcontinent find it difficult to engage with each other’s religions, especially given that Hinduism is not a “revealed” religion and thus less rigid in many ways than Islam. Also, given the fact that there already exists a syncretic tradition, it’s a shame that people are afraid or reluctant to explore it.
To give another example. One of Meerabai’s most famous bhajans is “Shyam piya moree rang day chunariya”. I read in a book somewhere that Indian Muslims used to sing substantially the same bhajan simply changing “Shyam” to “Khwaja” and addressing the bhajan to a Sufi saint (can’t recall whether it was Nizamuddin Auliya or Moinuddin Chisti).
Dr A– apropos of the link you have presented, you (and others) might be interested in this post on the South Asian Idea blog.
http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/hindu-muslim/
Dr A. I didn’t want to discuss theology simply because I am extremely busy in my new job, and don’t find as much time as I used to do the kind of reading and research (and writing) that would do justice to the subject. However, just to close this loop… (I shall be quoting Dr Radhakrishnan’s translation and at a few places his expositions) Chapter XI verse 8 But thou canst not behold me with this human eye of yours; I will bestow on thee the supernatural eye. Behold my divine power. It is analogous to the the upanishadic hearing they hear not, knowing they know not,seeing they see not, Only with the eyes of enlightenment do they see. Also similar to the biblical lord opened his eyes so that he may see What is it that he is being shown? surely not a powerful human being who can work miracles. It is something of an entirely different dimension and magnitude.
Verse10- Of many mouths and eyes, of many visions of marvel, of many divine ornaments, of many uplifted weapons This is not all that different from Purusa sukta, hymn 10.90 of the Rg Veda. Also, we must not forget that this description is being given by Sanjaya. His mind is perceiving the supreme in ways that he is familiar with.
Verse 12 If the light of a thousand suns were to blaze forth all at once in the sky, that might resemble the splendour of the exalted being. The exalted being is the embodiment of the universal form. Surely this is not a description of a human form.
Verse 47 By My grace and through My divine power, O Arjuna, you were shown this supreme form, luminous, universal, infinite and primal Here, the lord is not speaking as Krishna, the person, the charioteer- the My here is that of the Supreme being, the absolute, unconditioned Brahman, the attainment of which is the final and highest salvation. I don’t understand how you have read the Gita as efforts of a man attempting to coerce worship. Even if so, please read just chapter XIII (the field and it’s knower) again. It might make things clearer.
As for Sikhs and Jains, there is there is no problem. Let us not imagine issues where none exist. There is intermarriage, common traditions and considerable mutual understanding (I recently attended a Sindhi Hindu friend’s wedding which was held in a Gurudwara. He and his wife frantically chant verses from the Guru Granth Sahib, as also the hanuman chalisa while embarking on rollercoster rides). Why do you have to be so insecure about Islam so as to constantly demand attention for it? Islam is a world religion. It has many adherents in the subcontinent. There is considerable inter-faith dialogue. As Kabir pointed out, there have been many syncretic traditions. Apart from the ones already poined out, Sai Baba of Shirdi is another vastly popular figure who is revered by millions. That is what I meant- whenever there is a philosophy or strain that emphasises unity and one-ness, it will be explored and welcomed in the dharmic fold. If it promotes exclusivism or superiority of the faithful, it will be ignored or opposed.
I recall ‘Aaj Rang hai’ by Amir Khusro- it has the line ‘maine rang dee chunariya tere rang mein’ directed towards Nizamuddin Aulia
Kabir, thanks for the link – it was indeed interesting. I think it very much sums up one dynamic that exists – there are communities engaging in their practices until someone comes and forces them to define ‘which side’ they are on and alter their practices and the trajectory of their practices. Moreover, this demand can come from ‘Hindus’ or ‘Muslims’, and happens both in India and in Pakistan. This is why I was suggesting challenging easy classification in pre-existing categories 🙂 You can see in the response you received, even, from Desi in DC – I think the commenter is not Muslim (I could be wrong), but is policing who can claim Islam.
I don’t think it’s that people are reluctant or enthusiastic to engage in these types of activites of their own. The trouble is that there is now a long history of defnition, classification, and consolidation of various people into categories. And it would be a mistake to think that they themselves are not participating on a concrete level in this process – the concrete and the abstract occur in the same person who is both ffected and exerts agency. But there is an abstract – a dynamic of communal definition classification, and violence that exists, and we all need to come together to be able to end that, explore what hte factors are behind it at this point (India-Pakistan rivalry and the nationalism that ensues, legacies of colonialism and continuing influence of modernjism, the use of politicised religion as part of neoliberalism’s electoral aspect, path dependency due to violence, etc.). We have already witnessed time and time again what happens when this dynamics starts to trump other matters – and it can be self-reinforcing. I thuink that’s why the conversation we are currently in among a variety of people in a peaceful and civil way is quite good 🙂
LS,
Thank you for the lengthy exegesis and good luck with your new job. I may have written unclearly earlier – I am not trying to say that I think Krishna was simply a powerful person. I think if that were the case, the whole story would lose its appeal and I would lose my curiosity 🙂 This is clear in that Krishna has two identities from the outset – the charioteer whose name I can’t remember and Krishna. As such, charioteer/Krishna is both human and divine at once (or rather in what portions he is depicted at alters depending on thye moment and the part of the book) and is not just Krishna or a person. And Krishna/supernatural/transcendent supernatural goes through the enormous list of other things he is as well to establish his divine cred.
What I was trying to saying relates to the overall trajectory of the story and specific aspects of specific parts as they contrast to what I believe are preceding traditions (i.e. what the Gita has before it and where it takes those beliefs). The overall thrust of presenting him as in human form and tied to other aspects of Krishna worship, then showing a different form (while STILL Krishna/divine/supernatural and able to go back to being the charioteer as well because the supernatural an move back and forth among different aspects easily) is different from presenting brahman as an impersonal, all-penetrating force. It is that difference between the divine partly as being (and speaking) and having already presented themselves and the divine as simply existent and all pervasive force tat I don’t lke – this si what i refer to as anthropomorphic.
I am particularly concerned that the more abstract and philosophical version (for whuc you need eyes of enlightenment) present in the upanishads or in Buddha preceded the more concretised and anthropomorphic version (for which you need eyes of the supernatural). It is much less soothing and much more scary and presents a different kind of model of authority / the divine.
In other words, Krishna is named – he walks, talks, and moves -while can reveal himself also as a manifestation of Brahma/the supernatural/the divine – that even someone as heroic as Arjun can become frightened of and Krishna conceals himself again because we human beings can’t handle the truth- well that’s not my preference for what approach I think religious education and contemplation would ideally take.
I notice an unfortunate irony in what you say here 🙁
One asymmetry along the Hindu-Muslim axis (among, no doubt, many) is the absence – in the Muslim tradition – of the kind of discourse I see here regarding the Gita – a secular questioning of accepted/revealed truths, of scriptures, an attempt from a humanistic perspective to deconstruct that which is regarded sacred and beyond questioning by believers, a re-examination of the role of the deity or the prophet.
I bring it up in case I am merely misinformed.
Kabir @165:
Actually you will find a lot of Hindus in India frequenting Sufi Dargah as much as temples, where they exist locally: Dargah of Khwaja Chisti is one famous example where Hindus (including Jains and Sikhs) frequent from far and wide. Personally, I have grown up visiting our local Sufi Durgah just as much as temples in my small town in India. When I moved to another small town, there wasn’t any Sufi place (although Mosques were aplenty), so that tradition ceased. You will also find that most Hindus (that I know) don’t have a problem praying to Christ in chruches (but not in a formal manner and not if the church is making an effort to convert). However, I have almost never seen the same respect given (in large scale), forget the kind of mass visits, by people of Abrahamic religion to any Hindu place of worship, most likely because the Abrahamic religions are exclusive. Kabir, I see you are not aware about the reverence of Sufi Dargah’s amongs local Hindus and wanted to point it out to you.
@ Wunderbar: I am not at all a religious scholar, but I do know that there is a tradition of scholarship in Islam. For example, deciding which Hadiths are authentic and which are corruptions. There are also several different schools of Islamic Law, so one can imagine that there must have been vigorous debates and disagreements at some point. However, I agree that there isn’t a “re-examination of the role of the deity or the prophet” partly because the scripture is considered to be the direct word of god and thus can’t really be questioned, at least not by those who believe it to be divine revelation.
@zee, Thanks for the insight. I was aware that Saints like Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya and Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti are greatly respected in India. I wish more emphasis was given to the syncretic tradition and less on communal discord and hardline Islam or Hinduism.
Dr. A, I hate to jump into the middle of an interesting discussion between you and Lupus, but since he’s apparently preoccupied with his new job, I just thought I’d chime in here. With all due politeness, I think I see an unfortunate misreading here in your scriptural peregrinations. The Upanishads are in essence, commentaries on the Vedas that expound the core teachings of Vedanta. The Bhagavad Gita in essence condenses that and packages it in a practical format for the layperson. The Gita was not created in opposition to the Upanishads, but rather runs in consort with it. Could they (upanishads) be packaged in a form that is more palatable to your tastes?–sure. But that does not mean that there is a fundamentally different message from the Gita. The Krishna of the Gita is the same as the Brahman of the upanishads. That is the nature of the divine–everything and yet nothing at once (as in no parallel phenomenon). That is why the na iti na iti approach is advocated because the divine is simply indescribable. Brahman, Krishna even Kali (which your ostensibly bengali household was probably very familiar with) are all alternately described as embodiments of Eternal Truth.
Accordingly, from what I gather, your aversion to Krishna is on the basis that he is seemingly war-like and encourages violence. But again, that is a misreading. What Krishna advocates is the practice of duty (I don’t think submission as you used above was the right word). He chastises Arjuna for cowardice and for shirking from his duty. Pure compassion and humanism without recognition of severe threats to righteousness is cowardice–and since you feel inclined to draw parallels between politics and religion… What Krishna advocates is that in order to defend righteousness there are times when we must take up arms. As a Kshatriya, Arjuna has enjoyed the privileges and luxuries of his class, and so, he must now implement the duties that are required of his class and defend the dharma without regard for family or self. Krishna is not celebrating violence or calling for atrocities, he is saying that righteousness (whether it is protecting women, restoring rightful rulers to their thrones, safeguarding the weak against the strong) sometimes requires the use of arms for its protection. Would it be great if we could all just compromise and engage in dialogue with our adversaries?–sure. But the pandavas did that, and ultimately, the kauravas continued to humiliate and supplant them, that is why the kurukshetra war must take place.
Now, please understand, I am not saying that you must believe in Krishna because of blah blah blah. No one has that right to tell you what to believe. However, I am saying that I think this was a rather facile reading that missed the point of the Gita . With respect to the depiction of Krishna’s Vishwarupa, which you refer to as anthropomorphic (again, I think the wrong word is used here), the point of its revelation was not to instill fear in Arjuna–who himself asks to see the true form of the divine. The point is to recognize the many and awesome forms the divine can take and permeate throughout the universe at the same time. That is why hinduism sees no contradiction in appreciating the teachings of other saints and prophets irrespective of religion–ekam sat, viprah bahuda vadanti (there is one truth, but there are many ways to it–Rig Veda). Moreover, I disagree that syncretism is an absolute must for anyone on the subcontinent to be good “south asians”. What I do agree with is that I think people should take the time to study other faiths and appreciate their festivals and teachings so they can better understand and coexist with their brethren–and even better understand themselves in the process. I think there’s a difference here. Anyhow, I don’t want to ramble on, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Dr A
Dr A Your aversion for the ‘anthropomorphic’ just means that you are not cut out for Bhakti Yoga or Disney movies. Karma Yoga or Jnana Yoga may be your path. That Krishna lived as a man and was aware of his unity with the universal being is what makes him the living embodiment of the divine. Hinduism stresses that this God- consciousness is within the grasp of all living creatures, and that is what we must strive for. Buddha may or may not have predated the Gita. I have read Buddhist literature, and don’t find any contradiction in it’s core values and that of the Gita. Buddha himself was an enlightened being while still being a master to his disciples and also a bhikshu. And Krishna’s name as the charioteer was ‘Parthasarthi’ (Parth being another name of Arjuna)
I agree that there is an asymmetry in Hindu-Muslim relations. And we cannot discount the role of the partition in perpetuating this mistrust. We are essentially the same people separated by mental constructs. I remember the genteel, Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb of Lucknow when I was growing up. instead, to hear news like this really saddens me
However, I agree that there isn’t a “re-examination of the role of the deity or the prophet” partly because the scripture is considered to be the direct word of god and thus can’t really be questioned, at least not by those who believe it to be divine revelation.
Yes, of course, but there is no such discourse (or perhaps it is much less common ?) even from (sceptical ? secular ?) Muslims. For instance, you will rarely see it on blogs like this anywhere near as often as you do from the ‘other side’.
This is not to pressure you into saying anything in particular. It was an observation of asymmetry. I find asymmetries interesting.
Wunderbar, you are right. I believe the reason is that the skeptical and secular Muslims are so intimidated by the fundamentalists (and who wouldn’t be given how easy it is to get someone punished for “blasphemy” in Pakistan for example) that they don’t even want to get into theological debates. Speaking only for myself, I don’t even want to talk about Islam with anyone, because I find it personally irrelevant to my life, and feel it is much more effective to engage with societal issues through secular, rational arguement. The only time I jump into “religious” discussions is to clear up misconceptions that come from a place of Islamophobia and equating all of “Muslim culture” with Wahabi fundemantalism.
On the other hand, I think skeptical Hindus are a lot less likely to fear getting killed for questioning certain aspects of the Gita. Yes, the asymmetry is certainly interesting.
Yajnavalka iti hovaca:
“Moreover, I disagree that syncretism is an absolute must for anyone on the subcontinent to be good “south asians”. What I do agree with is that I think people should take the time to study other faiths and appreciate their festivals and teachings so they can better understand and coexist with their brethren–and even better understand themselves in the process. I think there’s a difference here”
I completely agree with you. I don’t think anyone was implying that one must believe in a syncretic faith to be a good “south asian”– that sounds almost fascist, like we want to officially enforce an ideology. But, as you say, an appreciation and non-hatred of the “other’s” faith is a pre-req for tolerance.
@ Lupus:
“We are essentially the same people separated by mental constructs. I remember the genteel, Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb of Lucknow when I was growing up. instead, to hear news like this really saddens me”
Agreed entirely… in the words of Faiz Ahmad Faiz, “hum kay there ajnabi kitnee mada raaton kay baad, phir banaygay ashna kitnee mulakaaton kay baad?”
I took the weekend off, and glad to read these discussions on Gita, asymmetry and stuff.
First, to address Kabir’s question on the RSS:
Yes, Kabir, the RSS did condemn the Gujarat and Khandamal riots.But they don’t see it as a pogrom like you do.However, the RSS condemnation of these events doesn’t mean any thing.Just words.The RSS has to take its share of the blame for what has happened, and is likely to happen in future as well, namely communal riots in India.Not just the RSS, but the entire political system in India has blood on their hands.However, I feel it is lazy analysis to blame the RSS for all the riots.Hopefully, on some other future thread, I can get to this topic in more detail.
Ref. the discussion between Dr A, Lupus and Yajnavalkya:
1.Both Saguna (having a form) and Nirguna (formless) worship is prevalent in Sanatana Dharma.And though it is accepted by saints and scholars that nirguna is a higher form of worship possible for jnanis, the masses have always followed the saguna approach.
2.The same ‘Saguna’ approach informs the area of ethical or dharmic conduct of the people as well.People like Harischandra (truth), Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram (uphold dharma in all spheres of life), Kings Bali and Sibi( the concept of daan) etc are as real for Hindus today as they were for people thousands of years back.In a sense, these purana characters and Gods in the pantheon are the vehicles though which the foundational principles of the civilisation have been handed over to generations.And to keep pace with changing times and mores, one needs to invest these puranas with enough flexibility so that the same story can be interpreted differently to advocate subtle or revolutionary changes in the social customs.Like Krishna who can be divine (not supernatural) and human at the same time, the people should also understand the messages given by these memes and also question them when needed.It is some sort of a perpetual open source movement.
3.Even simplistically speaking, the Gita is poetry and philosophy of such high order, that one wonders at the society /civilisation that created a poet who described or imagined a warrior-poet (Krishna) to deliver these messages.It is one of the most awesome set of thoughts that the human civilisation itself has come up with.
4.Yagnavalkya nailed it when he quoted Ekam Sat, Vipra Bahuda vadanti (Truth is one; scholars see it in different ways). This then is the fundamental difference between sanatana dharma and the abrahamic religions.My friend Rahim will cease to be a true Muslim the moment he recognizes any other faith as valid for its followers.That is why Saudi Arabia can never allow a church or temple to be built in that nation.
5.As some people have argued, one way out is a possible Indianisation of these semitic religions-convincing them to make this one change in their theological outlook.
6.Indian civilisation has been able to accomplish this with respect to the engagement with Islam.It cost us the looting of thousands of temples, and the death of millions.But this interaction has also created people like Kabir, Guru Nanak, the sufi saints, and I wonder why no mentions Shirdi Sai Baba.The Baba is a recent person and people like Tilak, Gokhale (who knows even Jinnah may be?) seem to have met him.By his own admission, Sai Baba was brought up as a Muslim, and the most common phrase from his lips was: Allah Malik.Today, crores of Hindus worship him as a God.The same multitudes of Hindus also throng dargahs of sufi saints or festivals of Arogya Mata (one of the names of Mother Mary in S.India) or Velankanni.
(Contd).
“My friend Rahim will cease to be a true Muslim the moment he recognizes any other faith as valid for its followers.That is why Saudi Arabia can never allow a church or temple to be built in that nation.”
Kumar ji this is not true. I don’t know whose interpretation of Islam this is, but the Koran itself recognizes Jews and Christians as “People of the Book”. The prophet also apparently said at one point when the Quarish were offering him all kinds of riches to repudiate his new religion, that “To you is your religion, and to me is my religion.” The only reason the scripture doesn’t address Hinduism is because it was authored or “revealed” in the Middle East, where Hinduism did not exist. Saudi Arabia not allowing a church of temple to be built in that country says more about the Saudis than about Islam.
Kabir,
Actually it was in response to Dr. A:
Anyhow, I am glad you agree that the common good can be promoted if we all just take the time to understand each other and avoid forcing our opinions and beliefs onto others.
(Contd. from 179)
7.Initially, the number of Muslim and Hindu devotees for Sai Baba was almost equal.But over the years, Sai Baba has become a completely Hindu god in the sense that Muslims in general don’t seem to visit his dargah in Shirdi or his temples anywhere in good numbers.So, somewhere along the line, the syncretic aspect of Indian Islam has been lost, I reckon.Probably one of the side effects of freedom movement and the partition debates/violence.
8.I grew up in a town that was/is 40 % Muslim.And our town has one of the most syncretic dargahs in India, made famous by bollywood devotees in recent years, inspired by A.R.Rahman’s devotion.Most Hindus visit the dargah on Fridays on their way to/from the Goddess temple near by.My muslim friends who never missed a single episode of Ramayan or Mahabharat on TV, neverthless had no clue about Sufism.Many still don’t realize their Islam is different from Wahabism.The new Mullahs getting trained in Deoband or in some Saudi-sponsored school can’t afford to downgrade the local Sufi saints.Instead, they make attempts to show that Wahabism is the only true way and they are scholarly enough to reinterpret sufism also to suit their purposes.It is a battle for the minds of poor but inclusive Muslims.How long can these people withstand the effects of moneyed indoctrination? I donno.
One pet peeve:It is middle east only from a Euro-centric perspective.It is actually West Asia 🙂
Genuine question: How does one establish that Sanatan Dharma was absent in Persia and Arabia during those days ? What were the 300 idols destroyed by the Prophet (PBUH)’s army at the Kaaba ? I am sure you are aware of the close civilisational ties between the sub-continent and Persia? Especially between Zorastrainism and Sanatana Dharma?
I don’t want to get into a discussion on the interpretation of the Koran or Hadith as I am not an expert and only have read the English translations a few years back.I am aware that Jews and Christians as ‘people of the book’ are placed slightly above the kaffirs, but that has not stopped wars between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian world from the very beginning.
Also:
I am sure many Islamic scholars may have interpreted the Prophet’s words (PBUH) in the spirit of modernism, but can you say their views are dominant? Where are the examples of even limited success in syncretic behavior among Muslims in nations where Islam is the dominant religion? A single instance where a specific Muslim community worshipped Jesus or even allowed a syncretic culture to evolve? If there are such instances, I don’t think they have been publicised enough.
Essentially people want freedom, peace and prosperity.As we can’t change the holy book like we can do a constitutional amendment or a reinterpretation of the Gita or the Vedas, we have to make the ‘inclusive’ interpretation of the Holy books as the dominating version, and make the Wahabi version extinct if possible.This won’t happen unless the Saudis and assorted fundamentalists give their buy-in to it.How do we get there, dost?
By making the above statements, I am not saying that people following other faiths have been angels or that there is no need to reform.But I see a strong case, that at least in India, the civilisational character of ‘inclusivism’ and ‘Sarva dharma Samabhava’ has more to do with Sanatan Dharma than any other factor.A Wahabi Muslim or a Seventh Day Adventist Christian may have problems with idol worship. But a truly Indian Muslim or Christian would not.We could agree to disagree on this.
Anecdotal examples of syncretism are dime a dozen in India, post-1947. Off the bat: A Dileep Kumar converts into Sufi Islam and becomes Allah Rakha Rahman.Hindutva types have no problem.A K.J.Jesudas sings songs in veneration of Lord Ayyappa.The Church may have a problem with it, but ordinary Hindus and Christians don’t.Sound engineer Resul Pookkutty may be a devout Muslim, but he talks about the primal sound of ‘Om’ when he makes an Oscar acceptance speech.The foundation stone for a Govt building or a private limited company headed by a Muslim CEO is laid after breaking a coconut.No one finds it objectionable.The ancient Bharadwaj Ashram in Allahabad is maintained by Muslims in the nearby slum.Ganesh idols are decorated by Muslim flower sellers.And no one thinks of the Khans as Muslim superstars. We can go on like this.
Even after giving all the benefits of doubt to my Pakistani and Bangladeshi brethren, I fail to see such examples from those societies.The Saudis may be fundamentalist as Kabir seems to imply, but what about my fellow South Asians? What excuses do they have? Leave alone killing the Hindu minorities, they are killing fellow believers as well.What is the cause for so much hatred?Why be surprised when that poison of hatred crosses the border and infects some Hindus as well ?
The misunderstanding or lack of respect for ‘Hindutva’ is primarily because of the way a naturally evolved civilisational or societal more has been brought into the political space with the expectation of rewards, by the self-styled Hindutva forces.Even then, Indian Muslims did show an initial willingness to bury the past and make a fresh beginning.Unfortunately, the politicians (Rajeev Gandhi, V.P.Singh, LKA, Vajpayee, PV Narasimha Rao, Mulayam Singh Yadav etc) saw a great political card in the entire Rama Janmabhoomi issue.In this, they were no different from Jinnah, Nehru, Patel and others who demonstrated a similar misconception of the subcontinental ethos.By partitioning the country and destroying the delicate balance, we may have irrevocably changed the very inclusive character of large chunks of the sub-continent.Sad.
Kumar ji, you are right that Pakistani society at this point would never tolerate an A.R. Rahman type case of a Muslim converting to Hinduism and yet being successful revered in his country. I think that the reason for that has to do with the increasing Wahabistation/Sunnification of Pakistani Islam, going back to Ziaul Haq. A country that doesn’t even consider the Ahmedis muslim, though the Ahmedis themselves have always asserted that they are Muslim, clearly has huge problems with tolerance and differing viewpoints. But again, this is Pakistan and not something inherent in Islam (at least that is my argument).
I also agree with you that we need to bring more attention to the inclusive and tolerant interpretations of Islam and counter the Wahabbis and other fundamentalists. In this struggle, people such as yourself (Indian Hindus) can be very useful. Rather than allowing other Hindus to use global Islamophobia as an excuse for their own bigoted political ends, you can always make the point that just as extremist Hindus don’t speak for all the adherents of the religion, Islamic fundamentalist sects don’t speak for all Muslims the world over. Your own first hand experience of your town is testimony to this.
Regards,
Kabir
I don’t know enough about the topic to go into depth, but I can say that I believe your argument is overstated at minimum. If you read someone like Abdolkarim Sorough – Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in islam – you will see the lengths that are gone to honestly and analyically but at the same time with a concern for the faith. The absence of knowledge about these attempts are among the reasons why I think it would be worthwhile for those people who think f South Asia as a civilisational entity to look into one of its major contributors – similar to how in every day life, if you have a maidan, you should probably know the word comes from persian :), if you like bhakti, you should probably explore the ties to sufi and other mystical movements, and if you’re interested in music, you should explore not just the music of villayat khan or nusrat or kazi nazrul islam but their lives and verse as well.
Yajnavalkya iti hovaca, thank you for your response.
This is your reading of it. However, if you look over the enormous amount of time, the variety of different believes that are presented in the Vedas, the Mahabarata, the Ramayana, the many, many Upanishads, the enormous amount of traditions that have prolifereated and died in that time, the role of colonialism in shaping a different form of Hinduism, I don’t belive that all these texts work in harmony with each other in every single aspect. Case in point the difference I pointed out between a greater emphasis on the impersonal nature of God and the Krishna-pesronified nature of God. This is not to deny that the Gita’s conception of the divine relies on invoking Krishna as Brahma – but you can look at this as a strategic move by the author’s of the text to subsume Brahma worship into Krishna worship. This is not a religious argument on my part, but a religious studies argument – looking at religion and how these texts and other items function in relation to each other and over time and in interesection with other aspects of religion in the world – society, power, etc. It is pretty shallow in itself, my argument, but I think it is more accurate than asserting that all these texts which were composed at different times, by different people, in different societal contexts, intrinsicially have a unity rather than having different pieces which one can weave together into a coherent narrative (possibly many). And in fact, it is that diversity that is worth the price.
As for the argument that all deities are one – this is a basic point of continued evolution in Hinduism as its now known – that there are many and there is one. Some people would rather focus on one of the mnay – e.g. Kali. Some people will take the concept and limit it differently from you (e.g. all Goddesses are one, but Krishna, and Siv, and others are different). Some people will extend the concept to Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, pirs, various local deities, etc. Some texts have used the equation atman = brahman to reconcile it – an all pervading force with also rests in each individual (and perhaps living creature).
In other words, the version that you have presented of the relationship between the many and the one of the divine is one of an almost infnite variety of ways to reconcile – or choose not to reconcile – the relationship between the many and the one, if we choose to accept it. What I would say is that a) it is a choice b) it requires choosing from the variety of streands and different aspects and c) for me, it shoudl take into account lived realities. Just as the Indian courts have changed their definition of hindu marriage from saptapadi to ‘any custom practiced for a long time’ or some such thing, Hindus ourselves have be brave enough to look at what we have inherited and build somethign that is of use to US rather than anything else, imo. It is, in fact, our prerogative to emphasise Kali or Krishna, to disregard texts entirely, to look to other deities, to worship almsot exclusively of persons or deities that are not considered Hindu and adopt a practice of vegetarianism and nonviolence at the same time. All these, are relevant.
For example, in the Gita, in the section in which different types of duties are ascribed to different people – I disregard entirely the idea that this cdan legitimise the caste system. On the other hand, I take it to be enormous progress over the European idea of the universal man – by acknowledging that different people are cut out for different things, this idea which has led to a lot of destruction, can actually be reread in contemporary circumstances to provide some freeom for those who want to be barbers or bookstore owner but their parents tell them they can only be doctors, lawyesr, enginners or IT gurus.
your reading is my reading exactly – we can quibble over whether submission or dharmic duty is the right or wrong word – i was trying to draw a parallel in psychoclogical bewteen the notion of submission to Allah in islam and the notion of submission to ones dharmic duty. My objection was to the section at the end (I ahd provided a link at the end) in which the divine is presnted as frightful, unbeholdable (except to Arjunj in that one isntancce), and overwhelming, in a sense. To me, this is a counterproductive notion of the divine and alternativer ones can be found elsewhere in texts that can form the basis of a modern Hinduism. for example, I think I highlighted in LS’s commentary the words ‘supernatural’ and ‘enlightened’ – I dont’ know if the original sanskrit is different, but the meanings in english – the language in which we are speaking now – are very different and draw on different traditions. This has repercussions on what you atke to be the relationship between man and Bhagwan.
There is an answer to this in the theory of non violent commnication. Essentially, you adopt force to the extent that is necessary to stop harm from being done to yourself and other, but you do not stray into adopting force for purpsoes of retribution, anger, blame, judgement, or other thigns – at which point it becomes violence. this is extraordinarily difficult ot practice, but i think holding it as an honest ideal would be worthwhile for all people and I think hindus would be particularly receptive to it given the links bewteen the ethos of NVC and that of faith traditions that have existed in South Asia.
That is not my reading. My reading is that Kirshna advocates that in order to uphold rigtheousness (which in this context I blieve means the dharmic order though it would be presented as an unmitigated good in the Gita probably), one must perform one’s duties even above and beyond our doubts. What I would argue is that rather than singlemindedly overriding our own concerns, we explore them and attempt to reconcile them with our conception of duties (in which i have reinterpreted dharmic to abandon the caste laden and ‘given’ duties in place of behavior that accords with one’s self of self, thereby honoring the conscience, and, if you are inclined to believe so, the portion of the conscience that partakes in the divine) Personally I think it is irrelevant whether or not the divine partakes in the conscience or vice versa beccause of the equivalent of pascal’s wager – if it does, and you honor your conscience, it will be pleased or react hoever it would otherwise; if it does not partake in your conscience or exist at all, then no harm done anyhow – you’re actually better off anyway for having honored your conscience.
So in short, I believe the method of resolving the conflcit between duty and doubt as well as the ways in which that relationship are described, particularly in the extreme context (by the standards of the book) in whcih they take place leaves something to be desired. it has nothing to do with krishna per se but with krishna as he is presented in the book as the main conveyor of the message within the context of the narrative overall. If you take the lessons of the book too literally – if you were today asked to kill your brothers and sisters in the name of your dharmic duty, regardless of your doubts, withotu fully exploring all possible alternatives or what your relationship is with your duty and you conscience and your doubts – well, taht wouldn’t be what i would recommend. Of coures, the whole book is in fact a disccussion of that sort – but it is too much driven externally not in Arjun’s internal psyche – the doubts, as you show, are too readily equated with cowardice and are not adequately resolved. In the real world, killing against your will would have enormous repercussions on your own soul.
I have already addressed this above. I believe I have written unclearly or what you have called a misreading is in fact a misreading of my reading 🙂
The sense of Arjun’s interest in the revelation is a fair point. However, I would point out that it is only Arjun who has ever seen the revelation and that he is left frightened. What message does this convey to the reader? You will likely never see the divine, and if you are lucky enough to behold its magnificence, you will be left overawed and frightened. And consequently—? to recognise the many forms of the divien and diversity in oneness and unity in diversity can be conveyed in other ways.
Again, I have explained my earlier poor use of the word anthropomorphic – as you will see in the text, unless it is different in sanskrit, the divine is speaking. the divine may no longer be krishna, but in the trajectory of the book, the same supernatural entity has started out in the form of krishna. It is my opinion that the divine does not concentrate itself in a single personhood to the exclusion of other personhoods – to me this is a very narrow way of distributing the benefits of divinity and god. Much better, then, to accept what my mother has told me and say that everythign has a pran, that that pran is connected to a pervasive divine, and taht different manifestations in the form of symbols, peoples or aspects of them, and other ways cadn come together without precluding other readings. This is not a mutually exclusive raeding from that of the Gita, but I was indicated why I did not prefer this reading – and that has to do with what i believe i have correctly labeled an anthropomorphic conception of the divine in comparison to one of the upanishadic readings of the divine as brahman.
Yes, I agree with you here – I think I got carried away before and there is a difference. What I meant was the kind of interchange that you are discussing. syncretism is optional, if fun 🙂 What I would not compromise on is that syncretism must be tolerated – even embraced – because in a place that is so rife with tension based on poltiicised religion – on all ‘sides’ – those that have traditions taht are outside of that dynamic need to be respected and allowed to exist without excessive interference from that dyamic.
Compare this statement to what Abdolkarim Soroush has said about Islam (paraphrase): the Quran is truth, but what we know about the quran (religious knowledge) contracts and expands over time. Moreover, this is a social enterprise, not an individual one. I am sure you could find similar sentiments in other Abrhamic religions as well (e.g. unitarianism perhaps?). Again, this is why I think it would be worthwhile for those who are interested in faith in South Asia to expose themselves to more currents of contemporary Islamic thouht – as well as the more pertinent aspect of how Muslims live their religion. The same could be true of over faiths that are considered Other.
However, more to the point – this is not a difference between faith communities. the division you are pointing to pervades faith communities – there are always those who are narrow and those who are broader in outlook. there are those who are sectarian and those who are more embracing of diversity within a faith. there are those who will only stick to books and those who will look at the practices, beliefs, etc of people of a variety of kinds. there are those who will only consult what is in their faith (generally following orders) and those that will go outside it.
If youwa nt to see the general truth of this, just consider that these statemetns apply to Leftist communities and people within various academic fields as well as most religious communities. This is not to say there aren’t challenges and specifics to the various faith communities – jsut that the openness-to-others / close-mindedness to others in practice transcends them and divides them from within, not between them.
Only read the translations, but the quran seems pretty straight forward,( especially compared to various hindu texts, like say, the upanishads.) Basically do this do that, this is correct, that is not… So there does not seem to be that much room for interpretation.
So when a non-muslim reads the quran, it might bring understanding, but need not really bring about respect for Islam. After all, how is a non-muslim supposed to react after reading something like this:
Again, this is why I think it would be worthwhile for those who are interested in faith in South Asia to expose themselves to more currents of contemporary Islamic thouht – as well as the more pertinent aspect of how Muslims live their religion.
I am tempted to say there is no such thing as “more pertinent” – but as a techie, I can’t take recourse to sophistry.
In any case, Kabir has responded differently upthread, so I will let you figure out whether it is he who needs to expose himself to Islamic thought or you.
That’s why Soroush is useful. He argues that the Quran is always true, but the level of knowledge about it at a given time and how it should be understood varies. In general, I don’t think any religious text should be relied upon literally and that individual interpretations are useful. Basically, it takes the way that science of philosophy looks at the way that western science looks at nature, but looks at the quran that way. Anyway, the point or attempting to interpret and vesting faith in human beings who live is both possible and useful.
I didn’t realise I was obligated to agree with Kabir or he with me on any or all points 🙂 The point I was triyng to make is that all South Asians and those in the diaspora who are intrested in faith could benefit from greater exposure and familiarity to other faiths to promote social cohesion – as well as diversity within their faith. Obviously, to the extent that I am interested in South Asia and faith and history, I could benefit from greater exposure to the history, practices, and anthropology of the ways in which Islam has functioned in a whole different range of places and times in South Asia, sycretic practices, and the reality of all the different ways that Islam has influenced and been a fundamental part of South Asia for a long time.
Hello Dr. A
Thank you for your response. With respect to the Vedas and Upanishads, as well as the various epics, nowhere have I said they were all composed at the same time and are all consistent on every point to the nth degree. What I did say was that they work in consort with each other, in short, they are partners in helping understand the each other. Irrespective of the time period, the sages who composed these texts were ultimately exposed to most if not all of the same foundational philosophies. Also, unfortunately, I think you are misreading things again. The Gita does not propound Krishna as the only form of godhead or as the sole personification of brahman. The idea here is that they are all interchangeable. It is not a restrictive construct of divinity. Again, I refer back to na iti na iti, where in Brahman is described as “not this, not this”. This method was advocated by Shankara because God/Brahman is everything.
This in turn leads me back to Krishna’s vishwarupa. I think ultimately find things for which you are actively looking. If you want it to be a terror inducing experience, you will convince yourself as such, irrespective of what I say, or more importantly what the text says. Moreover, no, I disagree. It is not the english translation that matters, but rather, the original sanskrit that matters. If you really want to delve that deeply into the purported meaning of each word, I would recommend you study the actual language before passing judgment–unfortunately, sanskrit is something that many self-regarded historians do not have a mastery of and it has had its own negative impacts on the study of hinduism and indology. Also, Arjuna was neither the first nor only person to whom the vishwarupa was revealed. And Arjuna requested it as a blessing, not as means of scaring him into his duty, so I think it’s a needlessly negative characterization of what Krishna’s true form is. Like Brahman, it is meant to embody everything–life, death, good, evil, truth, etc, indeed, verily the entire universe. The fact that it takes a terrible form–like Kali herself does–does not mean the message is to scare devotees into submission. So I think that’s a rather incorrect interpretation on your part. The Gita does not demand submission–again, I think the parallel you are drawing is rather affected and incorrect–but rather, it exhorts. Duty is something to embraced and encouraged, not by which to be laid low. This notion of subsumption I think is similar to Paul Courtwrights deconstruction of Ganesha’s trunk—something completely out of line with both the history and purpose of the texts. By ascribing these type of “strategic” motives on the part of Vyasa I think you are taking some rather odd liberties with these texts. In short, there is no demonstrative evidence for what you are theorizing. This is a continuing problem in the study of Hinduism or Indology in general.
Yes, perhaps would should have recommended the theory of nonviolent communication to the Allied forces when faced with Nazi panzer tank divisions.
Actually, he advocates both. Things need not always be an either/or dilemma.
I think you are being simplistic here. At no time does Krishna advocate not thinking about one’s actions–and their consequences ( that is why I continue to disagree with your insistence on using “submission”). As a yogi, Krishna advocates all the various types of yoga, and insists on self-reflection through meditation. This is not a mindless call to fratricide, but an insistence that dharma must be upheld irrespective of personal costs. Again, you find the message for which you are looking. If you seek to condemn, you will “discover” the material needed to issue your condemnation. Remember, I said pure compassion and humanism, not any compassion or humanism. There is a difference. Those who insist on peace at all costs are emblematic of the former.
The upanishadic texts do not proscribe the capacity of form for brahman. That is the idea behind the vishwarupa. If brahman could possibly be visualized, it would be so tremendous in breadth and depth that the entire all embodying phenomenon of the universe would be manifested. As such, your use of the word anthropomorphic remains inaccurate.Since the great cosmic spirit embodies us all (this may be subject to some nuance if you are an advaitin, dvaitin, or vishishtadvaitin), it is only natural that when manifested in the form of Krishna’s vishwarupa, it would be all encompassing. I have already described its ascribed nature above. UItimately, as discussed above, your personal preference to (presumably) worship in unmanifested form rather than manifested (partial or vishwarupa) is also discussed in the scriptures. Saguna and Nirguna brahman.
Finally, no one said syncretism is bad. I was only pointing out that traditionalists who embrace their own ancient religious heritage should not be condemned either. It is possible to retain the orthodox practices of one’s faith while being open minded in the scholarly study of other faiths.
DizzyDesi, of course there is room for interpretation in the Koran. This is why so many Muslims have different views about certain issues. One example is the whole burqa issue. The Koran enjoins modesty for women and some people use scriptural text to support the burqa/ abaya while other people say that the injunction to modesty is met quite well with shalwar kameez and dupatta/chunni. Another example is the whole thing about good Muslim men getting 60 virgins in heaven. Some have pointed out that the word “houri” actually means white grapes, so all those men might be in for a huge surprise when they actually get to heaven.
The Koran is just like the Bible or the Torah. Different scholars interpret it differently. Of course, the fundos who insist that each word in the Koran came directly from god to Muhammad generally have a problem with interpretation, but that doesn’t mean the text is not open to interpretation.
kabir, i admire your patience in dealing with extremist wahabbists like dizzydesi. sadly for hindus and india, people like him are on “our side” and bringing this same kind of extremism to hinduism.
Dr.A,
The point is not about your interpretation of the Koran or mine or a certain Islamic scholar’s.It is about how the injunctions in the Koran are being understood and practiced by a significant number of oil-rich societies and their client states like Pakistan, and how that is leading to Jihadi terrorism.Do we see that happening in other faiths to that extent?
At a personal level of practice, Islam would of course be peaceful and humane.It is the preponderance of an aggressive political Islam that is causing terrorism and Islamophobia.
I don’t think you would advise me to take American Thinker seriously, but imagine such articles being published in an Indian newspaper/magazine? There would be a furore and the publication would be dragged to court, at a minimum. Thankfully, the Indian right is much more exposed to the good side of Islam that though there are some elements who do think like John Griffing and the commentors on that article, they are forced by general public opinion to keep a lid on it.What you suggest (study various strains of Islam and other faiths) may be needed for the American far right, but I don’t think the Indian right is that bad in understanding how Islam is lived.
It is incumbent upon the peaceful practitioners of Islam to take leadership of the Ummah and reform the practice of organized Islam.Same goes with extremist factions in other faiths, including Maoism.
Personally speaking, I have been fortunate to have a good exposure to Sufi Islam, which I prefer to look at as Indianized/Hinduized Islam.The Sufis may have been at some point used as the vanguard of Islamic raiders/conquerors of India, but that doesn’t take away the essentially inclusive nature of Islam they developed.
DizzyDesi,
It is a vicious spiral of evil – A non-Muslim reads such translations and assumes that all Muslims think that way or told to think that way.Because non-Muslims think about Muslims that way, otherwise uninterested (in faith matters) Muslims take offence and get reactionary.
So, my advice would be to think like this – how would a devout Hindu feel if Maa Kali is described as a blood thirsty tribal goddess by a Hindu converted Christian missionary? Ordinary Hindus or Muslims have no political space or agency to challenge certain notions about their faiths.It is best to ignore really vile readings of Islam because there are many good natured Muslims who have told us that it is a wrong interpretation.It is in our interest to believe them (people like Kabir here for instance) wholeheartedly.
We (Indian right) have to understand that there is no way we can solve the problem of terrorism (the major complaint against Wahabi Islam) without having peaceful Muslims on our side.Often, we end up arguing and alienating people who could be our allies in the fight for economic and social freedoms.It is the lack of any strategic or tactical thinking by the Indian right and its supporters in the diaspora that a narrow definition of Hindutva is now seen as the mainstream belief.And the young, urban India are so impatient with us, they feel we are slowly becoming irrelevant.We need to re-evaluate what we stand for and how we are going to attain the vision of a truly free, peaceful, equitable, and globally influential Indian civilisation-state.
My apologies if I have assumed a certain ideological proximity with you, in case I am wrong.
Thanks tulsi, I’ll keep fighting the good fight and clearing up misconceptions… though I know I’ll be unsuccessful more often than not
Kumar ji,
I would quibble slightly with your calling Sufi Islam “Hinduized Islam”, because Sufis like Maulana Rumi had nothing to do with India or Hindus, but were still Sufis (as far as I know). But yes, the Bhakti and Sufi movements are essentially very similar, Muslims just prefer to use the term “Sufi” rather than “Bhakti”.
By the way, not that it invalidates your point to DizzyDesi, but I don’t call myself Muslim except in a cultural sense. Islam is part of my heritage, I use greetings like “Salam” and expressions like “Inshallah”, but I don’t identify with the religious aspect of it. Just thought I’d clear that up.
Kabir,
I agree with you.I was referring only to the Sufism that I have been exposed to, and in that context, it does strike me, as you rightly put it, as similar to the Bhakti movement in India.However, the popularity of these saints (people from all over the Islamic world visit these dargahs in India) tells me that Indianized Sufism has some attraction even in Arabia and North Africa.
I was referring to you as an example of good natured Muslim interlocutor.You are right in pointing out that you consider yourself as a Muslim only culturally, but not in terms of faith.I am a follower of Sanatan Dharma both culturally and in terms of faith, but I also use phrases like ‘Insha Allah’, ‘Khudafees’, ‘Khairiyat’, and if I am speaking to a Muslim friend, even ‘Alhamdulillah’ when he enquires about my welfare.And I remember my grandfather (hard to find a more orthodox brahmin) addressing a Muslim gentleman as ‘Hazrat’.It is all part of living together for hundreds of years, in small towns, I suppose.
Kumar ji, it’s heartening to have people like you around. I also have no problem greeting someone by saying “Namaste” or “Namashkar”, it’s not a big deal. “Salaam” just means “peace be with you” and “Namaste” means “I bow to you” (according to Wiki). Since both these greetings mean good things, I don’t see why people tie themselves into knots about them. (In Pakistan, people even tie themselves into knots over “Khuda Hafiz” vs. “Allah Hafiz)
But, I’ll stop now lest we start becoming a mutual admiration society:)
well the certain islamic scholar that i was quoting was fairly deeply immersed in the iranian revolution. so i would suggest he be given a hearing at least prior to being dismissed, if this is the topic of interest 🙂 Keep in mind also that the best way to undersatnd the dynamic of religious extremism on a social level in the pst 25 yaers is the construction of an autocratic state and the concomintant bubbling of an incipient populist discontent or rebellion – in some states this takes the form of islam, and the longer the state of affairs continues without a move towards democratisation ina real sense the longer the poles will become removed from each other or find hideous compromises (like mubarak torturing brotherhood members who then go on to exact revenge on other people).
I have refrained from entering this terrain up to this point, because I believe it is the most disconnected from personal experience and the most reliant on analysis and a sound historical understanding,. If you want to understand the development of ‘Islam’ from that of a ‘social and cultural group’ in Jinnah’s words to a more embedded, state ideologicdal, and frequently exclusionary and sectarian set of ideas in Pakistan, start with British colonial practices – particularly after the start of the rise of more militant nationalism in british India; go on to Ayesha jala and read abotu the role of Anglo imperial rivalry in exacerbating the development of a bureaucratic and military state in conditions of extreme economic weakness when compared to India; consider the undeveloped nature of the nature of what ‘Paksitan’ meant and the subsequent lack of social cohesion – and in particular what happened under Ayub when an adequate development policy for industrialisation purpsoes but one that did not fit with the geography or political and cultural devidies of the country took place and eventually led ot its partition; and the partition of pakistan cannot be underestimated as a seminal event in Pakistan in terms of exacerbating the potential of the idea of an existential threat – so after the Bhutto experiment failed – probably because he overreached and alienated all the powerful social classes ina situation of economic instability so that he was forced (chose) to crack down on populists rather than the landholding class; and then go on to Zia, more direct and controlled military rule and the concomitant search for legitimacy thorugh an Islamic state – not coincidentally during a period in which the U.S. was arming and providing massive amounts of moeny to Islamists to fight communism. that’s pretty mucht he trajectory – the 90s saw a further embedding of miltiary social and economic power (see Siddiqa, Military Inc.) and then a restoration of the military to formal power – with the return of massive amounts of aid to the military ruler from the U.S., again to engage in geopolitical battles. this is one example – and not even the most glaring – of the convergence of colonialism (whether influence or occupation), continuing external influence ot domination and global power games, and internal social structural and political dynamics. All of which is overlaid by basic conditions like geography, economic state, etc.
As to your second point, I would argue that something extremely similar holds with Hinduism in Indian politics. the situtations are not the same, but they are analogous – and it is difficult for a non hindutva Hindu to speak in the language of Hinduism and more difficult still for a secular, cultural, or lived Hindu to speak in the language of pluralism and tolerance and openmindedness withotu being called deracinated, despite that a nonovert manifestation of a cultural political and social traits is often far more relevant than what a person says. The most glaring examplke and the one to be rectified immediately is of course the state-sponsored murders in gujrat, continuing lack of justice, and other issues. this is an issue not just for those concerned with human rights or civil society dynamics, but for Hindus! how can one sit by and allow this kind of extrardoinary degradation of human beings and murders of human beings to go on – not just at the moment, but for years afterwards up to this day – in the name of one’s religion, and not say anything? I think it is imoprtant to say something.
On a lesser scale, when canal projects are opposed on the basis of non scientific evidence, countless claims of alleged or real hindu temples are created as if that were a justification for te4aring down extant mosques, the civil code debate is used as a way for the hindu male-dominate4d elite to fight with the muslim-male dominate4d elite and the entire world is portrayed in the lens of one communalism or another – I would say there are some similarities to be pointed out in the level of aggression and propensity for violence or justification for violence in the Hindu right as there is in the Muslim right in the middle east.
as with most other phenomena, interpretations of Islam themselves are shaped by a variety of other factors – I have met LGBT Muslims, trade unionist Muslims, feminist Muslims, secular human rights oriented Muslims, etc. I have read works which articulate why jamaat-e-islami was unable to secure the rural vote among Bangladeshi women, and the resonses of those women are elucidating (class basis of jamaat made their injunctions inapplicable tot he lives of those women – some of the women have a clear undersatnding that they are always being told they are wrong and the mullahs are always right, etc.). This, of course, as a history to it as well, but i point it out simply to again reinforce that multitude of possibilities that exists in contemporary Islam, not just in the past. What do Kazakhstan, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, and diasporic Indian Muslims have in common? Some, I’m sure, but not so much that one can’t explore diferences, form cross – faith bonds, etc.
similarly, the same applies to Hinduism above – there are other lenses with which one can look at people who are Hindus while not denying the influences upon them – whether they define themselves as religious, spiritual, cutlural, civilisational, political, or otherwise ‘Hindu’. And Leftism, and Congressism and many other social and cultural and faith groupings one can be brought into or join.