Thursday July 19, 2018
Home Opinion Why Indianism...

Why Indianism is the only ‘–ism’ that stands true on the philosophy of our Constitution

0
//
190
Republish
Reprint

IndiaBy Harshmeet Singh

Earlier this week, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, while announcing a judgment, spelled out the definition of ‘Indianism’ for the masses. According to Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar, “Indianism is Hindustaniat, which is akin to Kashmiriat. The expression Indianism also provides that the State shall not deny any person, which means a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Christians etc equality before law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India (Article 14).” The Indianism doesn’t and would not mean that citizens/persons do not have right to practice and propagate their religion. The Indianism in the context of the Constitution not only protects but guarantees right to every citizen, which includes Muslims of this country to practice and propagate their religion. No law can be made to prevent the Muslims or any other community to practice and propagate their religion. All the people belonging to different religious denominations including Muslims have the freedom to effectively follow their religion’.

He defined Indianism as an umbrella which covers all the religions and religious activities under it. The decision was pronounced in the light of the fact that Indianism is the only ‘–ism’ that stands true on the philosophy of our Constitution, apart from ‘secularism’, which is a part of the preamble itself. At a time when feelings such as Religious Nationalism, Hinduism, Sikhism and others are running high among the citizens, this verdict takes us back to what our forefathers had in mind while framing the Constitution, and what we have, as a society, become.

In 2013, the same judge had observed that anyone who goes by the identity of ‘Hindu Nationalist’ or ‘Muslim Nationalist’ is working against the true spirit of ‘Indianism’. His previous verdict drew sharp reactions from a number of religious groups who took it as an attack on their patriotism.

The Indian constitution is unique in more ways than one. For instance, we follow a much more favourable definition of secularism as compared to some other secular nations. Our Constitution makers interpreted ‘secularism’ as state’s obligation to provide equal opportunities to everyone, irrespective of his or her religion. In contrast to this, countries such as France follow a different definition of secularism. According to them, secularism means that the state should have no religion. This explains multiple cases where Sikhs have been forced to remove their turbans or Muslims have been asked to take off their taqiyah (cap). It is perhaps this tolerance that has led to a number of ‘religious nationalist’ groups in the country.

Since our childhood, we have been trained to see things ‘relatively’. Someone else’s failure is seen as an essential condition of our success. Slowly but surely, such learning has captured our religious perspective as well. For my religion to be good, others’ religion has to be bad, is what our line of thinking has become. Speeches of these so called religious nationalist leaders seldom talk about the qualities of their own religion but go all out in degrading other religions. Thousands of people listening to their speeches and clapping on every line is a testimony to the fact that these leaders aren’t exclusive in their thinking.

India has seen numerous religions take birth on its land. While every new religion sought to move away from the evils of previously existing religions, none of them despised other religions in order to gain followers. The spirit of ‘Indianism’ takes inspiration from all those great religious reformers who tried to evolve something better without degrading any other religion or faith. Unlike today’s religious leaders, those great souls, about thousands of years ago, fought against social evils, rather than fighting with each other to prove their superiority.

There is absolutely no wrong in propagating one’s religious ideals. After all connection with one’s own roots is what keeps us true to ourselves. But when such propagation despises other faiths, it goes against the true spirit of ‘Indianism’. The word ‘Nationalist’ is powerful enough in itself. Prefixing a word like Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian would only dilute its significance.

‘I respect all religions & faith and follow my own religion’ is not such a hard fact to accept after all.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 NewsGram

Next Story

Shankaracharya: A remarkable genius that Hinduism produced (Book Review)

The irony is that most leading scientists, particularly outside India but also within, have little knowledge of the structure of Shankara's philosophy and the transparent interface it has with scientific discoveries today.

0
He was greatly influenced by three basic texts of Hindu philosophy: Upanishads, the Brahma Sutra and the Bhagavad Gita
He was greatly influenced by three basic texts of Hindu philosophy: Upanishads, the Brahma Sutra and the Bhagavad Gita.

Title: Adi Shankaracharya: Hinduism’s Greatest Thinker; Author: Pavan K. Varma; Publisher: Tranquebar Press; Pages: 364; Price: Rs 699

This must be one of the greatest tributes ever paid to Shankaracharya, the quintessential “paramarthachintakh”, who wished to search for the ultimate truths behind the mysteries of the universe. His genius lay in building a complete and original philosophical edifice upon the foundational wisdom of the Upanishads.

A gifted writer, Pavan Varma, diplomat-turned-politician and author of several books including one on Lord Krishna, takes us through Shankara’s short but eventful span of life during which, from having been born in what is present-day Kerala, he made unparalleled contributions to Hindu religion that encompassed the entire country. Hinduism has not seen a thinker of his calibre and one with such indefatigable energy, before or since.

Shankara’s real contribution was to cull out a rigorous system of philosophy that was based on the essential thrust of Upanishadic thought but without being constrained by its unstructured presentation and contradictory meanderings.

He was greatly influenced by three basic texts of Hindu philosophy: Upanishads, the Brahma Sutra and the Bhagavad Gita. He wrote extensive and definitive commentaries on each of them. Of course, the importance he gave to the Mother Goddess, in the form of Shakti or Devi, can be traced to his own attachment to his mother whom he left when he set off, at a young age, in search of a guru and higher learning.

The irony is that most leading scientists, particularly outside India but also within, have little knowledge of the structure of Shankara's philosophy and the transparent interface it has with scientific discoveries today.
Shankara wrote hymns in praise of many deities but his personal preference was the worship of the Mother Goddess.

Against all odds, Shankara created institutions for the preservation and propagation of Vedantic philosophy. He established “mathas” with the specific aim of creating institutions that would develop and project the Advaita doctrine. He spoke against both caste discriminations and social inequality, at a time when large sections of conservative Hindu opinion thought otherwise.

Shankara was both the absolutist Vedantin, uncompromising in his belief in the non-dual Brahman, and a great synthesiser, willing to assimilate within his theoretical canvas several key elements of other schools of philosophy. He revived and restored Hinduism both as a philosophy and a religion that appealed to its followers.

Also Read: Hinduism: The Nine Basic Beliefs that you need to know

Varma rightly says that it must have required great courage of conviction as well as deep spiritual and philosophical insight for Shankaracharya to build on the insights of the Upanishads a structure of thought, over a millennium ago, that saw the universe and our own lives within it with a clairvoyance that is being so amazingly endorsed by science today. The irony is that most leading scientists, particularly outside India but also within, have little knowledge of the structure of Shankara’s philosophy and the transparent interface it has with scientific discoveries today.

Shankara wrote hymns in praise of many deities but his personal preference was the worship of the Mother Goddess. The added value of the book is that it has, in English, a great deal of Shankara’s writings. Unfortunately, most Hindus today are often largely uninformed about the remarkable philosophical foundations of their religion. They are, the author points out, deliberately choosing the shell for the great treasure that lies within. This is indeed a rich book. (IANS)