Why it’s fashionable to denigrate Hinduism: Pathetic ignorance of people like Ramesh Jarkiholi

I do not know whether to be amused or annoyed by the ignorant comments made recently by former Karnataka minister and senior Congress leader (earlier in the BJP), Ramesh Jarkiholi. Speaking at a function in Belagavi on 6 November to celebrate the ideas of Buddha, Basavanna and Dr Ambedkar, the senior Congress leader, ‘rationalist’ and crusader against religious superstition, opined the following comments for the edification of Hindus: ‘Where did the word “Hindu” originate from? Is it ours? It’s Persian. Then what is the relationship between it (Hindu) and India? How did the word “Hindu” become yours? This should be discussed. If you understand the meaning of the word, you will be ashamed… The meaning of the word is very dirty. I am not saying this. It is on the website… You have brought this religion, (and) word from somewhere else and are imposing it on us.’ It has become fashionable to believe that if you want to prove your ‘secular’ credentials, or advertise your belief in ‘rationalism’, the best short-cut is to denigrate Hindus, the word Hindu, and Hinduism. Hinduism does not penalise this kind of dissent. No one has been burnt on the stake or killed in Hinduism on account of blasphemy. The materialist Charvaka school of Hindu philosophy could say that the Vedas are a bunch of lies, and still remain a part of the Hindu faith. But what is galling is the misutilisation of this freedom to indulge in a complete revolt from factual accuracy, as Jharkioli’s has done. Historical evidence clearly shows the recognition by outsiders of a civilisation called ‘Hindu’. Dr Upinder Singh, in her magnum opus, A History of Ancient India and Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, testifies to this. Dr Singh is no ultra-Right demagogue. She is a professional historian of impeccable credentials, and the daughter of former Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh. She writes that the words ‘India’, ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hindustan’ originate from the river Indus (or Sindhu, whose source is in the Tibetan plateau, but which flows through fertile plains of the subcontinent before merging with the Arabian Sea). Ancient Chinese sources refer to the land of ‘Shen-tu’, Greek texts mention ‘India’, and Persian inscriptions describe ‘Hidu’ as one of the subject territories of the Achaemenid king, Darius. These terms initially referred only to the lower Indus valley but their connotations expanded rapidly. For Megasthenes, who visited the court of Chandragupta Maurya in the fourth century BCE, ‘Hindu’ meant the entire subcontinent. American Indologist Wendy Doniger echoes Jarkiholi when she condescendingly asks: ‘If we can agree that there is something out there worth naming, what shall we call it? The main objections to calling it Hinduism or to calling the people in question Hindus are that those were not always the names Hindus used for themselves or their religion and that they were geographical names’. But even she cannot overlook the historical evidence. Even if ‘Hindu’ is not a ‘native’ word — as she describes it — she accepts that it ‘comes from a word for the “river” (Sindhu) that Herodotus (in the fifth century BCE), the Persians (in the fourth century BCE) and the Arabs (after the eighth century) used to refer to everyone who lived beyond the great river of the northwest of the subcontinent’. The question of ‘Hindu’ being an imported word or not, is neither here nor there. If a people, with a verifiable philosophical vision, religious practice, social norms, kinship rules, creative expression, political thought, ethnic overlap and geographical location, are aware of their unified identity and can differentiate themselves from others on this basis, does a name tag alter the fact of their existence? Most of the ancient civilisations of the world, which have been identified as such today and given labels to describe them, were not, at the time of their origin, self-consciously aware — or concerned — about what name they will be known to posterity. The incontrovertible fact is that they recognised those who lived south of the Indus as ‘Hindu’. I find it even more shocking that Jarkiholi thought that ‘Hindu’ is a ‘dirty word’ in a function where the great Basavanna (1105-1167 CE) was being commemorated. Basavanna’s vachanas or hymns, intensely lyrical and devotional, movingly evoked the yearning for personal communion with Shiva, and railed against archaic social customs and rituals, taboos and superstition, image worship, the sacrifice of animals, and the caste system. His Lord was Kudalasangamadeva, which stands for Shiva in the town of Kappadisangama in Karnataka, where three rivers meet — the Lord of the meeting rivers. If Basavanna worshipped Shiva — who is part of the supreme trinity in Hinduism apart from Vishnu and Brahma — was he not a Hindu, and did he think ‘Hindu’ is a dirty word? Ambedkar too was not against Hindu philosophy — which is egalitarian because the same Supreme Consciousness, Brahman, is in each of us; his opposition was to certain aspects of Hindu religious practice which institutionalised the oppressive and exploitative caste system. Buddha too rebelled against the discriminatory overgrowth and sterile rituals of Hinduism, but Buddhism itself was an offshoot of Hinduism with innumerable philosophical overlaps. So much so that Adi Shankaracharya, who is credited with the revival of Hinduism in the 8th century CE, is considered by many as a ‘klepto Buddhist’. People like Jarikholi get media attention by outrageous remarks meant to provoke. But the superficial ignorance that they display does them, as senior politicians, no credit. The author is a former diplomat, an author and a politician. Views expressed are personal.  Read all the Latest News , Trending News ,  Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.