Saturday, June 6, 2020
Home Opinions Shashi Tharoor's book 'Why I am a Hindu' is more a political stunt than...

Shashi Tharoor’s book ‘Why I am a Hindu’ is more a political stunt than book

Also Read

G Indira
Author of the book: The India I Know and of Hinduism. Publications in -charge Pragna Bharati Organisation, Hyderabad. Academician and free-lancer
 

I have read the Congress’ tall liberal-secular leader of International-fame, Shri Shashi Tharoor’s book, “Why I am a Hindu?” with a keen intent to know what is in his mind. The book appeared to be more of a political stunt than an ideological battle.

Shri Tharoor tried in vain to demolish Hindutva ideology with his erudition and verbose. He did not mention anywhere why the Congress government’s secularism failed so miserably in 2014 reducing the party to 44 MPs. He did not mention about Shah Bano and Ayodhya Temple related sentiments of the people anywhere in the book. He was partial and tried to shield the Congress party to the best of his abilities. The Congress never ever thought that the Hindus would have sensibilities until it was trounced in last Lok Sabha elections. Now, after a belated recognition, the party is trying to willy-nilly grab power in some states (eg: Karnataka) by dividing Hindus into caste lines.

Shri Tharoor began writing his book eulogising Hindu religion and its eclectic approach of many gods, many rituals and many modes of worship, then he moved on to his next section (section-II) to bait Hindutva by calling the ideology as political Hinduism. In the same section he brought his cocooned liberal-fanatic thoughts out in lashing the BJP. He is unabashed in venting his ire on the Hindus that are with the BJP.

It’s amazing, being a liberal he opposed bringing in Uniform Civil Code in the country. For which (for the implementation), he says, he needs consent of the “affected communities” (read Muslims). He writes, the idea of Uniform Civil Code needed to be deferred indefinitely, until the time was ripe. The ripe-time is always questionable, indefinite and infinite. After 70 years of Independence, it is still being debated? Marriage, inheritance, divorce and maintenance are secular issues. They can all be same (come under the same law) for all citizens in a secular democracy anywhere in the world.

The scholar-MP says unlike in France (the concept of secularism which keeps religion out of government institutions like schools), the Indian secularism “cheerfully embraces” financial support to religious schools and the persistence of ‘personal law’ for different religious communities. This statement of Indian secularism which he gleefully states is absurd anywhere in the world. When we have borrowed our secularism, socialism, all Freedoms from the West, why this minorities – appeasement clause of government-funding to minority-religious institutions be present as part of secularism practised in India?

He criticises David Frawley for stating that sarva dharma samabhava is asked to be practised only by Hindus in India. What David Frawley said is what is happening in India. It warrants no criticism by the Congressman. The point Frawley has made should be taken into cognisance for soul searching by the Congress.

 

He goes against nationalism that is very much pronounced now in the country and quotes Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to have warned that the communalism of the majority was especially dangerous because it could present itself as nationalist. That statement of Nehru is bizarre. If the majority do not stand up for nationalism, how could the country survive?

It is strange to read from a person who wrote a book on, ‘Why I am a Hindu?’ to support religious conversions not only by individual choice but also en masse (in mass scale). He justified block, blanket conversion by saying that for spiritual or material gain they all can get converted. Thus, he tried to please the Congress President and the Chairperson. Throughout the book, he tried to please his political bosses by singing their tunes or by being their voice. A la’ “His Master’s Voice”.

Right from MF Hussain, Taj Mahal and Padmavat controversy, Nayanatara Sahgal’s writings – all his pet iconic projects and discourses were in the book. Those were answered many a time befittingly by Hindutva proponents earlier (some of them decades ago). Why raking up afresh? MF Hussain being a Muslim, in Tharoor’s view he had all freedom to draw goddess Saraswati the manner he liked. Since the controversy of Taj Mahal and Padmavat were raised by some Hindu outfits they should be countered and condemned. Why? He should know their freedom of expression is as gifted as MF Hussain’s. To a degree if they violated their freedom, so also, MF Hussain to a larger degree in the manner he painted the goddess Saraswati in Hindu-India. It is unbecoming of liberals to bring in always Khajuraho-sculpture, if they like so much, they can live there.

 

Wendy Doniger, to Tharoor, did erudite study in Hinduism. To majority of Hindus her derogatory references of Hindu gods did not go down well. Quite often, in his book, Tharoor used terms like “lumpen elements”, “narrow-minded”,” bigots” etc when he wrote about his opponents. Who he is he to label people? Is such name-calling a trend associated to the sophisticated elite of his cult? He spared none. Even the ‘puppy-reference’ of the Prime Minister which seemed normal to me was bashed unnecessarily to please his masters by making it convoluted. The PM said, ‘even if a small living being like a puppy comes under the wheels of car and dies, we (the people in the car) feel sorry and get disturbed, when so many men died in the riots, why can’t a person like him feel for them’? – That was his explanation in the interview, which was a fair explanation. The kind of agenda driven inference given by Tharoor in his book pleases none.

In the last section, Tharoor writes about ‘Taking Back Hinduism’. My question is to -where? He says Hindus should adopt once again the philosophical Hinduism what their gurus had taught them (meaning to say- to me–so that they would be blind to the secular-faults committed by the Congress). He quoted in his book extensively the Adwaitha philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya and also of Swami Vivekananda which took Hindu-mind to greater heights.

It is agreed that the philosophy gives much solace to mind. However, they (both Shankara and Vivekananda) never taught people to be passive or to sit at a corner. They (Adi Shankara and Swami Vivekananda) were active in their lives and passed on their message to the world. Adi Shankaracharya revived Sanatana Dharma through a dialogue and discourse throughout the country by travelling on foot from Kanyakumari to Kashmir. The seer had the courage of conviction to establish Dharma in this land. He did not relent till he established Shakthi Peethas in all the corners of Bharath. Similarly, in the modern- day world, i.e in the nineteenth century, Vivekananda did the same job of propagating the Adwaitha philosophy in the world by going to Chicago, USA and addressing the world Parliament of Religions. He enthralled the audiences there and won the hearts of people. So, people should strive to do what they believe in. Being passive is not specific to Hindus when it comes up to their Dharma.

  Support Us  

OpIndia is not rich like the mainstream media. Even a small contribution by you will help us keep running. Consider making a voluntary payment.

Trending now

G Indira
Author of the book: The India I Know and of Hinduism. Publications in -charge Pragna Bharati Organisation, Hyderabad. Academician and free-lancer

Latest News

हिन्द उवाच

है लहू मिला जिस मिट्टी में, बिस्मिल, अशफ़ाक़, भगतसिंह का। जिसको स्वेदों से सींचा है, गाँधी और लाल बहादुर ने।

From a porcupine to a tiger – Advent of Modi sarkar

The Modi government has established a brand India, enveloping components of economy, diplomacy, revival of foreign affairs and a clean-up of corrupt-ridden governance of the past; dispensed from an establishment with little obligation to coalition partners that enjoys mandate and confidence of the citizenry of India

Has social service become a way of conversion?

Christian Missionaries blackmail vulnerable people to choose between being able to follow their traditions and being able to feed their family. In desperate times, many people convert.

Tiananmen massacre to communist attacks on Indian people: A saga of hate, hypocrisy and violence

Tiananmen remains one of the most sensitive and taboo subjects in China today, banned from both academic and popular realms.

George Floyd and India

Ashok Swain, who is a professor in Sweden’s Uppsala’s University was upset that such protest doesn’t happen in India, so did another ‘journalist’ Rana Ayyub. Instead of showing solidarity with a man who lost his life, these opportunists are provoking vandalism and mayhem in India too.

बौद्ध मत की वो बातें, जो बताई नहीं जाती

कोई कॉमरेड और नवबौद्ध आपको देवराज इंद्र से जुड़ी हुई ये बातें नहीं बताएगा. वास्तविकता तो यह है कि बौद्ध ग्रंथों में देवराज इंद्र का उतना ही वर्णन है, जितना हिन्दू ग्रंथों में मिलता है.

Recently Popular

रचनाधर्मियों को गर्भस्थ बेटी का उत्तर

जो तुम्हें अग्नि परीक्षा देती असहाय सीता दिखती है, वो मुझे प्रबल आत्मविश्वास की धनी वो योद्धा दिखाई देती है जिसने रावण के आत्मविश्वास को छलनी कर इस धरा को रावण से मुक्त कराया.

Easing lockdown a gamble?

If we want to compare economic condition and job loss due to lockdown and blame the govt., we ought to compare the mortality rate too, which one of the lowest in the world at around 2.83%!

The journey of anti-CAA virus in the U.S.: A tale of three cities

Kshama Sawant, a Hindu immigrant embraces Hindu phobic ideology and lead an anti-India campaign to seek a stage for her future political dreams.

भारत-चीन पर राहुल का सवाल

भारत ही नेहरू के नेतृत्व में पहला गैर साम्यवादी जनतांत्रिक राज्य था जिसने जनवादी कम्युनिस्ट चीन को मान्यता प्रदान की. नेहरू उस दौर में चीन को लेकर इतने रोमांटिक (कल्पनावादी) हो गए थे कि तिब्बत पर चीन का आधिपत्य स्वीकार कर लिया. पर जब 1962 में चीन ने भारत पर हमला किया तो नेहरू की विदेश नीति चौपट हो गई थी.

Corona and a new breed of social media intellectuals

Opposing an individual turned into opposing betterment of your own country and countrymen.