‘Why I am a Hindu’ by Shashi Tharoor is his weakest book because it is politically motivated
- In Book Reviews
- 11:58 AM, Jul 14, 2018
- Richa Yadav
If one ends up writing a book on Hinduism just to elucidate how ‘Hindutva’ promoted by the ruling party in India is different from the very spirit of actual Hinduism, then irrespective of how hard one tries, the scholarship of the author and the quality of the book, both are compromised. Tharoor is undoubtedly a man of immense intellect and linguistic proficiency. It is disappointing to see that he digs in deeper into his ‘practiced faith’ not to show his comprehension of the faith, but to build his narrative on some other allegedly ‘weak’ idea of Hinduism.
Tharoor begins with the introduction to Hinduism; his well-researched first half of the book methodically addresses various aspects of Hindu dharma. In today's' world where the entire globe is pausing to understand and learn more about Hindus, the book could have been a very ‘in time’ gift. The author eulogizes ancient Hindu tradition and evolution of the religion. He touches upon its eclectic approach of many gods, innumerable rituals, several modes of worship, the theory of karma, and the highest ideal of self-exploration. This part of the book illustrates the author’s uncanny ability to analyze and explain the philosophical and spiritual aspect of Hinduism and how it has been penetrating in Indian Hindu families in different ways and on different levels. Tharoor is absolutely right when he points out that Hinduism’ had never developed as an ‘ism’ or a dogmatic religion. It had evolved as a ‘way of living’. “Every Hindu may not be conscious of the finer points of his faith, but he has been raised in the tradition of his assumptions and doctrines, even when these have not been explained to him. His Hinduism may be a Hinduism of habit rather than a Hinduism of learning, but it is a lived Hinduism for all that.”(pg.63).
The book begins to lose its grip on the reader in the second half; it loses its purpose and becomes more politically motivated. The author lambasts the leaders of the current ruling party in India who allegedly have been confusing the citizens with their dubious interpretations of the faith and selfish motives. To prove his point, author himself uses dubious arguments, half-truths, and highly selective, one-sided facts. The tone of the book is didactic. It thwarts Hindus to become more patient and peace-loving as it is the core of their religion. He keeps reminding that Hinduism is supremely tolerant and vehemently appeals Hindus of their all-encompassing religion, without even gently touching upon any of the thoughts and behavior of the ‘significant others’. The book condemns Hindu extremism but does not say that tolerance is a value of mutual respect and not a one-way path. Also, he barely touches upon the secularist approach of Congress since independence.
The book ignites a rational debate on the true meaning of Hinduism. Vivekanand, Savarkar, Golvarkar, Deendayal Upadhyay all are reviewed to give an exposition of the most ancient and widely followed religion. Yet, the reader remains confused in the end as to decide what the actual take away of the book is. The political underpinning of the book is very strong. It is hard to understand if the book was an outcome of BJP’s bashing or a sincere effort to ‘reclaim’ one’s Hindu faith. However, it’s quite understandable. Sadly, according to the politician turned author’s (or vice versa) account, ‘Hinduism’ driven by ‘Hindutva’ is coming as almost a separate religion from actual Hindus. He divides two different kinds of definitions of Hinduism- the ‘fair or superior’ one as lived and portrayed by the tolerant secularists, and the ‘inferior’ one, as developed by the ‘Hindutvavadis’, as addressed by the author.
Umpteen times in the book the author simply appreciates the salient features of the faith like tolerance, freedom, and the versatility not only because it is all accepting but also because it never questions any of its follower’s acts or beliefs. Tharoor keeps harping on the idea that he is a Hindu because it is the best ‘intellectual fit’ for him; it allows him to have a ‘tag’ of Hindu, without any strings attached. Ironically, it is like saying that it’s so safe to be a member without an iota of commitment to any of its core beliefs, that one can buy a life time membership, free of cost!
This ‘openness’ of the Hindu dharma is commendable. However, in today’s world, when every little thought or act is documented, Hindu dharma cannot any more remain undefined. It no more can be categorized as an ‘abstract faith’. Thus, it has become important to stick to a certain concrete exposition of the faith. Irrespective of how eclectic it remains by nature, it is under scrutiny by other faiths and religion. People who had ‘lived the religion in Tharoor’s style, also would not hesitate passing it on to its next generation. Hence if there is a way the current Indian government feels the need of revisiting ‘Hindutva’ there is no harm whatsoever. ‘United we are seen’ so ‘united we need to stand and show the world who we are’! It has been a living religion of India. ‘Hindu’ as a prescription of one’s dharma is much more than what we practice. Sangh, whom Tharoor calls ‘Sanghivadis’ is trying to emphasize the need of that lost knowledge of the ever evolving faith. And definitely, distilling the essence of dharma should be more than welcome.
Comments