As announced on papers Hindutva group had a chetna where many of their leaders spoke and pleaded for India to be considered as a Hindu nation. Now knowing the historical situation in India we got to ask the question what do they mean by Hindu. Which Hinduism they mean?
For there is a vast difference between the Hinduism lived in India since the Vedic and Upanishadic times, that is for centuries, and the Hinduism meant today. For example from centuries actually from Vedic and Upanishadic times and what is promoted as Hinduism today, there is a vast difference: dissent and tolerance were the universal marks from Vedic and Upanishadic times.
The Upanishads, the Older ones, Brihad. Chandogya corrected Vedas, for example by declaring God is One Only “Ekam Eva” “Satyasya Satyam” and the Upanishads were not rejected, actually Upanishads are taken as part of Vedas. We have them as Vedantha today.
The great monument, the Asoka Pilar in our Capital, New Delhi, stands as a tall proof of tolerance in India ‘dissidence and tolerance’ are the essential marks of Indian culture. One holds on to one’s belief while not interfering, and letting the other hold on to his or hers.
And modern Hindutva is trying to destroy this essential element of Indian culture today. And this difference is perceived by the Hindus today.
In Kerala it was expressed loudly some time ago and now the Hindu CM of Karnataka has disagreed with Amit Shah one of the proponents of the new type of Hinduism. And this problem is disturbing not just ordinary people but also the highly competent ones.
This is what I read recently: Sri Markhandaya Katju ex-Supreme Court Judge says “Thus I am a real Hindu, rather than these so-called Hindus and organizations and parties which claim to represent Hindus, but really know little or nothing about Hinduism, but are only befooling the gullible and simpleton public to get their votes. They have nothing in their heads, but one thing in their heads, – hatred for minorities”.
I am now 96 plus but remember well what I saw in my boyhood: hordes of bovine cattle being driven from Hindu Maharashtra through the river, marching all through Bardez and from Mapusa by the Porvorim road to Panjim for slaughter. Nobody objected to it.
For it was seen as a wise move to save the aging cattle from painful starvation and death in their old age. I ask were these Hindus who sold their aging cattle, bad Hindus?
Weren’t they taking care of the aging animals instead of letting them die of painful starvation as sometimes happening now a days as reported on papers? And is all the world wrong in appreciating beef as their food?
