Faith and Fragility

A famous tale is told of Gautama Buddha - he was peacefully meditating under a tree when an angry traveler arrived on the scene and started hurling abuses against Buddha. Unmoved by the tirade, the glow and peace of Buddha never changed and the radiating energy had a calming effect on the traveler whose anger slowly settled and awestruck, the man patiently waited for Buddha's meditation to come to an end. After some time, Buddha opened his eyes and with a serene smile looked at the man. The now not-so-flustered traveler enquired, "Tathagata, I insulted and abuse you, yet you never reacted. Did you not feel bad or hurt?". Buddha calmly responded, "Suppose you would want to give me a gift and I refuse to accept it, with whom will the gift stay? You, right? It is my choice whether I accept the gift and it is also my choice whether I accept the abuse." 

A Hindu society which has grown up on a steady diet of such stories - stories from the Panchatantra, from the Jataka, from Mahabharat, from Ramayana or from the Upanishads - such a Hindu society is geared to be at poise, be graceful and be calm. Whether or not, a child has been read out such stories by his/her grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts or teachers, the natural centuries of conditioning shines through making the child (and his/her future adult version) less susceptible to a violent reaction to abuse or hurt inflicted later on in life.

Having grown up like this, it is now but natural to wonder why does this Hindu society respond/react in the times today (especially since May 2014) with a rush of adrenaline, with anger and with 'intolerance' towards any abuse thrown at its gods, at its scriptures and at its symbols - case in point, Amazon Prime's Tandav web-series (the background can be found here and here). Are we over-reacting as a society? Are we, as many liberal individuals have pointed out, so fragile that our faith gets threatened at the drop of a hat?

Let me state outright that I have an ongoing boycott of OTT subscriptions, particularly Netflix and Amazon Prime, for I have found them to be a huge source of pessimistic content - many a times far removed from the ground realities. I find the content on these platforms being major generators of negativity, depression and pain - through scenes, dialogue and body language. As this is my stated position, I am going to take the liberal observer's charge as true and proceed to explore it. 

A liberal observer opines that the Hindu society is getting intolerant and fragile because it can't take anything said against its religious teachings. The very first point, an important one, to note is that the liberal observer accepts that the content produced and broadcasted is indeed abusive and offensive to begin with. Given how subjective the latter term is, this makes any exploration easier. Therefore, the concern here is that abuse is part-and-parcel of creative liberties and there is no need to feel offended or respond the way we do - on social media or through legal channels. This portrays that we as a society, are fragile. Now I won't even get into comparative religion here lest it may be said that "two wrongs don't make a right" - we are all aware of how cartoons of a said prophet led to riots and murders in Bengaluru, France and more; or how censor boards have banned films of Abrahamic prophets because they would have hurt sentiments. I'll accept the truth here that Sanatan Dharma is far more malleable, far more accommodative, far more forward looking and far superior than the monolithic faiths or religions. Thereby, because it is so, it is also judged on higher benchmarks and hence the charge of fragility.

The first major invasion Bhaarat faced was from the Greeks; then came a long list of Islamic invaders like Ghori, Khilji, Mamluks, Mughals and the Shahs. Lastly, we had the British (not counting the Brown Britishers who ruled us after 1947). As per available records on the Economic history of Indian subcontinent, give and take here or there, our GDP declined from ~24.4% of the world in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950 while Industrial output fell from ~25% of the world to 2% from 1750 to 1900 - keeping aside the loss of lives and cultural sites, if a society and culture goes through this and is still surviving today, can it be termed fragile? Would it not have been strong enough to build such a prosperous existence before invaders robbed it all?

Multiple Latin American cultures such as that of the Incas or North American native Indians are on the brink of extinction due to the invasions of the Portuguese, Spanish and the English (as well as the Church along with them). Similar is the case with Africa so much so that there is a sad quote on it, "When we saw them coming, we had the land and they had the bible; they asked us to close our eyes and pray and when we opened them, we had the bible and they had our lands."; additionally so, a chunk of Africa is already lost to Islamic invasions. Can we forget the brutal Goa Inquisitions or the Mughal tortures of Sikh gurus and Chhatrapati Sambhaji? The assault on Sringeri, Ayodhya and more? How are we still alive practicing our faith - can this existence be termed as fragile?

I have always wondered how did the Sanatan Dharma indeed survive those trying times and years of thinking has slowly led my thoughts to coalesce around a singular Vedantic concept - we don't call upon a bearded God in the sky pulling strings as he likes but we see god itself as energy - unborn therefore undying. Anadi, hence Anant. The gross can be destroyed, the subtle can't! Chapter 2, verse 23 of the Bhagavad Geeta goes as follows:

नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः। न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः॥

Translation: The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can it be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. 

It is the eternal practice of this thought by the great wandering monks of Bhaarat, that kept Bhaarat alive, did it not? There was no single institution, seat, kingdom, city or symbol that could be attacked and destroyed - the wandering monks were beyond this. It was their strength that withstood everything so no matter how many kingdoms were downed, no matter how many temples razed or scriptures burnt, Hindutva or Sanatan Dharma, stayed - manifesting and changing forms in a tribute to Advaita! Jiddu Krishnamurthy in his book series, Commentaries on Living, has placed a remarkable emphasis on focusing on what is - he is speaking on the attitude of Sakshi-bhaava or the ability to be passively watchful of all emotions, especially of the self.  This held us together, this is dharma.

To this, a liberal (possibly agnostic or atheist too) would respond that this is simply being trapped in the past or if his/her kind brain would permit, admit it as past glory as well. What about the present? Does it change anything as far as current fragility goes (as derived by the reactions to digital content by Hindu groups)? If a culture is indeed this strong, should it really be hurt or offended by digital content? A culture that is providing COVID vaccines to the world, launching satellites for the world, providing food & textiles to the world, countering enemies on its borders and lifting crores out of poverty, is that culture truly trapped in a fragile outdated religious identity?

A blacksmith pulls out a hot piece of iron from the furnace intermittently exposing it to heat and hitting it with a hammer to forge a weapon or an instrument - does he pull it out of the fire because it is fragile or to shape it into a form fit for its purpose?

On a long winter night, a mother gently pulls a blanket over her child's freezing body or a cap over the child's ears - does she do that because the child is fragile or to ensure the child's health for a lifetime of challenges to come later on?

A father having been informed of anti-social elements using obscene material and his daughter's photos to create morphed pornographic content of hers, shrug off the fears of his daughter because she is fragile or does he report it to cyber crime and pursue the case for a speedy resolution?

Action borne out of concern and care for the long-term well-being - is fragility the root of it all? It is not fragile, but that does not mean it can't be broken at all! Life is the continuous process of gaining strength, exposing us to challenges along the way commensurate to what we can absorb and grow out of - from being less powerful to more powerful!

Hindutva was neither fragile then nor fragile today! It is going through a stage of awakening that modern Republic of India has yet not witnessed at the scale it is seeing today. Hence, there might be an element of surprise. The laws in this regard are too subjective and too weak; hopefully the time will come when we see distinct definitions that aid balance, without misuse - either way.

When the Greeks invaded Bhaarat, Arya Chanakya had observed that the Greeks have not just come up with soldiers, cavalry and weapons; they have come here with artisans, teachers, actors and singers - they are up for a cultural invasion. More than 2000 years ago, a teacher of this great land could identify the power of art forms to conquer nations. The forms might have changed - the theatre has probably been replaced by digital content like Tandav, Paatal Lok, Aashram, Sacred Games, Lust Stories, Leila and more; however, has the message changed? Let us take a look around and ask ourselves, how many of us respect the Hindu faith? It is absolutely fine if one disagrees with aspects or chooses to not practice or does not visit temples or does not read the scriptures; however, is it fine to mock, denigrate, insult and abuse those who do? The fact that there is a lot of latter simply goes on to prove Arya Chanakya's thought that Bhaarat is already deep into a cultural invasion. Those who do recognize this fact, would fight back. The beauty is that they are not burning down cities or beheading citizens, but respecting democratic structures by employing legal and socially justified channels to respond.

Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitaha

Jai Hind!