The controversy of Religion and the controversy of Race- I

I am a Hindu by birth. What does that mean? I pray to certain gods and perform certain rituals? Certainly. But while these gods are prayed to by many Hindus, the rituals I perform are informed by my geography and the social and cultural groups that I was born into. 

Simply : For Eg: Varalakshmi Pooja in Tamil Nadu is celebrated by certain castes (Praying for their husband's longevity to Goddess Lakshmi) while my family does not. Kaaradaiyan Nonbu, is a similar festival (praying for husband's longevity to Goddess Gowri/Parvathi) that my family observes. I haven't heard of the practise of fasting for Kaaradaiyan Nonbu by other caste groups. North India (some parts) observe the Karva Chauth fast for a similar purpose. People in the East may observe/perform a ritual and fast for the same purpose as well. All are celebrated on different days of the year. 

We Hindus are an amalgam of many practises and various rituals. The South Indians have embraced gods from the north and North Indians have taken up gods from the South. There will of course be controversy when you talk about invading people (Aryans) and how South Indians should not accept their gods. The Aryan Invasion Theory is being hotly debated everyday with new genome studies of various population groups. (By the Way : Can we comfortably identify solely as descended from one group in this day and age? Are we claiming that our genetic pool is solely from Ancestral South Indians? There is no ancestor from the east? No ancestor from the North? Are we claiming that our ancestors who arrived in India "out of Africa " about 65000-50000 years ago did not intermingle with anyone else? ) There are people talking about the Tamil God Seyyon has been metamorphosed into Murugan/Karthikeyan the son of Shiva on many online platforms. Talking about Shiva - some are claiming that the God from the Himalayas  is just one Shiva - and his form has taken over the identity of the local worship of the "Linga", which means so many things in so many places that even the wikipedia entry for it is confusing. 

Now, coming to the recent controversy that began when one movie director said that - The Chola King Rajaraja I (originally named : Arulmozhi Varman) wasn't Hindu, he was talking about politics and the current saffronisation or maybe Hindutva-sation of Tamil historical figures. (He was a Saivaite obviously given that he spent vast amount of resources on building the biggest Shiva Temple in TN and during his time many Shiva Temples were stone -worked over from bricks and hence making them long lasting.) But the controversy evolved super fast from history - Was Rajaraja Hindu? into one of current religion- primarily - one of - "Are we Hindus?" in Tamil Nadu. Then further into : "Who are Hindus?" 

I have heard so many discussions about this : for in every house , every street-corner tea-shop, this topic has raged in various intensities. And the conclusions are many. But most people agree on a few things: 

1. There was no "Hindu" religion before the advent of the Britishers. "Hindustan" or "Indoostan" was a term in common use to denote the people who lived south the Indus River. "Hindu" was a convenient common name to give to people who lived south of the Himalayas for the Britishers who were in colonial consolidation mode and they did it to make life easy for themselves - for administering this widely varied people they found - in the peninsula south of the Indus. 

2. Many agree that the people who live in "Modern India" as we know it now and identify as Hindu, have a largely common way of life. ( Which by the way also has space for the "non-believers". That is, those who self-identify as atheists have always been a part of our culture, because as many elder people keep telling me - Hinduism is not really a religion, it is a way of life, Hindu Dharma has space for the atheists too.)

3. People remember reading in their history books the primary religions that make up Hinduism. They are now called the primary "sects" of Hinduism.  1. Saivaites ( Shiva), 2, Vaishnavaites(Vishnu), 3. Shaktism (Shakti - various forms of the Goddess) 4. Gaumaram (Karthikeya/Murugan worship) 5. Ganapathyam (Ganesh worship) .....there are many isms- for people who worship as their primary god : Surya, Indra, Varuna etc....And there is the Smartha tradition ....and the various aithas came: dwaithas, advaitha, vishishwadwaitha....basically, different ways to reach God, surrender to God, or claim that we are the gods? ...or whatever....I have a long way to go before I begin to truly understand what those 8th, 9th and10th century philosophers were preaching.

What all these arguments and discussions have brought back for me, along with a dose of regional/language pride (I blame the movie PS-I for all this btw, and Mani Rathnam) is the question of : 1. What does my race (Primarily ASI) say about my religion? 2. Am I praying to the right Gods? (Who are the Right Gods btw? :-) 3. If Ram, Krishna and even Shiva are imports from Gangetic Plains, then who were the local gods then, let us say 2000 years ago ? (See, the whole village deity doesn't compute in these days of city living. Where will my local guardian deity be if I live in Bangalore? In Hebbal? or Whitefield? or Adugodi? lol) 4. Am I supposed to be praying to the pre-north infusion/consolidated version of Murugan/Karthikeya - that is: Seyyon? If he is the warrior God - and my modern life has no part of war - will my petty non-war concerns even matter to him? 

(I keep coming back to Muruga/Karthikeya - because though I belong to caste that claims to be Saivaite - in every relative's home I have been to , the picture/idol of Murugan is the centrepiece/biggest. Is this a Tamil thing? Or that my ancestors have been following both Saivism and Gowmaaram? Then I wonder if when the cult of Saivism took over large tracts of population, it was convenient to hook the Tamils by claiming that Shiva was the father of Murugan? Also note, there is a discrepancy between the order of children Shiva has between the north and south. Here we say that Ganesha was the older one, but in the north it is the other way around.  Also, note that most modern Indians, based on just the north-south discrepancy- over years come to some sort of understanding that Hinduism is a amalgamated religion model and hence it fundamentally differs from the Single God with prophet/prophets religion model. One, there is choice of gods (pick who you want and pray) and choice in worship form that is denied to those who believe in a monotheistic religion. Two, space for the agnostics and atheists that is not available in monotheistic religions. Three- clearly less space for fanaticism as one person/entity cannot claim to know God's Plan and dictate agenda for the believers based on religion. 

In any case, this whole controversy has given rise to one thing - people are reading more, asking more questions about their past, debating history and who wrote it and with what agendas and about the evolution of this wonderful thing called Hinduism- be it religion, dharma or way-of-life.

 

Why a believer must partner with a non-believer

 I was raised by a believer – full on faith in god- mother and a non-believer - an agnostic father. I believe that this has given me a balanced perspective. I am neither and I am both. I’m tempted by both belief systems. I am comforted by both and I think that both give me succor when I need it.

Let us be real for a minute- religion is not going anywhere. It has been around for thousands of years and all literature and propaganda from the communists and atheist movements notwithstanding, there is a reason that religions have endured in all parts of the world in different forms. When people believe in something together, it has more power. Would I believe something easily if others did not believe before me, along with me and the idea did not have enough power to make people believe after me? Humans seem to give more power to an idea when others think it’s a good idea. Call it the peril of being a social thinking animal. It’s the same thing with atheists. If the first atheist in any part of the world did not succeed in convincing the second person that his/her idea that there were no superior beings or Gods watching over them would their movement be so wide spread?

But coming back to the power of groupthink or group belief, religion offers people an out. A place of safety, where sins are forgiven, where fears are assuaged and there is a feel good factor when we place our burdens elsewhere – as in, at the feet of god and immediately there is a feeling of lightness. Religion has been called the opiate of the masses in the past. In today’s age, maybe God is the therapist of the masses. I mean, the sheer amount of money seeing a therapist regularly would cost. Clearly it’s cheaper to believe.  But, jokes aside, the point is that religion has value, however ephemeral it may be.

Meanwhile, the rational point of view- not believing anything that cannot be seen, heard or felt – as in God and the faith in a superior entity, gives us a comfort too, that we have only ourselves to depend on. That the universe is a random place where nothing is predictable and anything can happen anytime and hence now is the time to just live our lives.

I believe that having both perspectives and not being too attached to seeing God and religion in only one way is essential to stop having fanatical thoughts / ideologies of either kind. If every person out there decided to marry and tolerate a person who has the opposing viewpoint about religion, we would have no religion terrorism. Wouldn’t that be a great thing?

God and cartoons

There are several cartoons and movies making fun of Jesus on the internet. In the United States, there are even mainstream publications that publish these cartoons, while the primary point of these cartoons is ridiculing the christian right, some of them do come across as ridiculing Jesus.

 My question is  - why is it okay for Jesus to be portrayed in insensitive cartoons and films and not Mohammad?

 We in the south of this country, India, have a strong presence of atheist movements and are used to God-bashing. There is even a Tamil poem that I heard as a child that goes something like this :

''Shiva kept Parvati in his heart,
Vishnu kept Lakshmi by his side,
Brahma kept Saraswati on his tongue,
Where would she pee and poop? Where? ''

Would my faith be any lesser just because some idiots are making fun of my God? Can't people just let these things go? And can't politicians stop trying to get mileage from these fundamentalists' protests and attacks on people who are just expressing their opinion, and crack down on them? While peaceful protests and even taking their case to the law is anyone's right, how is bombing embassies and killing alright? And why are the governments involved trying to pacify these religious hardliners thereby the terrorists groups they support instead of taking severe action against them?