WHAT IS '' TILAK '' ?

PHOTO: RADHA  

The centre of the forehead between the eyebrows is the most important psychic location in the human body and its importance is stressed by putting a coloured mark at this spot. This central spot is where the sixth chakra (Ajna) is located. It is also called the third eye or the eye of wisdom. It is the aim of yogis and devout Hindus to ‘open’ this third eye by constant meditation. The ‘opening of the third eye means the unification of the conscious arid subconscious minds, the point where all elements of duality merge into one universal entity.

HOW TO PUT VAISHNAVA '' TILAK ''

This spot therefore is of tremendous importance and the putting of the coloured mark symbolizes the quest for the ‘opening’ of the third eye. All rites and ceremonies of the Hindus begin with a vermilion mark (tilak) topped with a few grains of rice placed on this spot with the index finger or the thumb. The same custom is followed in welcoming or bidding farewell to guests or relations.

The most common material used for making this mark is ‘kumkum, the red powder which is a mixture of turmeric, alum, iodine, camphor, etc. Another popular material is sandalwood paste blended with musk. This has a strong cooling effect and is generally meant for those who have meditated for a long time.

Sacred ash from the sacrificial fire (yagna) or the funeral pyre is considered the best material for the Tilak by the yogis and sanyais because they have renounced all their attachments to worldly life and ash symbolises this.

LIBERATION: Moksha

Hinduism, as a religious tradition, has many strands of faith that differ in nearly everything. Combined, these various strands form an illusion of a single, cohesive set of rituals, beliefs, and morals much like a cable made up of many smaller strands. While the various Hindu paths intertwine, agree in some areas, disagree in others similar to “family resemblance,” nearly all strands believe in the cycle of death and rebirth—samsara—as well as the escape from that cycle: moksa. In order to understand the concept of moksa—even in a general sense, one must understand its context within samsara as well as the concept of the self. These concepts, once understood, will provide clarification for understanding how Hindus understand and relate to moksa. We will be able to examine some of the early texts which give some definition to the concept of moksa as well as early philosophers who flesh out the concept. Through looking at the development of moksa and some of its related beliefs within the Advaita Vedanta school as well as the more recent Neo-Vedanta school, we will gain a better understanding of how moksa plays out in theology as well as society.


Before looking at moksa, we must first provide a contextual frame, preferably one that has been stable over time and similar across Hindu paths. Possibly the widest frame we can discuss is the concept of samsara. In early thought, Hindu thinkers posited a soul, the atman, that was in every person. This soul is embedded in the world of experience and is entangled in an eternal cycle of death and rebirth: samsara. There are traces of samsara as far back as the Rg Veda, but it is not a firmly established belief until the Upanisads: “the subject, the 'performer of action which bears fruit,' wanders in the cycle of transmigration according to his actions (karma).” At the level of ultimate reality is a singular soul, Brahman. As the concepts develop, it is agreed that Brahman, as the ultimate reality, must be equivalent with the multiplicity of atmans that are experienced phenomenally. In other words, we have a dichotomy between what is real and what is experienced; this can be labeled as dualism. It is through maya (or “illusion” in the sense of a false reality) that this singular soul “assumes...a body and becomes finite and individualized, but this individualization is neither final nor real.” Maya, whether a goddess or not, brings about this dualism. It is through realizing that one is Brahman at the level of ultimate reality that one ceases to act with consequences and, consequently, attain release from the cycles of samsara. These notions begin to be developed in the Upanisads: “The one with understanding, mindful, ever pure, attains that place from which he is not born again.” By the time the Bhagavad Gita is written, this idea of escape is firmly planted in Hindu thought. It is through this context of samsara that we should begin to look at the concept of self-identity in Hinduism in addition to looking at the concept of liberation in some of the key texts.


Classical Views

In the Mahabharata, we can see two separate views of the self that intertwine with each other in its subsection-made-into-a-separate-book the Bhagavad Gita. One of these views is of the individual that exists within samsara and continuously interacts with the phenomenal world. The other view is that of the eternal, unchanging, singular Soul that exists at the level of ultimate reality. In the Gita, these two intertwine and are seen as being the same. The Mahabharata, possibly the greatest epic story in Hindu literature, is a lengthy story centering on five brothers (the heroes) and their battle with their evil relatives. Behind this, though, is the backdrop of the gods battling along the same sides of good vs. evil. Yet there is the added “bonus” in that a single god (Vishnu) is the supreme Brahman who sees everything clearly. For instance, at one point in the story, we find Draupadi asking Krishna about her current situation and Krishna responds by saying

We are now on the wheel of life that turns and turns, we wander forever from one birth to another. Here we are kings, there we live out all our life on the tip of a blade of grass. But we always live. Nothing can stop that well. Nothing and no one will make us lose that life, whatever happens. During the course of this conversation, Krishna does suggest that her current situation may not be real. By this suggestion, we can see some evidence of supporting the kind of dualism mentioned above.

Within the Bhagavad Gita, however, we get a glimpse of the view from ultimate reality, sub specie aeternitas. Approximately halfway-through, Krishna reveals to Arjuna his all-encompassing form, and Arjuna's response tells all: “Why should they not bow in homage to you, Great Soul,...,Shelter of All That Is, you are eternity.”Arjuna continues in his praises interjecting suggestions, like above, that Krishna is the ultimate Soul as well as being the creator of all the multiplicities of the phenomenal world. Further into the Gita, Krishna declares while speaking of the two spirits of man that “Other is the supreme spirit of man, called the supreme self, the immutable lord who enters and sustains the three worlds” and that Krishna himself is “known as the supreme spirit of man.” In other words, Krishna is equating himself—as the ultimate soul Brahman—with the soul of man at the level of ultimate reality. Furthermore, Krishna states that upon “realizing it, one has understanding and his purpose is fulfilled,” a simple definition of moksa. Krishna does elaborate on how to attain this state, and that it is a long a difficult task that includes acting without attachment and becoming totally devoted to serving and worshiping Krishna.

The concept of liberation suggested in both the Mahabharata and the Gita is developed much more systematically around the beginning of the 9th century CE by the Indian philosopher Sankara. His view of the self reinforced what we can find only suggested in the earlier texts. Yet, Sankara also provided some additions to these: illusion and ignorance. Sankara finds an answer as to why the Soul thinks in multiplicities even though it is a singular entity. It is the power of illusion (maya) that fools the Soul by superimposing “what is not the self onto the self.” Illusion also gets help from the Soul through doubt once it has believed the illusion and has become ignorant about its true nature. It is through discernment, a quality lauded in texts such as the Ramayana, that one can discover ultimate reality.

However, Sankara also saw liberation as being possible while one is still living. This concept, called jivanmukti, was only a rough idea for Sankara that was developed later by his followers. Later thinkers began to perceive liberation as a disembodiment or transcendence and not necessarily freedom from a physical body. Upon attainment, one would have perfect knowledge—even while still living. For these thinkers as well as Sankara, jivanmukti is not a “complete” liberation because it still awaits the final liberation which occurs at death. What keeps one living is simply the residual karmic effects of one's life prior to reaching the stage of living liberation. Because of this, Sankara argues that only those who have achieved living liberation could truly teach it. This is similar to Buddhist thoughts on enlightenment in that it can only be transmitted by those who have experienced it and these Buddhas are living out their lives on their residual karmic effects of previous actions.

In contradistinction to Sankara, bhakti devotion was also a prominent classical view. The literature of the bhakti movement was more often poetic and filled with emotion than a structured epic (e.g. Mahabharata) or philosophical writing (e.g. the Upanishads). As a result, it is more difficult to determine what theological beliefs the movement held to from its writings. Yet one thing is certain: the movement was based strongly on emotional devotionalism. One of the earliest bhakti groups, the Alvars, can find its roots in some earlier “possession cults” in which the devotee would become possessed by the god and begin “weeping, dancing and singing.” By devoting oneself entirely to the god believed to be the consummation of all things (e.g. Siva, Vishnu, etc), one can attain liberation. Bhakti is not contradictory to Sankara's view, but does typically personalize the divine, which places it, then, outside the gates of Sankara's ideal, attribute-less absolute. In the bhakti path, the divine is seen more as a lover to pursue until one can pursue no longer—a maddening love. And this is exactly how some (if not most) outsiders saw the earliest devotees on this path. Unlike other traditions (e.g., Christianity), all of these paths have survived in at least one form to the modern era.


Later Developments

In more recent expressions of Hinduism, there is a strand of thought that has reinterpreted the Advaita Vedanta ideas and has created a new school of thought labeled Neo-Vedanta. This particular school of thought has taken the Advaita Vedanta school started by Sankara and mixed it with “Western premises and categories.” This has become “the primary interpretive model in modern Indian scholarship on Advaita.” Some, like Ramana Maharshi, take Sankara's view to an extreme. According to Andrew Fort's analysis, Ramana's view can be reduced to an attributeless Self and ignorance. This is further amplified by his claim that there is “no bondage (or liberation), no 'doer' or karma.” For Ramana, moksa is simply removing ignorance, something we have in Sankara's thoughts but in a more condensed form. Additionally, Ramana rejects bhakti as a path towards moksa because, like Sankara before him believed, ascribing qualities to the divine Self is embedded in ignorance: the Self has no qualities or attributes. But in a vein similar to the bhakti view, knowledge alone is insufficient, yet it is not devotion to a personal God but experience of a transcendent God that leads one to liberation. Through living liberation, however, Ramana does believe that one exemplifies the characteristics of “impression (vasana) free devotion and detachment,” or devotion to the detached, attribute-less Self.

Unlike Ramana, other followers of Sankara have stayed closer to what they perceive as his original teachings; the best example being Candrasekharendra Sarasvati. Calling themselves sankaracaryas, these thinkers believe to be walking in the same path as their namesake Sankara. One of Candrasekharendra's primary concerns was differentiating between Hinduism as “religion” in the broad sense and Hinduism as a “social system” in the narrow sense. This allowed him to be open to ecumenical dialogs while also supporting conservative practices, such as supporting Brahmin and wives' submission to their husbands. But, his more “liberal” side supports bhakti as a beginning towards liberation even though he agrees with Ramana and Sankara that the ultimate Soul is without qualities. There is also agreement on defining jivanmukti as being disembodiment and not necessarily a lack of a physical body. Lastly, Candrasekharendra believes that the root cause of caste conflict is “when 'one cast consider[s] itself superior to another,' for which 'there is no justification.'” As we shall see below, this is a relatively rare position in the conflict.

With the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), there has been attempts to bridge together the two contrary positions noted above. The founder of ISKCON, Swami Bhaktivedanta, argues that knowledge alone (i.e. Sankara's suggestion) is not enough for liberation. One must also have complete devotion, the supreme knowledge and practice, to gain moksa. This view can be seen in the way devotees worship and participate in religious services. While there is focus on studying texts like the Gita, there is more emphasis on devotion to Krishna. Devotees use the name of Krishna (and other incarnations of Vishnu) as their mantras. The most important part of this, however, is that Bhaktivedanta maintains that the universal soul (Krishna in this case) is personal and has qualities.

ISKCON is based on the work of Caitanya, the first to promote Krishna bhakti. Caitanya is regarded as an incarnation of both Krishna and Radha in one body! Caitanya did not create any kind of movement; his “legacy” was primarily a commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Krishna bhakti movement that ensued and is present today in ISKCON pictures liberation as “the constant, ecstatic experience of the divine love-play (lila) between Radha and Krishna in a spiritual or perfected body.” Additionally, Krishna is not simply an incarnation (avatara) of Vishnu, but is the true supreme Lord. With different views of liberation comes different views of identity in relation to liberation. Some paths of Hindu thought see the self as an illusion while others see it as being as much of a reality as the ultimate Self. These differing views also influence how one identifies with the caste system, society at large, and modernity.

The bhakti tradition imagined itself as a communal society and, more often than not, on the outskirts of “normal” society. With a stronger push towards allowing all castes, genders, etc into their fold, the bhakti devotees were the 13th century equivalent to 1960s hippies. They followed the path of renunciation that earlier ascetics tread; the bhakti devotees would create their communities in the forests, a place associated with the “wild” and nature. Many within the bhakti tradition identified themselves in terms of their personal God (e.g. Basavanna's Lord of the Meeting Rivers) as a devoted follower of such. All other types of identification were less important (if at all) for the devoted. As a result of this, we can see how Mahadevi was accepted into the bhakti community as a fellow saint and later as the most poetic of the saints there. Yet this “revolutionary” mindset dissipated and gave way to more institutional ways. The caste-less group returned to the caste system. By the 18th century, bhakti groups adhered to the caste system by denying initiation to “unclean” groups or restricting the privilege to become a guru to those of Brahmin birth. In the West, however, ISKCON fell away from the caste system rather quickly as it was aimed at converted Westerners to the bhakti strand of Hinduism. As a result, it seems that bhakti devotees in the West escaped the caste system that has existed in Hinduism and India. This is not something that the Advaita Vedanta paths have been able to escape—even in the West.

According to the classical position of Advaita Vedanta, one should identify oneself with the ultimate. They also thought that identifying oneself with a body and phenomenal experience is “an adventitious superimposition that ceases upon Brahman-realization.” Additionally, with their emphasis upon knowledge as a prerequisite to experiencing moksa, “those of nontwice-born birth (Shudras, untouchables and non-Hindu aliens or mlecchas) are automatically debarred from access to this 'salvic' knowledge.” Identification with Advaita Vedanta thought, then, correlated with an upper class. In some ways, Advaita Vedanta was not for the common person. Neo-Vedanta thinkers downplay this class distinction, and some even argue that it was never used by classical Advaita Vedanta devotees. For these newer thinkers, not only is class distinction wrong but it also goes against their beliefs on social service. Social service goes hand-in-hand with jivanmukti. Neo-Vedanta thinkers ignore Sankara's commentary on sutra, Caste, Society, and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the referring to “texts indication a sudra hearing the Veda should have his ears filled with lead” and other such androcentric beliefs. With this stress on social service, the Neo-Vedanta followers (especially the gurus and teachers) identified with the welfare of others. Swami Vivekananda once told his disciples, “Look upon Man as God. If your conception of God includes the idea that He is All-Pervasive, then why can't you see Him in all creatures?”

In contemporary India, caste identity, fueled in part by one's relation to moksa, reciprocates into national politics. Upper caste society has a tendency towards antagonism with regards to the lower caste. Yet the lower caste are not innocent either because they have been able to present themselves to state agencies as having a “history of injustice at the hands of Forward or high-caste 'oppressors.'” In other words, each caste uses it to their advantage while claiming the other castes are abusing the system. There is also a more global scale in which Hindu identity is not as tied up in the caste system, national politics, and the “caste wars.” Instead of conflict, Hindus outside of India work together in their own subculture in which they identify with their host country's sociopolitical system while still holding to the caste system, yet in a less violent manner. For these people, moksa is still the goal, but they sometimes tend toward interreligious dialog and bringing others towards liberation as well.

Pleasant Release The last aspect of liberation that is worth mentioning is its position as a goal. Is liberation “worth it”? Is it pleasant? As Vatsyayana wrote: About liberation (the idea), that is indeed gruesome, consisting of a cessation of all activity. With such a liberation which divorces us from everything, so many good things of like would be finished. How, therefore, can any intelligent person find that sort of liberation characterized by absence of all the pleasures and even of consciousness at all palatable?

What is it that makes liberation seem so different from this? The standard position adopted by Advaita Vedanta (and more likely most strands of Hinduism) is that “the soul really feels an intense, unrelieved, perpetual bliss in being liberated” because (depending on if one is a strong follower of Advaita or bhakti) one's veil of ignorance is removed or one is in the presence of one's personal Lord. This argument seems to win time and again because it speaks directly to one's particular path to liberation. In other words, liberation is the “finish line” for the race of life, something that must be better than remaining in the race.

The argument against liberation depends on one of two criteria being met: (1) samsara is not that bad or even good, or (2) moksa does not have any joy in it (and thus, not any better than samsara). Both of these must be discredited in order for there to be some benefit to liberation. The first point comes in two distinct versions: hedonism and avoiding suffering. The hedonistic version argues that samsara is good—that the pleasure easily outweighs the suffering. This version, however, fails to notice the amount of suffering that is part of the process towards any kind of pleasure. In other words, pleasure will always have suffering with it while the opposite ( suffering always has pleasure) is not true. Because of this, it would seem likely that the pleasure does not, in fact, outweigh the suffering. The second version is simply the avoidance of suffering. Taking into consideration the argument against hedonism, it would seem likely that to avoid suffering completely, one should escape samsara. Hence, the first argument against liberation does not stand against typical Hindu belief.

The second argument, however, is a bit stronger. If liberation includes joy (or pleasure), then one may be seeking liberation for a reason other than escape from samsara. In other words, the desire for liberation when motivated by the desire for joy would be the very hindrance to achieving liberation. Therefore, the argument goes, liberation cannot have any kind of emotional quality to it regardless of how favorable it may be. This argument fails on a technicality: we cannot know with certainty whether or not complete liberation brings any level of joy. It may well do, but we have no way of being certain about it because one must experience it, which places that one outside of samsara. There is no way of telling what may happen after this life in terms of liberation because it is outside the bounds of our human experience. As a consequence of this, it should not be taught to devotees that liberation has some kind of joy in so that they may pursue moksa for the sake of liberation.

Because the two arguments against liberation being worthwhile cannot stand with any amount of certainty, we can only conclude here that liberation is worthwhile because either it “feels like a sheer absence of any feeling of pain of any sort,” it “feels like a great positive state of boundless ecstatic joy,” or “the sheer absolute absence of suffering feels like the greatest joy possible.” This only supports the idea that liberation is a central aspect of many Hindu paths. We have traced its development through some of the early Hindu texts, as well as in some of the more known thinkers of the past. We have seen how it has affected social identity in the caste system as well as in humanitarianism. Lastly, we briefly looked at why liberation is a worthwhile goal for the Hindu. While this was in no way exhaustive, it can serve as a basic primer on moksa and its influences on Hinduism as a religion and as a culture.

MYTH and REALITY

Hinduism in South Asia: Myth and Reality

Hinduism is an ongoing movement and civilization of South Asia, and its historical tradition and philosophy is founded on four Vedas which are the mythical (ancient) history of different ages of Hinduism. In other words, the thought and consequently the behavior of Hinduism both are essentially linked and connected lifestyle with the historical heritage and pragmatic aptitude. Along with an extreme attachment with the historical heritage it is also attached to the earthen centre of geographical enclosure or country worship (patriotism) which is now called Bharat Mata (Mother India). The foundations on which Hinduism is established are: caste system and idol worship; they are infact, Hindu society, Hindu rule and practically Aryah Samaj.

Hindu caste system consists of four castes, where in Barah’man is superior because of Brahma (viceroy of God), then comes Khashtari and then Vaish. The Shoodars or untouchables are inferior because they were born out of Bramhma’s feet, therefore, they were untouchables. If God is incarnated in the shape of Brahma and giving birth is attributed to him and Barah’man is born from his head where as untouchables from his foot, then how it is possible to present a concept of human equality from such a god and his clumsy figure. Same happened with Hinduism. The division (of humanity) was according to the birth but later Manu Maharaj related it with professions while compiling the code of law. Therefore, the man was unable to change his profession because it was (God forbid) God’s division and it was not possible to discard it. However, now, due to the devices and constitutional efforts of a contemporary constitutional expert of India and an untouchable leader Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, those enlisted castes, tribes and untouchables have become entitled to some concessions, scanty social flexibility and government’s stipends on permissive and limited scale. This is the (true picture of) traditional India where tens of million people are untouchables. Trampling of basic human rights is a secular mask of the republic of India (Sehroza Dawat, New Delhi, June 22, 2003).

In short, Barah’man is the powerful class that holds authority in whole of the Hindu society in spite of being in minority they are the nobles and most distinguished in Arayah vrat or Hindu Rashter (state). They have, due to acquiring more and more power and considering themselves superior to others, come to rule not only over India but whole of the world. Barah’mans are not only considered Brahma (viceroy of God) according to their caste system but they also hold a permanent place of scholars and believers of all the four Vedas, the basic source of Hinduism, because Vedas are heavenly words in Hinduism and only the Barah’mans are permitted to read and have knowledge of them. According to law of Manu Smriti (Manu Code) if any untouchable hears, by chance the voice of somebody reciting the holy Vedas, melted lead must be put in the ears of that untouchable as punishment (Ibid). The instance describes superiority of Barah’mans in Aryah Samaj. This history, tradition and movement of Hinduism are inspired from the teachings of these Vedas. A distinguished intellectual, recently converted to Islam, Rene Guenon (Abdul Wahid Yahya Shazli) also an authentic scholar of Hindu Civilization, has presented a fine introduction of Aryah vrat and the Vedas, and the intellectual source of Barahman. He is of the view that Vedas, an admirable collection of verses, hymns and prayers are the basis of their civilization. There are no traces of the original and actual source of Vedas; probably, they were collected in 1400 to 1200 B.C. The Hindus still honor these collections, even after millions of years. As Greek and Hebrew languages molded western thoughts into a particular shape, in the same way Sanskrit trimmed the style and expression of Hindu philosophy and ideology and gave it a shape. These hymns are those texts which are the basis of vedanta that means the end of the Vedas (Guenon, 2002: 8).

The tragedy of Hinduism is not less than that of Jews, who lost biographies of their prophets and consequently their holy books are reduced to just enigma of words. The human intellect in Jews did not understand heavenly thought and observe human character (of a prophet) and instead, just tried to work out meanings through intellect, this (attitude) in case of Hinduism came out intoxicated with studiousness and superiority complex along with the psychology of considering the others inferior. It resulted in, at individual level, an intellectual fluctuation, and brutality on collective level which became the internal psychology of Hindu mentality and temperament where in only Barahman was the symbolic and main introduction of the Hindu. Therefore it must be assessed with reference to thoughts presented in the holy books of Hinduism as well the different eras of Hindu history.

The deep study and research of the thoughts revealed in the holy books of Hinduism and different periods of their history clearly manifest that Hinduism, infact, is not a religion but a society and movement that has been continuous through centuries and which has its roots in:

• The racial superiority; • The sense of this political (or racial) differentiation is considered a part of worship (or belief)

For this they have (dual) policy of utmost contrivance and preparation for themselves and apparently temperate but practically with prudence, striking the roots of other nations. But the word “Hindu” is not found in the books and their contents of this movement, spread over centuries. Even in the Government’s record and documents till the colonization of the British in the sub-continent, there were the words ‘Muslims’ and ‘Non-Muslims’ in practice. Why and how were these Hindu, Hindustan and moreover Hindi language originated and developed? This is really a fundamental question for the students and scholars of Hinduism.

Many researchers have also focused on it. Even Hindu researchers and intellects are unable to answer it satisfactorily. May be that they, as a measure of expediency adopted and made it an introduction of their race and religion and then deliberately made it ambiguous because Hindu mentality and temperament is not clear to even Hindus, therefore, how an outsider can judge that a worshiper of material and even every type of idols in the guise of a beggar may be a courtier of some king. Here is an opinion of a distinguished writer Nirad C. Chaudhry who describes the issues historically, politically and even culturally:

“This [Hinduism] crept in when Modern European Orientalists began to study the religions of India. They found that the Hindus had no other name for the whole complex of their religious feelings, beliefs and practices expect the phrase Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Way. They did not have even a word of their own for religion in European sense; and so the orientalists coined the word Hinduism to describe that complex of religion. Actually we Hindus are not Hindus because we follow a religion called or understood as Hinduism, our religion has been given the very impressive label ‘Hinduism’ because it is the fumble of creed and rites of a people known as Hindus after their country” (Choudhry, 1965: 35).

Some Hindu researchers have confessed that the names Hindu and Hinduism as a religion do not belong to them but they are given to them by the English and other European scholars. Some Hindus differ with Nirad C. Choudhry’s point of view and think that these names have been given to them by the Muslim conquerors. Shive Kishan Kaul says:

“The word Hinduism is derived from Hindu, a corruption of Sindhu. The Punjab in Vedic times was called Sapta Sindhu (land of the seven rivers). This was pronounced by Iranian as ‘Haft Hindu’ and so the inhabitant of the Punjab came to be called Hindus by Muslim invaders. Gradually the inhabitants of India came to be called Hindus and their religion Hinduism” (Kaul, 1937: 82).

It means that before arrival of the Muslims in the continent the people dwelling there had neither a national identity nor any name for recognition of their religious complex. The same point has been endorsed by a famous writer of Congress (S.V. Kelker) saying that in this continent the two nations’ theory: the Hindu Nation and the Muslim Nation is given by the Muslims. Moreover he blames Muslims for their centuries’ old established social system of untouchability by saying that the Muslims in continent gave non-Muslims the name of Hindus and made them a nation because before the arrival of Muslims they never said Hindus to themselves. Kelker objects that the Muslims gave domination of Barahmans over other people by naming non-Muslims as Hindus. Thus the millions of human beings were left on the mercy of Hindu religious leaders (Keller; 135).

Even if, we admit the historical fact, the most schismatic issue is that what Hindu and Hinduism are, and their ideological identity, if they are not historic (production). If we call Sanatan Dharmi to the followers of Sanatan Dharma (religion), the question is what is religion (Dharma)? Why is it and how is it? The Hindu writers themselves indicate that though Hinduism is different from other nations, yet it does not mean that a consistent belief has united the Hindus. They have neither belief, not any teacher [prophet], nor teaching, nor any (particular) god which is acceptable for all. Moreover, in spite of denying established ideology, belief or book and even abandoning ceremonies, nobody is considered expelled from Hinduism (Ibid).

If we look into spirit of S.V. Kulkar’s contents, we have to admit that his description is final as well a fine blueprint of Hinduism; rather it is real Hinduism and between the lines Hindu and Hinduism, themselves, describe their origon. Here we must have to discuss the elucidation of Sawami Tirath Maharaj which is more explanatory. He is of the view that those hundreds of tribes, castes and families who are not Christians or Muslims can be considered as Hindus. In fact it is impossible to say who is Hindu? And what is Hinduism? (Munawar, op.cit).

However, it has become very clear in the discussion above that both Hindu and Hinduism are not a nation and a religion in true and ordinary sense of the terms of nation and religion, that is why a distinguished Philosopher Heagul also refuses to accept the theory of the Hindus as a nation. He also thinks that Hindus are groups and just gatherings but they cannot be admitted as a nation (Heagul, 1951:168).

If it is merely founded on the racial discrimination, it is far beyond the concept of a nation; moreover, it is not actually connected with birth or family, it is just the division on the basis of professions. It is a permanent division and determines social identification and status. Cyril Modak is not wrong when he reviewing the racial division in Hinduism says that these tribes and castes were not their actual recognitions, they were related to the different departments and occupations. Therefore, it is a joke to call Hindus a nation (Modak, 1949: 143).

Now the only circumstantial evidence left is that they are a gathering of some individuals in a certain regional or geographical boundaries. Only this evidence might determine the identity of Hinduism because all the standards of discrimination of beliefs and rites or customs, racial tie or recognition through professions are not proved to be useful. Whether Hindu is adopted from Sindhu or not it is an evident fact that Hindu is focused in Hind (India) and derived from Hind. This movement geographically attacked Hind (India) and developed and grew here. If we name it Hinduism, consequently, it will be called Hindu, i.e. the geographical existence of Hind. Hindu is a geographical name as well as their historic, philosophic and political identity. Same was the impression centuries ago and it is true even to day. The picture drawn by the Al-Biruni in his book Ma- Alhid is valid up till now. He observes:

“It is one of the characteristics of Hindus that they are vainglorious and conceited. They believe that their land is pure and holy, all other earth is impure and not holy. In their language a foreigner and stranger is called Malecch because all the foreign land is not pure therefore Malecch automatically means defiled” (Al-Biruni, translation 191: 16).

This is the word Malecch (impure) that they had been using for the Muslims in spite of their one thousand years’ companionship. The pride of their racial superiority and sacredness of their geography are the two fundamental elements as well as idols of Sanatan Dharma (the Eternal way) or Hinduism. Therefore, to the people with such notions any person belonging to other nation or country must be impure. This is the sorcery of such a wicked belief and it will continue to emphasize that Hindu nation has come (to the world) to rule the world and the one who does not admit their superiority will be treated worse than a shoo’dar (slave). Now, it has been decided that only the sense of their superior race and sacredness of their geography have developed this movement. But the actual question is still unanswered that it is not a caste but profession and not devotion but faith. It is a true picture of a Persian line:

(There are none except us.)

Trying to answer such queries of ‘what, why and how’ we have explored depth of their religion and the expense of history but still there is no way out. In the Hindu books there are many, connections and deadlocks, there is much more of reason but no revelation. Conjecture dominates on religion and revelation. There is dominance of intellect and reason. That is why the sense of their racial superiority and outer and inner impurity of other human beings are its basis and the Barahman, who are (God forbid) the issues of God, have the birth right to rule and other human being are just serviles and untouchables.

Hinduism should not be treated as a religion but it should be taken as Hindu mentality, i-e- it should be sifted through the sieve of thought process and research methodology. Honestly speaking, it should be admitted that no other source is more reliable than the thoughts presented in their own books and different periods of their history. Therefore, if we know and scrutinize Hinduism theoretically, historically and circumstantially it is described that actual Hinduism is not the ‘World of heart’, it is just a business and bargain. It is said accurately:

(The market of mind and reason is bright due to them.)

                  Vedas and their Status 

Historically there are four Vedas which are the holy or revealed books of the Hindus. These are:

1. Rig Veda;
2. Yagir Veda;
3. Sama Veda;
4. Athar Veda.

They are in the form of poems (religious verses) and versified hymns and prayers, limited to the memory and verbal recitations of Barah’mans because they were in Sanskrit, the sacred and classified language of the Hindus. Then during the rule of the British in India an orientalist Max Moolar translated them in English and made them accessable for general readers. There are other two books Bhagavad Gita and Manu Smriti which are considered basic religious books by the Hindus. But the misfortune of Hindus is not different than those of Jews. The Jews lost biographies of their prophets and considered that the books were enough; consequently those books are still centuries old word complexity for them. 

The Hindus have an access to incarnated sensorial embodiment of idolatry. Centuries have been passed in trying to pull the strings of their sentiments and feelings with the help of intellect and reason but access to ultimate reality is still a delusion and fantasy. No doubt, not only in Bhagvad Gita but in Vedas also there are several issues of divination and mysticism. In spite of this fact the Hindus had been and are still a symbol of rationality and selfishness. (However, after divination, the objective and aim of achieving Sahk’ti (worldly power) to become over powerful amongst all humanity is also self evident design of Hindu fundamentalism.)

In the same way if we seek help from their tunes and music, there is an effect of igniting the situation. Their dhur’pad (fixed text) music circulates in the circle of belly. It has no keynotes (tans) but echoes (gu’maks). This is the music of Hindus temple and their hymns. There is the repetition of abstruse words of Sanskrit. How is the world of soul and vision and spiritual experience possible in the music that arises from belly and circulates in belly? This is the reason that the Muslims introduced khayal ga’iki (thought provoking) which is the singing of chest and soul; in the continent, contrary to dhur’pad ga’iki. It has achieved the status of ‘Eastern Music’ where in the Muslims are still masters and teachers and the Hindus are permanently pupils. After the mythological analyses of their books, it comes out that along with the designs and intentions of domination and rule and lust for territorial aggrandizement in verses of all the four Vedas, couplets of Bhagvad Gita and sections of Manu Smriti, these poems and hymns do not provide feed for soul.

They rather instigate mind and reason. All of them are presented and sung in Dhurpad; even their epic tunes and hymns sung in the public gathering are in Dhurpad that also has an effect to stimulate reason and mind rather than to feed spirit. In the continent in the historic legacy of Muslim music, Khayal (imaginative) singing of Hazrat Amir Khusraw (R.A.), including musical instruments and the effects of love and affection for humanity and melodious tunes of Tauhid (oneness of Allah) and all of its styles and compositions are bestowed by pious people (Muslims) and pathetic saints which entirely appeal to heard and soul rather than reason and intellect and also kindle a pathetic heart. The music that is being taught in contemporary India and that is considered to be excellence of Hindus naming it Karantki or Shastria music has been collected from Muslim singers by Bhat Khanday, the curriculum compiler of music for the Indian Music universities. But, infact, it is a treasure of Khusravi compositions which are a cultural master piece of Muslims civilization in the continent. On the other hand, the obscure and stuffed up atmosphere of Hindu architecture also portrays the same state of affairs.

The contradiction between their appearance and reality is also described by Nirad C. Chaudhry. He is of the view that there is, along with the sense of harmony and unity, the aptitude of distraction and topsy-turvy, along with the song of collective manners and pride here is the fervor of worthlessness, severe hatred with foreign and subversive individuality, violence and non violence, warring passion and cowardice, cleverness and stupidity, all those conflicting characteristics are found simultaneously. No characteristic dominates, no determination, no single way, no single attitude, established theory etc; nothing is comprehensible in Hinduism (Chaudhry, op.cit: 97).

Infact when reason and logic lead the life, it is destines to heave hot and cold sighs and fumble or grope in dark. Attitudes and thoughts circulate in these circles. This is the rise and fall of the war between heart and mind. It is an essential result of being deprived of revelation (religion) and man is entangled in suspicions because materialism produces physical comforts but not contentment of heart. That is why there is enough provision for apparent colour-mark on brow and forehead - an eminent symbol of ornamentation and affectation. This cloak and dress is no more than an apparent or physical decoration, but what is the heart and innermost of the Hindus? It is essential to know.

       The Inner Tragedy of Hindu Mind 

The experts of Hinduism after minutely observing Hindu civilization have to face such a horrible inner abnormalities and crafty situations in their personalities which are loaded with intoxication of racial superiority and the attitude of having more and more business interest and profit. This is the fundamental principle of Hindu temperament. Their greeting with folded hands in imploring manner, simple dress, brimful mildness in subdued gait and conversation, and even manifestation of colours and lights in their festivals present the charming Hindu society in very excellent and romantic manner. An idiom had been included in English language: ‘Hindu means simple living and high thinking’. But if we observe it closely, here we’ll find the intentional objectives to gain maximum material benefits; they even do not abandon to plunder and massacre for their racial superiority. A distinguished journalist, Abdul Karim Abid who belonged to a former state of Hindu majority, Hyderabad Dakkan (now Andhra Perdesh) in his autobiography glimpse into the inner of Hindu civilization:

“Apparently Hindu civilization seems to be excellent because here are the colours of festival of Holi, lights of Divali, fragrance of Basant, melodious Bhajans (hymns) and songs. On the other hand in all Muslim festivals their main emphasis is on eating. Meat of ‘Sacrifice’, Iftar parties in Ramzan, sweet vermicelli dishes with milk on Eid, batter pudding (Halwa) of Shab-e-Barat, Koon’de (ritual feast) of Niyaz (offering), even in Moharram delicious sweet and cold drinks are very common. Hindu festivals centre round colour, lights, fragrance, music and dance; consequently everybody concludes that Hindu civilization is spiritual as well as artistic. But when we look into its inner its ruthless perspective comes before us. We find so much love of wealth and riches that thousands of women, even today commit suicide for not bringing dowry” (Abid, 1996: 3).

Evidently, there is the fire of sensual desires in rationalism. The one following a particular material aspect or personal interest will find one’s own benefit and profit in it. In other words, it is also a shape of egotism that is, infact, a circle of idol worship where in nothing can be accepted and accommodated except love of status and lust for wealth and material gains. In words of Iqbal (R.A.)

(Bal-e-Jibril)

(Your gentry are purse proud.)

Michael Adward, while discussing Karam Das Mohan Chand Gandhi describes the inner personality of Hindu saying that a Hindu’s thinking circles round his own self. He does not care for anybody else. He is a prisoner of his own self (Charrdi Kla, July 1998).

In the history of religions, Hindu religion claims: to be the oldest one; secondly the pride of their racial superiority; and thirdly (the significance of) their motherland or mother India (geography worship because of their sacred land), consequently other people, areas and countries are, to them, inferior and impure. For this very reason, the reformative movements in Hinduism breathed their last, hundreds of years ago but due to their utmost rational planning the Hinduism devoured not only philosophical thoughts of Jainism, Buddhism and Charwak but also the rule of Buddhism. That is why a distinguish poet and critic of Urdu language, Maulana Altaf Hussain Hali has called them ‘the devourer of the nations’ because this nation gobbles up other nations. A Hindus philosopher and former president of India Dr. Radha Krishnan also supports saying that Hinduism in a single embrace gulped down Buddhism (Krishnan, 1928: 36).

the experts of the previous religions also confess that Hinduism is the oldest religion of the world. Some people begin it from Hazrat Adam (A.S.) while to some Hindus are the nation of Hazrat Noah (A.S.). Some expert historians, interested in studying idolatry, consider Hindus, the nation of Hazrat Idress (A.S.). Therefore, a revolutionary communist like M.N. Roy also declares Hinduism as the most ancient and the greatest. He is of the view that all the great religions of the world were born out of revolutions. Buddhism was a revolution like Christianity. Same happened with Islam, religion of China, later on defeated by Confucius was also a revolution. The fundamental principle of these religions was to revolt against professional priests of natural religions; Hindu religion was ancient as well as natural (Ray, n.d.: 15).

The word of Hazrat Ghulam Farid (of Kot Mithan), a prominent poet of Saraiki dialect and famous saint of exalted Chisti order, also corroborates the same point of view that:

“The religion of Hindus was ancient as well as essence. All other religions came after it because it was the religion of Hazrat Adam (A.S.). The prophets coming afterwards opposed the religion of Hindus by the order of Allah be praised and enforced the divine law revealed to them” (Farid, N.D.; 263).

For this very reason, all the prophets (A.S.) from Adam (A.S.) to the Seal of the Prophets, the Holy Prophet of Islam (SAW) preached humanity not to worship idols. They (A.S.) brought them the message to worship Allah-the Alone. The Hindus are the only polytheist nation in the world.

Like people of the book, Hindus also concentrated on their books and lost the biographies of the prophets, consequently their books were reduced to just intricate word problems. On the other hand, the idols of the prophets were worshiped whether he was Ram or Krishan, Brahma or Ibrahim, Manu or Noah, their teaching and preaching are intricate problems the words and their personalities are worship able. There are two sources of guidance: words of God and personalities of His Prophets but

“The Jews lost the biographies of their prophets and concentrated on books only, consequently, these books were no more than intricate words’ problems and at last they lost them (books) also. The Christians neglected the book and clung to the prophet and started circling round his personality and as a result nothing could prevent them from making him the son of God or even exactly God” (Maudodi, 1992: 25).

The Jews were guided by revelation but their books were unfortunately tampered with, on the other hand the Hindus considered that their book was also heavenly revealed though it consisted of U’panishad (philosophy) man’tar (incantation) and poetry of their religious leaders. Even if it was heavenly revealed, its tampering was human indulgence. Therefore, how it could have the style of revelation when as the understanding of their books led them to embodiment of god and racial discrimination that is far away from the heavenly concept of Oneness of God and equality of human beings and practically it led them further away. The four pillars of heavenly religion on which the foundation of heavenly metaphysics is established are: The concept of oneness of God; Equality of all human beings; Liability on the day of Judgment; and perfect and inestimable belief in the Prophet.

Certainly, guides were sent to every nation and the Indian territory would not have been deprived of them. The religious leaders have given spiritual indications of existence of graves of the prophets in Ajodhya (U.P.) and Sirhind (Punjab) and even in the vicinity of Kaliar Sharif (U.P.). The Holy Quran also indicates:

 (And to every people a guide) (13:7).

The former Head of History department, University of the Punjab, Professor Muhammad Aslam (Late) writes in his Safar Nama-e-Hind:

“The Indian sub-continent is a very large area, Allah, the Exalted would certainly not have left it unguided. Muhammad Yaqub Nanotvi the son of Maulana Mamluk Ali narrates that he saw lusters’ of prophet hood in the canal of Kaliar Sharif (U.P. Saharan Pur District). Seeing this luster he said that that canal passed near the grave of some prophet. The grave of Hazrat Sheet (A.S.) is said to be in Ajodhya. Maulana Manazer Ahsan Gilani interprets Ajodhya as jodi where the boat of Hazrat Noah was anchored. He took Manu, the jurist of India, as Noah (A.S.) and Mahatma Budha as Dh ual Kifl, mentioned in Holy Quran. Maulana Manazer was of the view that Kapil is the Kaffal of Arabic and Mahatma Budha was born in Kapil Wastu. Zulkaffal that means, with Kaffal, therefore, it is appellation of Mahatma Budha. In the same way the Maulana (late) apply ‘Watteen’ on bihar where Buddhism prospered”(Aslam, 1995: 331).

The province of Bihar (India) is due to Buddha’s temple (Buddhvihar). Pothohar (Rawalpindi Division) is established from the same vihar which had been the centre of Buddha rule.

Maulana Manazer Ahsan Gilani has taken Dhual Kifle to be Kapil Wastu, therefore, the word Hindu is derived from Sindhus and its scholastics evidence is that this word is used for non Muslim population during the one thousand year Muslim rule in the Indo-Pak sub-continent. Before it, the word Hindu was not in vogue. The present day research also infers:

“Experts and historians tell that in ancient Veda (Sanathan Aryah) religion word Hindu was not used. It is the bestowal of the Muslim rule that was used for the non-Muslims with reference to family laws. The religion that is called Hindu is very ancient which divides human beings in four castes in accordance with their birth. Then there is a society based on racial discrimination that is controlled by the people belonging to superior caste. The human beings out of their system are called inferior and outcaste”(Khabar-o-Nazar, 2001).

Simply speaking Hinduism is a society and atmosphere of embodiment of idol worship and racial diversion. It means:

1. The inner state of Hinduism is worship of exteriority or idol worship; and
2. Racial division.

Both these fundamental beliefs kept them practically away from human equality, liberal mindedness and brotherhood with other human beings bestowing them the claim and vainglory of being superior race having the most sacred homeland. In this connection due to utilizing a plentiful quantity of reason and intellect they have a special quality of gaining their objectives, more and more profit and safeguarding their interest. Nirad C. Chaudhry, being himself a Hindu has revealed the inner temperament of Hindus:

“The peoples of the South-East and Middle East found out very soon that the dominant human group beyond the Indus belonged to a closed society which was not only highly organized in itself but was also possessed of an intense and acute self-consciousness. The most important ideas of this vast society were blood relations and no one who was not been into it could enter it, at last without the legal fiction of birth and assimilation through the slow operation of over elastic caste system; that (they were not only chosen People rather The People; that) their way of life was divinely ordained and eternal; that it was superior to all others; that there was an unbridgeable gulf between them and the older inhabitants of the country as well as foreigners”(Choudhry: 35).

This is the vain glory of land and race and is the inner abnormality and superiority complex of Hindu psychology. A Hindu whether he is a particular or an ordinary, belongs to Congress or Communist Party; definitely he will boast of his racial superiority and the sacredness of his country. It is infact his nature. A revolutionary communist like M.N. Roy poured a torrent of invectives on the Muslim history of Indo-Pak sub-continent in such a tone that is not different than an ordinary Indian saying that such a big country proud of her ancient civilization and long history is conquered and becomes slave and bows before every plunderer whoever puts his foot here! It is very shameful. What interpretation we can give about this shameful aspect of Indian history of one thousand years (Roy, op.cit: 19).

This is the only self evident point of view of Hindu mentality and temperament that has up held narrow mindedness and prejudices in Hindu society, from day to day life to politics, sociology, business dealings and even in their behavior. This centuries old inflexible society has been successfully keeping pace along with speed and need of every era due to higher education and sagacious planning. But being deprived of metaphysics, preferring their own self to the rights of others and (moreover the delusion and belief of prophet’s stamp on) their wishes do not let them go beyond the world of interest and profit. Though time has proved that material is nothing, soul is the ultimate reality and even the ideology is not superior to the soul, but when the measure of ideology becomes the worship of idol of personal interest and following our own desires then all other human beings become aliens and distant. Evidently, then, the attitude and behavior is changed and this is the record of the treatment of Hindu civilization against other nations because theories are also a journey to rational intuition, when as soul subjugates others. It is the world of heart where ocean of love is billowy, which is the real freedom of man. Iqbal (R.A.) rightly speaks:

(Bal-e-Jibril)

(In the world of heart I have not seen the rule of the British; neither is there Sheikh (the so called Muslim Mullah) or Barahman (Hindu priest).

Intellectual and Geographical Differences between Hindus and Muslims; 

An eminent short story writer of Urdu, Qurrattul Ain Haider, after a deep observation, states the cultural differences of the Hindus and the Muslims. In present perspective it is more neatly put and lucid analysis and a self evident observation.

“Socially a Muslim is backward and he has a clear concept about religion that is purely personal and private but to a Hindu, religion is social system. There is a large number of deities. It is up to him to reject or accept it. Here is a particular type of narrow mindedness and again a particular type of Liberal mindedness. Then, their inteligentia learnt to be scientific above all. They are not sentimental about their religion and their mind is very expert in intrigues and conspiracies and calculations and additions and subtractions. Evidently, they are far more clever than the Muslims. A Muslim, a simpleton is lover of God and His Prophet (SAW), ever prepared to migrate on a minor issue, somebody sneezes in Turkey he rushes to (help) him; somebody is pricked by thorn in Afghanistan, he is perturbed, being Indian could not become Indian zed. But, it’s very melancholic that here is shrine of the beloved of God Hazrat Moeen-ud-din Ajmair and Hazrat Nizam-ud-din Aulliah in Delhi(Mehboob-e-Ilahi). Then here is Taj Mahal and he is proud that his Muslim rulers built it; but thus internationalism spoiled his future” (Haider, N.D: 442-43).

Hindus’ Hatred towards Muslims 

A very prominent orientalist lady N. Marry Shimal has found out that the British after occupation of continent established in their capital Calcutta, Madrissah Alia and Asiatic Society and in Fort William College (September, 1962) and the scholar like Sir William Jones and other people were absorbed in the treasurer of Oriental literature. They translated the literary master pieces of Persian and Sanskrat into English and introduced the people of West with great heritage of the East. The procedure of Jones had far reaching effects on history of Indian Muslims, while working on the history of Hindus. One of its antecedents was that the fall of Hindu could be attached to Muslim Victory. Thus the way was paved to show negative effects of the Muslims on Hindu civilization by the help of misunderstanding (Shimal, 2000: 198-99).

Discussions

In the end if we get guidance from the last message and final words of God, we can say that ‘Hindu Mentality’ along with its historic symbol of idol worship is a great hindrance in the way of the Prophets (A.S.). This hindrance was realized just after Noah (A.S.) during the movement of revelation and exalted history. This hereditary symbol of idol worship is whether Indian or Greek, Arabic or non- Arabic, in all circumstances it is historic and the purest form of paganism and certainly a battle between right and wrong; in other words an eternal competition between prophetic character and domination of material gains of business or a battle field of ‘Badr’ between apparent power and inner forces. An eternal fight of Domination of soul on matter is going on, in Iqbals’ words, the fight of: (Reason and mind verses heart and soul), the war of idolatry and Islam.

Now, what is Hinduism? What is its real and meaningful definition? What is its complete history?

To be very simple, Hinduism is nothing more than the history and movement of cunning mentality and its ever changing guises along with historic symbol of idolatry and materialism. It is the system of polytheism that is far away from Ultimate Reality. In the words of Iqbal:

 (Zar’b-e-Kalim)

(Gabriel told me early in the very first morning not to accept the heart that is slave of mind.)

It should be said clearly that Hinduism is, no doubt, a centuries old journey in the light of mental approach and reason whose behavior of life is rational as well as practical and polluted with wisdom and prudence. It means that it is original and racial politics in human history and even a chain of polytheism. It is a fact that politics has no heart in its breast when as in religion there is no wisdom. Selfishness and selflessness are two opposite forces of right and wrong, an inner war in the way of monotheism. To Iqbal (R.A.)

(Bal-e-Jibril)

(Both, the delights of Presence and curtains of argumentation are far asunder.)

The net result of centuries’ old social experiment of Hinduism and Hindu mentality is:

(Do in Rome as the Romans do.)

In simple language, the real identity of Hindu is merely historic and there is just the original and racial introduction of this dual and binary personality. In modern words, we may call it by a charming name of ‘Diplomacy’. The analysis of Indira Gandhi (late) is remarkable because it is not her impromptu speech but a well considered writing where in she confesses that Hinduism is actually not an ism. Its has neither a book, nor any set belief. Instead, it gives liberty to its followers that they are permitted to do that they consider beneficial for them. Due to its ancient and great mystic traditions it is a pragmatic attitude of life (Gandhi, 1978: 9).

This is the reality of Hinduism, its history and civilization are, infact, rational and practical struggle and enthusiasm to gain more and more profit. In its comparison a religion is useless and helpless, just as, the balance of power between Pakistan and India in geographical atmosphere of South Asia. But thank God, Pakistan is established after defeating rational planning’s, conspiracies, cunnings and Knaveries and by the grace of God it shall stand firm because it is not the product of reason and planning but by love. If the first line of a couplet of the creator of the concept of Pakistan, Hazrat Allama Iqbal is applied on India that:

(Bal-e-Jibril)

(The reason and mind are very cunning, which may adopt hundreds of different guises)

The second line is rightly equal to Pakistan that:

(Bal-e-Jibril)

(But the poor love is neither an honorable priest nor an ascetic nor a sage.)

It will help us to understand the historical mentality of Hindu because it was India who first tried to make the creation of Pakistan impossible, then tried to destroy her stability and then rent her into two by establishing Bangladesh. It is a mentality that is called Hindu mentality (Hindu mat meaning sense). Same is the foundation of Indian Foreign Policy according to which in the most soft words, we have to admit the historic temperament of India as imperialist protagonist of love for territorial aggrandizement. It is not prejudice but history, not a blame but research.

Even the objective of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru also confirms it, which also reflects Hindu mentality. He says that India is just as Nature has created her. She cannot play a secondary role in world’s affairs; she will either be admitted as a supper power or not. He has no charm for her middle status; neither he thinks a middle status possible for her (Nehru, 1946: 50).

But this intention and determination was far before division of India. He remained a life long prime minister of India (about seventeen years). During this period not only the foreign ministry but even complete state power and machinery was on his back. During this long period he had been playing a pivotal role due to high thinking and supreme post. Owing to this intention and determination as well as the indication of some western countries and international and regional interests, he firstly thought of the leadership of Asia and tried to contest and contrast himself with Mao Zedong, Hu Chi ming and Ahmad Soekarno like great leaders of Asia.

But being unsuccessful, secondly, on Russian suggestion became a leader of the Non-Align movement. There was, so to say, a storm of the intentions of the leadership of Pundit Jawahar Lal Nehru from the wharf of Illahbad to Balghard; but in between there were river of Arab nationalism of Colonel Jamal Nasir and Matial Tito of Yogoslavia. This is the pathway where Indian Foreign Policy is still treading. This behavior is based on their national requirements and prudence or to say

(Kulliyat-e-Shorash Kashmiri)

(Dollar also participates in the drubbing of Rouble.)

This is the real identity of Hinduism and this very same attitude is called Hinduism that always demands what will you bring us on arrival and what will you grant on your departure? Therefore, it is a known fact that Hinduism is not a religion; it is a society in which if some individual is active to work for welfare of humanity it is a by chance or a stroke of good luck, otherwise, there is no concept of help or redress of grievances of the weak and oppressed. To prosper, exploiting others on the basis of cunning and deceit in one’s own field is considered success. Without thinking that the subject of oppression may become half-dead by being in bad circumstances and penniless. The interesting point is that the oppressed is also a member of the same society. When this individual behavior becomes a collective fascism, it charges a penalty of blood in both circumstances of friendship or enmity by tyranny, violence and greed from neighboring countries and the other nations of the world.

Pakistan movement and whole of its story is just sixty years old. In this combat, the deception of Gandhi ji, ratiocination of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru and clarification of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, all hid their heads in shame and Pakistan, by the grace of God came into being. Love dominated reason and the practical exegesis of Pakistan means: (There is no God but Allah) has been come to hand. If an interpreter of religion (Din) and piety (Faqr) like Hazrat Allama Iqbal (R.A.) presents the theory of a country as well as gives its founder then the seduction and rationally and disgrace of logic will be called as the ‘Will of God’. Even the enemy of Pakistan and former Minister for Education Hazrat Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had to, at last, admit:

“Pakistan came into being; it was the will of God” (Abdullah Shimalvi, 1976: 6).

In other words:

(Bang-e-Dra)

(Look at failure of contrivance before fate.)

It would have been the same way for it is also the saying of Iqbal (R.A.) that in the war between logic and religion (Din):

(Bal-e-Jibril)

(Rumi (R.A.) has won and Razi (R.A.) has lost.)

If we try to explore its reasons we will come to know that Hindus along with their traditional attitude have been exposed. It is recorded in history that a researcher and a sage like Dr. Nazir Ahmed write in Diba’chah (preface) of Kalam-e-Bullhay Shah:

“In nineteenth century, as the sense of importance of their majority grew in Hindu mind, they began to think that they were the successors of the British leadership in India; therefore, their tone with Muslims became rude”.

Herdial said: “The Muslim should become Hindus or search a place for themselves in Arabic Ocean”
(Davat; 3).

Bhai Permanand said: “The Muslims are a separate nation; we cannot live with them” (Davat: 3).

But right is the power; power is not right. Before the grace of God, the abundance and power of materialism felt ashamed. Same is the situation about the history of Pakistan movement and its relations with India. On one side there was absolute helplessness and lack of means, while on other side abundance and excessiveness.

It is a historical fact that in contrast of democratic show of Hindu majority, in this journey of scarcity and Muslim minority to Muslim nation, the only provisions are (unshakeable) faith and continuous struggle which is in itself Pakistan movement and command of Quaid. It is its geography as well as its ideology in the word of the creator of the concept of Pakistan it is the conquest and domination of brotherhood. It is also local, national, international and diplomatic history of Pakistan and her real power, for, the appearance of Pakistan is, infact, victory of Din and love and trickeries to make it unsuccessful are custom and tradition of cunning mentality. On occasion of Badr Quran says:

“How many a little company hath overcome a mighty host by Allah’s leave.” (2: 249)

Therefore the religious minority is responsible for their moral standards:

(Maulana Zafar Ali Khan: Baharastan)

(Create the atmosphere of Badr; you will see angels descending from heaven in queues to help you.)

But when Hindu majority gets authority, it tries to obliterate history and teach a new history. This attitude is called Hinduism or Hindtva. Then it became their religious obligation to demolish Babury Mosque on December 6, 1992, constructed by Mir Baqi, the governor of Babur, in 1528, to get the majority votes of Hindus on the name of Ram. Suppose that hundreds of years ago Babur and his governor demolished the tample of Ram Janam Bhomi to construct a mosque there, but then at the end of twentieth century, the government of Bhartia Janata Party of Secular Democratic India intoxicated with (traditional) Hindu mentality came out to erase history, though reality with its transparent face of past is now telling the insane religious minded people that the issue is not related to religion; because the follower of religion is a lover (of humanity) who practically proves:

(Kuliyat-e-Jigar Muradabadi)

(My message is love as far as it reaches.)

On the other hand there is a new discovery of the experts of Archaeology department that was revealed in a press conference in New Delhi, the capital of India:

“In an important event the leading historians; Irfan Habib, Suraj Bhan, Syed Ali Nadeem Rizvi and experts of archaeology Parya Verma, K.R.Manon and Professor Perbharat Pata Naik, under the banner of Hamiat declared here in a press conference that in Ajodhya so far no remnants of any structure of temple are found out while digging the ditches. Only in some ditches there are a few remnants of the structure like brick-wall, floor of the mosque and plaster of mud that belongs to a mosque and are not remnants of a temple. The plaintiff of the case of Ajodhya has also said that the report of Archaeology department has proved report as wrong and digging for three months has clarified that there had been nothing on the place of Baburi Mosque like Ram Mandar (temple)” (Davat: 3).

This is the self evident difference and realization of a religion and its followers that they should consider the believers of other religions to be their equals. To consider others to be inferior, to hold a march-past of power and authority after treading human hearts under feet is not a virtue of a religion. It is its fall and this disease is the outcome of the history, culture and civilization of Hinduism. When the despotism of a majority becomes torment for a religious minority and labeling it secular and democratic traditions and rise a dusty cloud of reason and logic in the passage of time, one gets the power and authority to rule but human passions and feelings are trampled and when hearts are crushed they can never be compensated. As Mian Muhammad Bukhsh, a famous sufi poet of Punjab has rightly said:

(Saif-u’l-Maluk)

(Demolish a mosque or a temple or whatever you like; but never demolish (crush) a human heart because God lives in hearts.)

There is no heart in the breast of politics, neither in treasurer-trove of the history and civilization of Hinduism. To consider rational intuition to be Divine Wisdom is also an indication and guidance of mind. Whether Ram was born in Ajodhya or not is a basic question related to Hindu History and Mythology. It is still a question mark. But it is very sad that Bhartia Ajunta Party has got the rule of New Delhi with the process of making history their belief and getting votes of Hindu population by crucifying belief and devotion by demolishing Baburi mosque. It is the master piece of the politics of BJP and a truth proved by history. The promise of BJP to construct Ram Mandar in Ajodhya has caused BJP to lead central government of India and than Ex-Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krish Advani, Dr. Murali Munoher Joshi and Minister of state Miss Oma Bharti were also involved in demolishing Baburi mosque. The attitude and behavior of BJP regarding construction of Ram Mandar in place of Baburi Mosque reflects the History and civilization of Hinduism.

The hearings of this occurance of martyrdom (demolition) of Babury Mosque and ownership of its land are going on in Illah Abad High Court Bench of Lucknow, the Lower Court of Roy Braily and the Supreme Court. During these hearings the final report of Archeology department was submitted on the order of the court where in it was claimed that traces of the demolished Ram Mandar were found while digging when as in first two provisional reports the claim was refuted but in final report consisting of 57 pages the possibility of complexity of digging was also shown. Wishwa Hindu Praishad, the preacher of Hindu interests is happy on this situation when as all Muslim organizations including the plaintiff of the ownership of this land Hashim Ansari claimed that nothing had been found during digging that could proved that there had been the remnants of temple. On the other hand Abdur Rahim Qureshi, the secretary of the Muslim Personal Law Board stated that the graves and human bones found there during digging had been neglected. To know about their dates they had not been caused to carbon dating. These evidences prove that the Muslims population lived there. This is the position of two major parties of Muslims and Hindus in this case:

“So far the report of Archaeology department is concerned; they also have disclosed that the report is contradictory, biased and baseless. Sita Ram Ray, the former director of Archaeology department, Bihar who was called by the High court of Illha Abad along with experts like Suraj Bhan, De Mandal, Sareen Ratnakar, to watch the work of digging in June. They spent fifteen days at the spot and reported that there was no evidence that the mosque had been constructed after demolishing the temple. Instead many thing were found which belonged to 13th century indicating that there had been the Muslim population. The report is partial and not factual. A reputed historian Irfan Habib also stated that there had been no temple and columns of the temple, under discussion were infact, already there before the construction of Babari Mosque which were filled. Suraj Bhan also confirms the view” (Ibid).

Therefore, the real issue is not about Mosque or temple but about the ownership of that land. BJP’s stand is that there are only two solutions of the issues of ownership of Babari mosque. First, to accept the decision of the court and secondly, the Hindus and Muslim should draw an agreeable decision. In this regard Shankar Achariya of Koma Koti is assigned a duty on than that Prime Minister Vajpayee’s consent. He met and talked the Muslim Personal Law Board and wrote a letter to clearly tell Muslims that if they renounced the ownership of the land of Babari Mosque for Hindus, the Hindus would, in the spirit of well- wishing not raise the issue of two other mosques of Mithra and Banaras for which the Hindus claimed that those mosques were also build after demolishing their temples. On the other hand the Hindu extremist organizations built their pressure on BJP to legislate to acquire the land of the mosque; but Mr. L.K. Advani, himself involved in this case, stated that they could not loose their government by legislating in this connection. Now as a third and final try to dig under supervision of Archaeology department is whether an action in favor of their stand or due to some political pressure; it is premature to give an opinion. But it is definite that Hindu mind adapted the principle of ‘Trinity’ in their issues and problems and this is the result and achievement of their utmost rational planning, which is also the basic principle of Hindu History and civilization. This principal is “Prudence by slow degrees and then change”. The Hindu civilization has been walking beside the speed of history and need of the day.

References 

Abid, Abdul Karim. (1996). Safar Adhi Sadi Ka, (Aap Biti by jug Biti), Jisarat News and Media, Karachi.
Ahmed, Dr. Nazir. (1976). Ta’aruf Kalam Bullay Shah, Pakages Limited.
Ain, Quratul. (N.D.). Aag Ka Dariya, Maktaba Urdu adab, Lahore.
Alberuni, Abu Rehan. (N.D.). Ma’al hind (urdu Translation Syed Asghar Ali), Anjuman Tarraqi-e-Urdu.
Aslam, Prof. Muahmmad.(1995). Safarnama-e-Hind, Riaz Brothers, Lahore.
Chaudhari, Nirad C. (1965). The Continent of Circe, Chatto & Windus, London.
Da’vat, September 1, 2003.
Fareed, Khawaja Ghulam. (N.D.). Magalbees ul Majalis, Al Faisal Publishers, Lahore.
Heagul, Walsh W.H.(1951). Philosophy of History, New york, Haper Row.
Keller, S.V. (N.D.). Essay on Hinduism.
Maududi, Maulana syed Abul Ala. (1992). Debacha Mehsan-e-Insaniat (SAW), Al Faisal Publishers, Lahore.
Modak, Cyril. (1949). India’s Destiny, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. (1946). The discovery of India, The Singnet Press, Calcutta.
Roy. M.N. (N.D.) Inqilab Ki Tarikh, Lahore.
Schimmal, Dr. Annemarie. (1978). Indira Gandhi, Internal India, B.I. Publications, Bombay.
Sehroza Da’vat, “Khabar-o-Nazar”, New Delhi, March, 2001.
Sehroza Da’vat, New Delhi, 22 june 2003.
Sehroza Da’vat, New Delhi, june 22, 2003.
Shimlavi, Abdullah. Daily Nawa-e-Waqt, Lahore, November 30, 1976.
Singh, Gorbhajan. (1996). Mahnama Chardi Kala (Gormukhi), Canada.

Muhammad Jahangir Tamimi
University of the Punjab, Lahore

Biographical Note

Dr. Muhammad Jahangir Tamimi is working as Professor in the Centre for South Asian Studies, University of the Punjab, Lahore.

KEY WORDS: Hinduism, Aruah Samaj, History, tradition, Society, relation, Caste system, Idol worship.