Personal
What caused you to
become so interested and so knowledgeable about Hinduism?
It's about the last thing one would expect from a Belgian Catholic who has
missionaries in his family.
K. Elst: I became
interested in the whole issue of Hindu-Muslim relations after the
Ayodhya incident; I came across an excellent work by Mr. Sita Ram Goel, and
it aroused my intellectual curiosity to the extent that I have made a fairly
thorough study of why it happened and what it means for the future. I found
it extraordinary that Hindus do not recognize their underdog status. Like
most people, I sympathize with the underdog, so I felt compelled to help
open the eyes of Hindus to their own predicament.
As for my own personal
background, I suppose I suffer from the general
discontent that many westerners feel with the church; I would not consider
myself a Catholic.
Are you a practising Hindu, or just an observer?
K. Elst: Not a practising
Hindu, although I have experimented with yoga and
meditation like many of my generation in Europe. I am more interested in the
social and cultural issues.
What is the basis of your appeal to the Hindutva forces? You are here on the
invitation of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, right?
K. Elst: No, I am here on
the invitation of the Friends of India Society. Part of my
appeal to the Sangh Parivar and others, I am sure, comes from the fact that
I am a foreigner who supports some of their perspectives. Perhaps they feel
that as a non-Indian, and a European, I can bring a certain objectivity.
Perhaps there is some residual colonial feeling as well.
You have a
background in Chinese and Indo-Iranian studies. What types of
parallels do you see among these three cultures?
K. Elst: I am not sure I
see much by way of parallels. Some compare India's
right-wing Hindus with Iran's Islamic revolutionaries; I personally think
the analogy is far-fetched.
K. Elst: Hindutva may be
defined as the nationalistic movement that insists that the
geography of India is connected to Hinduism and Hindu culture in a
fundamental way, and that every resident of India is a Hindu, regardless of
what their actual religious practices may be. In my opinion, this concept
of, for example, "Mohammadi Hindu", has some intellectual problems: it is
not the case that only foreigners were anti-Hindu. It is true that Babar, an
Afghan, was keen on massacring Hindus; but then so was Malik Kafur, a
converted Indian Hindu. There is a clash, I think, between a secular,
geographical definition and a religious definition.
It has become fashionable
to equate anything you want to demonize with
Nazism or fascism. In a strictly technical way, Hindutva could not be either
fascism or Nazism, because they were completely identified with Mussolini
and Hitler. Indeed, during World War II, Savarkar called on Hindus to fight
against the evils of fascism and Nazism. In a broader sense too, two pillars
of fascism are the absolute power of the state and lack of respect for
democracy. Neither is true for the Hindutva forces. They certainly are
neither totalitarian nor autocratic. There is some historic reason for this
fundamental acceptance of democracy--going back to the village panchayat
system--a deep-rooted acceptance of popular participation in government.
Hindutva is
perceived by many as an exclusionary force: something dominated
by caste Hindu North Indians. For example, the equation of Hindi, Hindu,
Hindustan is not likely to make a lot of Indians comfortable. Yet they
persist in making this sort of claim. Why?
K. Elst: Perhaps there is
some truth to this, but on the other hand, the most
celebrated or perhaps I should say vilifed Hindutva-vaadis are the Shiv
Sena. They are certainly not northern, nor necessarily high caste. Their
attitude is typical of Hindutva forces--"Maharashtra for Maharashtrians"--a
secular identification with geography overlaid with a Hindu veneer. It is
true that the BJP is dominated by north Indian upper caste leaders, but then
so is the Congress, and even the Communists. This is a historical accident
arising out of the social situation of the last few decades. I believe there
is a genuine attempt now on the part of the BJP to reach out to broader
sections of the population.
Hindutva is
portrayed as a response to Islamic fundamentalism. However, it
has in itself what might be called Islamic elements--for example, dogma. Is
Hindutva "a disguised Islam"? Remember that Sankara was called a
prachhanna-Bauddha--a "crypto-Buddhist"--by his critics.
K. Elst: Interesting
question. There have been allegations, for example by Romila
Thapar, that there is a deliberate cultus of Rama in the North, and that
there is an attempt to elevate the Ramayana to the status of "The Book", the
one and only; and that no deviation will be tolerated. I disagree with this
analysis. It is too naive. While it is an inevitable process that you learn
from what I might loosely call "the opposition", there is no real attempt to
create a new, semiticized, institutionalized Hinduism with congregations and
so forth. Or to change the fundamental, eclectic nature of Hinduism.
Negationism
What is your
definition of negationism in India? Why do you believe this has
become so popular? Do you believe this has to do with a colonial mentality?
K. Elst: The idea of
negationism is that there were no atrocities perpetrated on
Hindus by others, especially Muslims. This is ludicrous. We don't know
exactly what the numbers were--but surely millions of Hindus were severely
hurt by invading Muslims. Killed, forcibly converted, enslaved. Attempted
genocide, perhaps. It is quite legitimate to compare this to the Jewish
Holocaust. Perhaps it was not as intense because it was stretched out over a
long period, but clearly the impact of Islam on India was extraordinary, and
extraordinarily negative. It is absurd to deny this.
I am not sure I would
ascribe the widely-held negationism solely to colonial
hangovers. I think it is partly the result of a secular education and
upbringing,
and perhaps a naive hope that by ignoring the unpleasantness of
the past, we could wish them away.
K. Elst: There is a large
group of people in India, perhaps even a majority, who
profess either secular or agnostic or atheistic lifestyles. They certainly
do not identify themselves as Hindus, although they are Hindu origin. What
is the reason for this indifference? Is it in fact a strength, that has
allowed Hinduism to fend off the more aggressive semitic religions?
It is actually a rather hypocritical stance that many of these
self-proclaimed secularists have. In general, they claim they are not Hindu
because they disavow the attitudes of the Hindutva-vaadis. But then, they
also claim that they are Hindus and should therefore be consulted in how
Hinduism is to be reformed. It's hard to see how they can justify having the
cake and eating it too.
As to why there is a large
number of such secular Hindus, as I mentioned
before, there is a global disenchantment with organized religion;
furthermore, Hindu intellectuals have been forced to defend themselves under
the rules of the secularists' game, and therefore have largely been
ineffective in putting forth their views strongly. Thus it becomes the norm
for the young to adopt a secular perspective.
Hinduism, Buddhism
In response to the
allegations about Islamic atrocities in medieval India, a
number of secularists have raised the issue of the "bloody sword of
Hinduism". In particular, they allege that Hindus were equally brutal in
suppressing Buddhism. For example, in my home state of Kerala there is
circumstantial evidence that a fairly egalitarian Buddhist culture was
replaced with a brutally casteist Hindu culture after the time of Sankara.
What is you view on this?
K. Elst: I think this is
an absurd suggestion. On the one hand, even if Hinduism were
indeed bloody, that does not by any means justify the well-documented
bloodiness of Islamic aggression. And, even more importantly, it is
absolutely clear that it was Islam that decimated Buddhism in India, just as
it had in Afghanistan and Central Asia. By destroying the monasteries and
massacring the monks, Muslims eradicated Buddhism. If you analyse the
historical records carefully, you will see that it has almost never been the
case that Hindus plunder places of worship, others' or their own. A Kashmiri
historian wrote, for example, that a Hindu ruler sacked a number of Hindu
temples. On closer scrutiny, it turned out the king had been instigated by
the Muslim Turkish mercenaries under him into this sort of vandalism. Of
course, that is entirely normal in Islam. I am not familiar with the exact
situation in Kerala.
Buddhism seems
altogether a more benign form of Hinduism, in effect, a
"kinder, gentler" Hinduism, with the same philosophical breadth, but a more
benign and egalitarian bent. Why shouldn't we revive Buddhism in the land of
its birth? We could get rid of caste altogether.
K. Elst: That is an
interesting suggestion. However, Buddhism suffers, one might say,
from its negation of the spiritual side of things, and its abstract
a-theism. It is, as you say, an incredibly attractive philosophical
tradition; however, it has been content to overlay itself on an existing
social structure, as it did in Japan or China or Thailand. Whereas it is
possible to change the system under Hinduism.
Caste
Speaking of changing the system, there is the raging debate in India about
the justification for caste-based reservations. What is your view on this?
K. Elst: I believe that
there is and continues to be a lack of a level playing field
in India--the lowest of the low, the Harijans and the Scheduled Tribes, are
severely disadvantaged. I don't think anybody is opposed to giving them
preferential treament. It is in the case of the middle castes that there is
controversy. Interestingly, the middle castes were themselves often the
worst perpetrators of casteism against the lowest castes. Of course, most
people, even those who are theoretically for reservations, only take this
seriously if it affects their own prospects negatively.
Islam and Christianity
The Hindutva
movement seems to concentrate on castigating Islam. In many
ways, however, isn't Christianity more of a threat to Hinduism? In the
recent past, Christians have made much headway in converting large numbers
of Hindus. They are well-funded, have excellent marketing skills, and are
implacable--withness Pat Robertson in the US.
K. Elst: Islam is more
visible, more visceral, more crude, perhaps. Christianity is
much more subtle and better-packaged; but it is a major threat to Hinduism
nevertheless. Hindu intellectuals, as I said, have utterly failed to respond
to missionary misinformation. They have been on the defensive and have not
been able to challenge the rules of the game. The missionaries, on the other
hand, have several centuries of thought put into converting "the heathen",
and are able to articulate themselves well. Hindus need to go on the
offensive, intellectually, morally and spiritually.
K. Elst: Christianity is a
tremendous threat, and few have woken up to that fact.
India has become perhaps the biggest focal point for Christians--you may be
surprised to know that the largest number of Jesuit brothers entering the
fold are from India now. There are several reasons for this Christian
interest in India and Hindus. First, it is about the only major country
where they can freely practise their evangelism. It is clearly out of the
question in the Islamic countries around India, and of course, has been so
in the Communist nations. The missionaries wish to use India as their
foothold and home base to expand elsewhere in Asia. Second, the relatively
spiritual Hindu tradition makes it easy for a person to justify celibacy,
and becoming a monk, thus supplying the next generation of evangelist feet
on the street for the missionaries.
K. Elst: The depredations
of Christians against Native Americans was finally
recognized a few years ago by the Pope himself. He apologized to them in
1992, the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the Americas. Now we have
another anniversary coming up: 1998, commemmorating the voyage of Vasco da
Gama to India, and the arrival of the Portuguese--not a very pleasant story,
I am afraid. I am not holding my breath for a papal apology.
You wrote a paper on
the myth of St. Thomas in India. What exactly did you
have in mind?
K. Elst: The story that
St. Thomas was murdered by Brahmins in India is accepted
widely without question. However, the original story in Aramaic (?) is
merely that Thomas went to the Indies--which meant anything from Afghanistan
to Japan in those days; furthermore, the actual words about his death are
that he was killed with a spear. The missionaries took the word, and chose
to state that he had been killed by a Brahmin. And that has become a fait
accompli: this justified in the minds of the Portuguese Catholics the fact
that they found an established Syrian Christian community in India.
The use of a myth like this for political purposes in widespread in
Christianity. For instance, the location of the spot where Christ was
supposedly crucified was not known in the early years of the Common Era.
Then the Emperor Jusitinian's mother had a dream in which she saw the site
of the crucifixion. Interestingly, this was on the site of a temple of
Athena, which was of course torn down.
Aryan Invasion Theory
The possibility of
an Aryan invasion into India seems to get a number of
people very excited. Why should we care so much if indeed there was no such
invasion, and the culture is indigenous?
K. Elst: Well, one of the
things I find causes a great deal of tension in India is
the idea of the original inhabitant: Dravidians vs. Aryans, harijan vs.
upper caste, tribal vs. non-tribal. Everyone is trying to claim they were
the first inhabitants of the land and thereby somehow more deserving. I have
the theory that around 4-5000 BCE, Proto-Indo-European speakers from the
northwest of India spread out, intermingled with the local tribes, and
created almost all the languages and cultures of Europe. The so-called
Dravidians probably were immigrants circa 2000 BCE from some part of Iran
via Baluchistan. We will see how the research turns out.
What is your message to US Hindus?
K. Elst: That you should
forget your fractured animosities back in India, and try to
recognize each others' best qualities; and try to present to your
fellow-Americans the good that your religion has. Hinduism has global
relevance, and it should not be confined to a geography-centric vision--we
can all learn from it.