Review - 'A New Idea of India' by Harsh Gupta & Rajeev Mantri

Article “A New Idea of India” by Harsh Gupta and Rajeev Mantri is quite thought provoking. Article has many nuances. I have tried to look at some of the nuance argued in the article.

1)      Role of Scepticism

Authors have started their essay with reference to “The Nasadiya Sukta (the Hymn of Creation) in the Rig Veda (10:129)” and argued that “The foundational texts of Dharma, forgedsome three and a half millennia ago, are filled with such scepticism that would gladden the heart of philosophers and physicists to this date” my question at this point is whether what it looks like scepticism of Rigveda, is it really a scepticism?

Kenopanishad in chapter 2 Shlok  1 to 3 raises the similar question raised in Rigveda but in my opinion it gives “scepticism”(as argued) different dimension.

“Do you think you have understood brahm, if you think you have understood brahm(god), that means brahm is different than you. It also means that you have become knower, It is possible only if brahm is different than gyan(knowledge) and knower is different than brahm. But it’s not possible that gyan is different than brham” Shlok 1

“I do not say that I know brahma very well, but at the same time I also don’t believe that I do not know him. My knowing or not knowing him is a characteristic. Hence if anyone who understand I do not know Brahma and I know Brahma, understands Brahma”   Shlok 2 & 3

Since Brahm gyan is subject of intellect, one should assess whether knowledge of brahm can be achieved by intellect only? While Western philosophy might argue that knowledge is highest good or reason highest good,   Gita mentions in chapter 3 shlok 42 “The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence.” Meaning there is limit to one’s intellect and logical reasoning.

Whether “The Nasadiya Sukta (the Hymn of Creation)” actually raises question about creator god or not, I don’t know, maybe it is. Point I am trying to highlight here is that authors have given reference to hymns of creation to base their further argument on how “Scepticism is an indispensable foundation for what is today called science” which in my humble opinion, is not accurate premise. I think most important foundation of science is ‘curiosity’.

I would like to reiterate here that above arguments are not to refute original argument of authors; this is additional perspective which I think was missing.

2) “Social diversity too is the product of scepticism….This diversity is apparent and much celebrated in the land that is India, where the same festivals and rituals are celebrated in different ways by different communities and regions. Had the Hindu tradition been a dogmatic one, there would have been uniformity, not heterogeneity, in socio-cultural life. That is why the opposition from some factions of the Hindu right to multiple interpretations of, say, the Ramayana, is very unfortunate.”

In my opinion, our diversity is not account of scepticism, but it’s because of deep routed philosophy in our society.  For example its very easy for Hindus to accept Reverence for all as matter of principle than other society. For most Hindus its perfectly normal to worship different deity and accept that person worshiping other deities can also attain BrahmGyan.

I don’t have any issues with people interpreting different Ramayana, problem is their ulterior motives. Since these misrepresentations/misinterpretations of our texts are scholarly activity or disguised as scholarly activity, these needs to be defeated in the same fashion. Violent reaction is no justification. Point I would like to highlight here is that there should not be any objection to new interpretation of our ancient texts. Whether new interpretation is with deductive logic or it’s interpreted with malicious intentions is to be objectively assessed.

3) In relation to reference of Nehru’s speech of 1961, I think we always had reference of one nation (Rashtra) in our ancient text. We can find reference “समुन्द्रपर्यन्तयाः पृथ्वी एकराट्” Authors have rightly pointed out confusion among seculars about difference between nation and state. Even though Nehru had no intention of modelling Modern India based on our vedik definition of rashtra, this reference of ancient definition of rashtra, which we know as Bharat, is might be Freudian slip.  

Authors went on to say “There is a section of the Hindu right that is straying from the tradition that espouses scepticism and openness under the garb of protecting Nehru’s “land of Bharat” from foreigners.”

I don’t think Hindu right is going to have objection on ‘Rashtra’ Nehru has mentioned in his speech nor they are particularly in love with Nehru’s definition of Rashtra.  This is not to say that violent means should be used which are against law of land.

Reference to Radha & Krishna relationship in order to show openness in the Hindu society isn’t quite appropriate. Particularly with fact that Radha as character doesn’t find mention in Harivansh Puran, Mahabharata or Bhagwat Puran[i]. Radha find mentions in Brahmvaivatra Puran. Even though authors wanted to highlight tolerance and openness as virtue in our ancient past, Krishna & Radha relationship is somewhat inappropriate.

4) “At the philosophical level, the big question is what is it that the Indian Right is aiming for? Is there a Hindu version of Utopia or Ram Rajya besides rhetorical abstractions? If not, what is the point of communal cold wars in the face of worsening demographics?”

Ram rajya has been much abused word contrary to what actually is. I understand that Authors wanted to point out rhetorical surrounding Ram Rajya based on recent past memory. However I would appreciate if we could have remembered that this is same Ramrajya where a common washer man can question King. If this is not indication of open and free society what it is then?   

5) “The Hindu right should be pushing for free speech and free conversions, but is instead acting only defensively”

I agree with authors that we should be pushing for free speech and free conversion. Traditionally Hindus have taken moral high ground saying that we don’t convert, however I think Hindu society should do away with such positions and should engage in rightful conversions or re-conversion in to Hindu society. We have to recognise this fact that many of the subjects who convert to other faith relate very little with Hinduism. Till the time we don’t go to all section of our society with message of our ancient text, Salesmen and crusaders of other religion are bound to approach such segments of our society.

---

[i] http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=rrh4tY3v2A4C&pg=PA593&lpg=PA593&dq=radha+in+harivansh+puran&source=bl&ots=4zIkrW-VD7&sig=0gLmzwG4a8dLVRuEpRGqYRn7tME&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ncQfVKijLpCxuASCl4L4Ag&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=radha%20in%20harivansh%20puran&f=false