CHAPTER VII RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY

1. A CONTRAST

In the course of a conversation with His Holiness one evening, a gentleman who was an officer of the Government happened to remark :

Officer : I see a large number of people nowadays complaining that we have fallen on bad days and that it is not possible to observe Dharma properly. But personally I think that the modern times under the British rule are really conducive to the performance of Dharma. If we do not perform it, it is our own fault. We have absolutely no reason to throw the blame on the Government which is neutral on religious matters.

H. H.: What do you mean by the term neutral ?

O.: The British Government is neutral in the sense that it does not in any way interfere with our religious faiths or practices. This is in striking contrast with the previous Muslim rule, when there was severe religious persecution and people had to run away from their homes if they wanted to save their faith.

H. H.: Evidently you have taken your facts from the books taught to you in modern schools. Though there may be some basis for them, they are mostly written with a political bias and with a view to create in the mind of the reader an exaggerated opinion of the advantages that obtain under the British rule. The authors have made the contrast more striking with a view to condemn the previous governments. However, apart from the question of correctness of the facts stated by you and assuming them to be true, what follows from them ?

O.: If the facts are true, certainly the present Government with its attitude of religious neutrality and toleration is preferable to the previous governments by Muslim rulers.

H. H.: That conclusion does not follow at all for more reasons than one. When the Muslims invaded this country, they set up a rule of their own, it is true ; but they came here to settle down, not simply to get what they could and return back to their native country. They made this country their home and very soon forgot that they had any other homeland. When they settled here their interests came to be identical with those of the sons of the soil. The prosperity and safety of the rulers depended upon the prosperity and safety of the people. They therefore laid roads, built bridges and undertook extensive works of irrigation for the benefit of the people. They tried their best to establish a peaceful and contented rule, for they knew that their security rested on the peace and contentment of the people.

O.: It must have been so.

H. H.: When they taxed the people and collected revenue for public purposes or for their own enrichment, they took care to see that they did not alienate the feelings of the people. Further, as they did not take away the money collected by them to any place outside this country and as money has no use unless it is spent, it had necessarily to be spent in this country itself and came back to the people themselves in the form of wages and profits. There was thus no drain from the country.

O.: I see there could not have been.

H. H.: Now consider the present state of things. The present rulers have never had any idea of making this country their home. Even if they had such an idea they could never carry it out in practice in the midst of the teeming millions that inhabit here. They have therefore always looked upon it purely as a fruitful source of income for enriching the coffers of their native country. If they provide good roads and railways and other facilities to the people, they never lose sight of their own interests and use these means for exporting valuable raw materials from here. Their aim has always been to enrich their own people at the cost of this country.

O.: No doubt so. It is not altruism that brought the English to India.

H. H.: This is so far as the secular interests of the people are concerned. Now turn to their spiritual interests. The Muslim rulers had staunch faith in their own religion. They firmly believed in God. They believed also that God was common to all the people of the world, irrespective of race or country. They argued with perfect faith and earnestness in this manner : ‘It is the bounden duty of all to seek God, their maker. Our prophet in whom we have implicit faith has taught us the way to seek God. It has pleased God to entrust to our care the destinies of the people of India. He must have had some divine purpose in doing so. Evidently that purpose is that they also must be taught by us the proper way to seek Him. A king is responsible not only for the secular interests of his subjects but also for their spiritual welfare. He will be failing in his duty if he confines his attention only to the former and neglects the latter altogether. We shall therefore carry out our sacred trust by trying to convert these people to our true faith by persuasion if possible and even by compulsion, if necessary.’ With such ideas the Muslim rulers embarked upon the work of converting the people to Islam. What was wrong in this attitude of theirs ?

O.: Certainly none, if viewed in this light.

H. H.: Now; what does the present Government do ? It says ‘I am concerned only with the revenue. Even in secular matters, my interests will be preferred to the people’s. In the field of religion I am neutral. That is, I do not care a bit how the people fare. It does not matter the least to me if they go to Heaven or to Hell so long as the taxes are properly paid. If they are not paid, I have enough strength to realise that payment. That is my only concern’. Is that not so ?

O.: Bluntly speaking, it is so. The British Government, however, does not confess to religious indifference, but really takes credit for religious toleration

H. H.: Such a toleration is not much different from indifference. Call it toleration or indifference ; in either case, it is really an attitude of perfect callousness in the matter of religion. Can such an attitude be sincerely maintained by any one who has the slightest faith in God and in the need to attain Him ?

2. TOLERATION MISCONCEIVED

O.: Does Your Holiness mean that the rulers must enforce their own faith upon the people ?

H. H.: Certainly not. I only desired to point out that there was nothing objectionable or illogical in the attitude of the Muslim rulers, even if they resorted to forcible conversion. Their attitude was really dictated by a deep faith in God and in their prophet and, compared with the present regime, was in fact very praiseworthy. Today God is altogether ignored.

O.: Even assuming that the attitude of Muslim rulers was well-intentioned, it must have caused great hardship to our ancestors.

H. H.: Certainly. But it was also useful in two ways. Those Hindus whose faith in their religion was somewhat lukewarm were easily converted by the promise of worldly benefits, or by threat of worldly punishment, to a faith which was comparatively free from restrictions. They embraced Islam and remained no more a part of the Hindu society.

O.: How was this a benefit ? It was really a loss to the Hindu society.

H. H.: Certainly not. The weak and unhealthy elements in our society were taken out of it bodily with the result that the rest of the society remained strong and healthy. It is no doubt a painful experience and a physical loss to have an abscess operated upon and the poisonous matter taken out. It must, similarly, have caused our ancestors great pain to see anybody being taken out of the Hindu fold thereby reducing their number. But such an operation is necessary, and in the ultimate result, very beneficial, if we want to secure strength and health for the rest of the body. The strength and health of a society, as much as of a body, do not depend upon its size or the number of its component parts, but upon its vitality and its freedom from weakness or disease. Those whose adherence to our faith was only a lip-service and who had not the stamina to resist other influences were well out of our fold. To lose them was no loss at all. Now look at the present state of society where there is religious toleration, as you call it. A man may be at heart a Muslim or a Christian ; he may dress like either of them and adopt their manners and be as un-Hindu as possible. Yet he is a Hindu, and you have no right to call him a non-Hindu, except at the risk of legal proceedings being taken against you. The habits of your neighbour or of your own brother may be most revolting to your orthodox tastes ; but you are bound to tolerate him in your village or in your home itself. He may behave with you in the most intolerant manner and may scoff at your traditional practices and habits of life ; but you cannot even resent his behaviour for that will be a sign of bigotedness according to modern notions. So you must allow him to be in your midst and give him all facilities to contaminate your home and your children. This is modern toleration.

O.: I fear it is so. But it only betrays the lack of strength in our society and can certainly cast no reflection on the Government.

H. H.: How can a society be strong or be able to enforce its decisions upon erring members, if the Government does not support it, but, on the other hand, does everything calculated to undermine its influence ?

O.: Certainly, the Muslims did not support our society in this sense ?

H. H.: Not always. Very often, they did not do so intentionally, but quite unintentionally and in effect they did strengthen our society. By openly declaring war on our religion they steeled our nerves for opposition. We strengthened our forces, for we knew that we had to face an enemy. We viewed with great suspicion the slightest disturbing element. The village autonomy, the caste autonomy and the religious autonomy became wide awake and strong. They armed themselves well and in time to meet an expected attack. It was an open war and the spirit of defence gave us strength. This was the other positive benefit that we had during the Muslim rule.

O.: I fail to see how it was a benefit or how it was preferable to the peaceful life of modern times.

H. H.: When you know that you have an enemy to encounter, you arm yourself to meet him. It is always preferable to meet the foe in an open field of battle ; it is very difficult to fight the foe who is by your side and masquerading as a friend. It is easier to fight a tiger openly attacking you than to fight a poison which, unknown to you, has entered your blood and is sapping your life slowly but unfailingly.

O.: Certainly, it is so.

H. H.: In the Muslim regime, we knew our enemy and therefore armed ourselves to be ready to meet his onslaught. But in modern times we have no known enemy. Everybody says that he is not opposing us. We are effectively disarmed by this proclaimed lack of opposition. In our false sense of security we have grown weaker and weaker. The slow poison of unHindu thought and manners has entered our blood ; and the most pitiable part of it is that we do not and would not realise that it is a poison. Such a phenomenon was impossible under the Muslim rule.

3. EQUAL SUPPORT FOR ALL

O.: Does Your Holiness then desire that the present Government should openly declare itself as an enemy of Hinduism ?

H. H.: In our own interests I would by far prefer that to its present enervating attitude of so-called religious neutrality.

O.: Or, does Your Holiness desire that it should actively support the cause of Hinduism as against other religions ?

H. H.: I know that it is not practicable.

O.: Quite so. The rulers are professedly Christians and the subjects belong to so many varied religious denominations that it will not be possible for them to take sides with any religion in particular.

H. H.: But that cannot prevent them from extending equal support to all religions ?

O.: That is just what they are doing.

H. H.: There you are mistaken. They are not extending equal support to all religions, but are withholding support equally from all, and they call that religious neutrality.

O.: How can they extend support to any religion which is not theirs ? It will be asking them to do something quite against their convictions.

H. H.: I am not suggesting for a moment that they should make grants in furtherance of a particular religion or that they should see to the enforcement of the respective religious duties of their subjects.

O.: How else can they extend their support ?

H. H.: By maintaining an attitude of perfect non-interference in religious matters and safeguarding at the same time perfect religious autonomy to the subjects.

O.: Does not the present Government do both ? It does not interfere at all in religious matters and it does safeguard to us our freedom in religious matters.

H. H.: In theory it may be so, but certainly not in fact. Let me explain. The alien rulers and those even among us who have been trained to think like them, have no conception at all of our system of life and thought. They think that religion is something abnormal, and has no relation to the activities of life. To the true Hindu, however, religion is life itself and has to find expression in every aspect of it. The so-called distinction between social questions and religious questions does not exist for him. The Government, accustomed as it has been to viewing religion as mere a fraction of life, cannot understand how marriage, parentage, communion with others, inheritance and the like can have any religious significance. It therefore interferes with such things, declaring that it does not thereby interfere in religious matters. Its professed attitude of non-interference in religious matters is a pure myth, at least as regards the Hindu. I may mention in passing that no such interference was ever attempted, much less carried out, during the regime of Muslims. Concerning the safeguarding of our religion, the only way in which it can be safeguarded is by strengthening the hands of those who are entrusted with the duty of seeing that the followers of a particular faith properly perform their functions ; in other words the secular power of the Government should be available, whenever requisitioned, for enforcement of the decisions of the acknowledged heads of each community.

O.: We cannot expect a Christian government to enforce the obedience of Hindus to the Hindu religion.

H. H.: Why not ?

O.: I feel sure that the Muslim rulers would never have done anything of that sort.

H. H.: You are again mistaken. I know for certain that there are letters preserved in the Śringerī Matha which have been addressed to the then reigning Āchāryas by the Muslim rulers of Mysore and Hyderabad and which specifically mention that directions had been issued to the officers of their governments to see that the orders of the Āchāryas in religious matters are strictly enforced and obeyed.

O.: I did not think that possible.

H. H.: Naturally, because your impression of the Muslim rulers has been formed from a coloured source. You will be more surprised to learn that in one of the letters from Tippu Sultān himself to the Matha, he had requested the Āchārya to arrange for the necessary religious rites to be performed in the Śrı Śāradā Temple at his expense for securing him victory in an impending battle.

O.: I am really very much surprised to hear this. Tippu was known to be a great fanatic, who did his utmost to forcibly convert the Hindus to Islam.

H. H.: As I told you, not much faith can be placed on such stories. Don’t overlook the indisputable facts —the letters written by Tippu to the Matha and his retaining with him Pūrṇaiya, a Brāhmaṇa Minister, to the end of his life. He may have committed excesses, but, as I have already pointed out, even they must have been due to his intense faith in God and in his own religion as the only means of attaining Him.

4. NEED FOR SECULAR SUPPORT

O.: Whatever may have been done by the Muslim rulers, it is impossible to expect any active support from the present Government in the way in which Your Holiness wants it.

H. H.: Then I fear we shall have to wait for the advent of another government which can give us sympathy and support.

O.: Why so ? Why does Your Holiness place so much importance on secular support ?

H. H.: That has been the lesson of all history. When the Lord himself incarnated in this land as Sri Śankarāchārya for the preservation and propagation of our religion, He thought it necessary to seek and obtain the secular support of King Sudhanvā. When the all-knowing sage Śrī Vidyāraṇya sought to restore the Vedic religion to its old glory, he found it necessary to establish at first the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar to support him in his endeavours. His Holiness the late Āchārya of Śringerī, in consecrating the image of Śrī Śankarāchārya at Kāladi, his birth-place, had said : 'Even if I get the intellect and the capacity of the Great Master, I can do nothing to safeguard our religion unless I get also the support of a king like Sudhanvā.' As it is, we are practically helpless.

O.: It seems to me that Your Holiness virtually agrees with the present national movement which demands a change of government.

H. H.: That does not necessarily follow. I should very much desire a change of attitude on the part of the Government rather than a change of the Government itself. Further, if we look at the persons who lead the so-called national movement and the methods they adopt, it seems to me that it will be disastrous to our religion if by chance they acquire the reins of government in their hands. None of them has any regard for any religion ; the few that profess such regard have only a formal sense of allegiance to their religion which will disappear in no time if it conflicts with their cherished views of what they consider beneficial to national interests.

O.: But your condemnation of the present regime is not a bit less than theirs.

H. H.: It may be so, but they condemn the Government because it is an alien one and because they want to get the power in their own hands. It does not matter the least to me if the reins of government are in the hands of aliens or the sons of the land. I care nothing for the personnel or the nationality or the religion of the rulers. I only want that they must afford every facility to a Hindu to live the life of a Hindu, a Muslim to live the life of a Muslim, a Parsi to live the life of a Parsi, and so on. Religious neutrality or tolerance is meaningless. There must be perfect religious equality, as I have already defined—each man to his religion unmolested by anybody and every facility guaranteed to him to practise his own religious pursuits. To reduce all people to a uniform level of no religion or irreligion is not religious neutrality. It is annihilation of religion itself. I hope that before long the Government will realise that its security lies really with those citizens who desire to lead a life of . peace and contentment and perfect freedom in matters of religion and not with the clamouring few who are after excitement for excitement’s sake and seek unbridled licence in the name of freedom of thought and action. Believing as I do that the interests of our religion are quite safe in the hands of the Lord in spite of the several attacks that are being made on .it, I am content to wait and see what the future has in store for us.

I find it necessary to append a few remarks to this chapter lest any hasty reader should misconstrue some of the matters touched upon here. The main object of this dialogue is to draw attention to the need for insisting upon what are called ‘religious safeguards’. No religion can possibly live, much less thrive, if its adherents are handicapped in its practice. The orthodox Hindus as a class are by nature, training and faith one of the most peace-loving and loyal classes of citizens that the world has ever known. They are also the least politically minded. They have been content to leave all political problems in the hands of the vociferous English-educated few. Taking advantage of this fact and actuated by a desire to imitate the West, the latter from their seats in the Parliament, Assemblies and other bodies seem to be bent upon taking action detrimental to the interests of the vast body of Hindus. As pointed out in the above dialogue, the security of the Government lies really with the orthodox people who desire to lead a life of peace and contentment and perfect freedom in matters of religion and not with the clamouring few. I desire also to point out that the defence of forced conversion in this dialogue was made from the standpoint of the Muslim rulers only and not from any absolute standard of right and wrong. The orthodox Hindu, believing as he does that the religion in which a man is born is the best fitted for his spiritual uplift, does not countenance any conversion, even voluntary conversion, or even conversion to Hinduism. Vide Chapter I, he can never approve of any forced conversion. This will be clear also from the emphatic answer ‘Certainly not’ to the question ‘Does Your Holiness mean that the rulers must enforce their own faith upon the people ?”—R. K.