68. SOCIAL LEADERSHIP
Leadership as vision is important in steering a community in turbulent times. Hindus have notoriously failed in this regard. Hindus have faced the threat of Muslims for over 800 years and from the British and the Christian missionaries for over 200 years. But they have failed to evolve a strategy to meet the threat. Against the Muslims, they went into a shell , except during the limited time of Vijayanagar and Maratha empires.Their saint-singers moved among the people and preserved their faith and religion, especially serving the common man. But life as a whole did not flourish. Against the British, they succumbed to the subtle but steady pressure and embraced their reforms. A small faction of orthodox leaders advocated adherence/return to orthodox ways, with increasingly quixotic consequences and hypocrisy.
Hindu reform under English influence
In the 18th/19th century, Hindus with English education were enamoured of the ways of the foreigners in almost all spheres. They adopted the foreigners' view of India and Hinduism and wanted to reform Hindu society according to their notions. The work of Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1722-1830) in the areas of politics, administration, education and social/religious reform illustrates this. His main idea seems to have been to secure political advantages for the Hindus by undertaking reform of Hindu religion and society in ways calculated to please the foreigners! He is said to have invented the word "Hinduism" in 1816.
He started the Brahmo Sabha (later Brahmo Samaj) as the reformed Hindu sect, and is said to have fabricated a work of scripture 'Maha Nirvana Tantra' in association with an English missionary and Indian pundit. The legal provisions in it were for a time treated as authoritative Hindu law and the Tagore family became wealthy practising it! The Brahmo Samaj became influential among the English educated Bengali youth but with it came clashes of opinions and personalities and splits. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa exerted enormous personal influence on their last great leader Keshab Chandra Sen who began to see the merits of the real Hindu religion. All the young disciples of Ramakrishna were followers of Brahmo Samaj and the brightest of them, Narendranath Dutta became the chief disciple of Ramakrishna as Vivekananda.
With the rise of Ramakrishna, Hinduism got a new lease of life in Bengal, and fresh vigour. But Ramakrishna was not a social reformer and was a pure spiritual teacher, upholding the validity of traditional Hindu religion. He did not exert much direct influence on society in general. He was a spiritual teacher, not social leader.
English education
English education
English education was introduced in India in 1836, based on the 1935 minute of Macaulay. Ramakrishna was also born in 1836. But it is Macaulay who has prevailed on society at large, Sri Ramakrishna having been reduced to a cult figure by his own followers.
shown here for purely educational purpose.
The problem is not English language as such but the thoughts and ideas introduced through that language, and the intention behind it. Macaulay did not know Sanskrit or Arabic, but proceeded to condemn all Indian literature. By this one stroke, educated Indians were disconnected from their intellectual heritage and traditions.
Macaulay wrote a letter on Oct 12, 1836 to his father in which he stated that ...... He was sure that a Hindu who received English education would never remain faithful to his religion and some of them would embrace Christianity and if the British education plan was followed, there would not be a single idolater among the respected classes in Bengal. All this conversion would be done without proselytizing and religious interference. He said that he rejoiced in the prospect.
Vivekananda became famous after his exploits in the US and strode the land as a colossus. He interpreted the religion on scientific lines. Though he spoke much on Hindu society, he was a religious teacher,not a reformer and did not become a social leader.
Religion and modern life
Religion and modern life
The problem of Hindus was how to adapt to the changing world without giving up their religion. The modern world has become increasingly secular ( in the sense of not using religious standards to govern life in general: eg. marriage has become a contract, to be approved and annulled by civil courts, and not a sacrament to be governed by religious tenets and mediated by priests.) English became the language of education and public discourse. With it Sanskrit and native languages were neglected. European subjects and ideas were introduced in the name of education, and gradually educated people lost touch with native wisdom. This is the position which prevails even today.
Brahmins were the first to take to English education, because they had no means of survival other than getting so educated and securing a job, as the old social order which sustained them was collapsing around them. But having received such education, what did they do? Each one lived for himself and not many thought of the community.
Some politicians from the so called Brahmin community. Are they practising Brahmins? Did they serve the community or provide it leadership?
Picture from outlookindia.com
Settling for petty service
The Brahmins were timid and so by and large settled for the security of low paying clerical jobs. Many became lawyers and doctors, but they were still small numbers compared to the huge clerical brigade. Even those qualified as engineers did not venture into independent enterprises but sought govt or other employment. There was absolutely no leadership among them. The educated Brahmins could have uplifted their community, but this kind of spirit is totally lacking among them even today. When the Brahmins talk of community, they only think of some meaningless religious ritual or ceremony, which today cannot secure the economic well being of the community. Life today is not centered round the temple or Vedic rite- it is important to realise this clearly.
Let me not be misunderstood. I am not saying that Brahmins should live for themselves. That will be atrocious and inexcusable. All I am pointing out is that they did not even help the less fortunate members of their own community and formulate any plans for their upliftment. How are they going to help the society at large? It certainly is not wrong for someone to help his community just as it is not wrong to support one's own family first. Charity begins at home. But it seems everyone took his community for granted!
Solving the problem of education
Solving the problem of education
Take education alone. Today, there are many highly educated and prosperous people in all communities- including the so called SC/ST, OBC, etc who are also politically powerful. If each community decides to start educational institutions for the exclusive benefit of its own members (which is not wrong or immoral or evil) without depending on the govt, the education problem will be solved! This is how many Christian institutions started! Hindus are so thoughtless and so devoid of initiative that they always go begging to others. This is due to lack of leadership. Every one thinks of education as just one more way of making money, and no one views it primarily as service, which may, and must, also generate income to be self sustaining. But is it not an ugly thought for a rich man to be thinking of more riches, instead of using his wealth for public welfare? Let us face it: Hindus are about the least public spirited among all the people on earth. They will pour millions to the coffers of temples controlled and looted by the government and its minions, but will not spend enough on educating their own brethren or creating employment.
The Rich as Trustees of the people
The Rich as Trustees of the people
Andrew Carnegie, the US steel baron, wrote this memo to himself:
Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth.
And he wrote this on the uses of wealth in June 1889, in what is known as his "Gospel of Wealth".
This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display of extravagance; to provide moderately for the wants of those dependent upon him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer .....the man of wealth thus becoming mere trustee and agent for his poor brethren.
90% of his wealth ( about $ 79 billion in today's price) was distributed in philanthropy before he died; the remaining was distributed after his death.
We see here the origin of the Gandhian idea of Trusteeship. Indeed it takes us all the way back to the Isha Upanishad which asks us to reduce our wants and enjoy by renunciation, for is wealth ours? Whose indeed is wealth?
Tena tyaktena bhunjhita
ma gruda kasya swid dhanam.
True, we are not Carnegies, or Azim Premjis or Narayana Murthys. But when a lakh of us combine, what are these figures? Only, we do not know or care how to organise our little effort to great effect through purposeful philanthropy. Individually, many of us encourage beggary in the name of charity, or donate money to temples for the govt to loot. This is because Hindus lack sensible leadership.
Brahmins disadvantaged
Brahmins disadvantaged
Among the Hindus, Brahmins alone are at a disadvantage as a group. Every other community has some traditional occupation or source of livelihood, which is not affected by modernising tendencies. Brahmins have to act as the custodians of the religious and sacred lore and tradition- which involves long years of study and discipline. This requires support from the community. But this support is dwindling. In the strict sense, Brahmins should not undertake any occupation just for the sake of money. They cannot compete with others for economic gain. However, this is not possible now due to the drastic socio-economic changes that have taken place. They have to take up- and they are taking up- modern occupations for a living. How to retain the religious traditions while pursuing modern occupations is the crux of their problem.
And this has to take place in an atmosphere where the community has no political clout or social influence, and has been marginalised. One would expect real leadership here but that is not happening. To go back to a purely religious life, to embrace poverty and simplicity - as recommended by some respected religious leaders- is not a solution or an option for the community as a whole. Brahmins cannot go back. In the last 100 years they have completely lost their rural roots and orientation. They are now urban and internationally mobile. Economic problem is the main question before them- not religion. Society as a whole has changed. But religious leaders are unable to offer a solution, while most followers are hypocrites.
Failure of leadership
Failure of leadership
This is the result of the failure of leadership. The Brahmin community did well in the previous two/three generations. But the community failed to provide for itself! It remained at the mercy of political establishment. It did not build educational or employment opportunities on its own.[Even where the old leaders started something, the followers have not been able to maintain it, in the new political climate.] It now suffers the consequences! The initiative has entirely passed on to other hands and they are increasingly denied public space. The govt may be expected to become even more indifferent- if not hostile- in the years to come, considering that the community does not constitute a large or consolidated vote bank! They have to rise by their own efforts- aimed at the benefit of the community as a whole. This is something they have not done so far in history!
Brahmins alone do not count as a group! Brahmins alone have no support from any political party!
Uplifting self by self: Parsi example
Is there an example of a community in India which is self-governing, which has a community organ to take care of its interests, and which provides leadership? Yes- we have the Parsi community. They have the Parsi Panchayat - 5 community elders elected every 7 years by the vote of the adult Parsi population. The Panchayat decides all internal questions. No doubt there are groups and dissensions- it is bound to be among educated, intelligent people. But look at the over all results of leadership. They were the first to take up modern education. They concentrated on professions like law, engineering. They entered business, Their enterprising elders started industries. They were noted for hard work, integrity, charity. Whatever they did, they built up a reputation for reliability. They did not rely on govt. jobs. They made themselves. In their community, no one begs. No one is allowed to roam the streets, idle. The elderly and the indigent are cared for by the Panchayat. They do not look up to ma-baap sarkar.
It is a small community, but they know how to take care of themselves. The Parsi Panchayat in Bombay owns and administers 5000 flats which it allots on subsidised basis to poor Parsis.But their definition of "poor" is one who earns less than Rs.90,000 p.m. and has assets of less than Rs. 25 lakhs! This itself shows the level of their overall prosperity.That is what leadership has done. The Parsis are phenomenal in their philanthropy, as in their enterprise and earning. There are of course crooked Parsis who are litigation prone. There are also problems relating to young Parsis settled or working abroad, but there the crux is about mixed marriages and admitting foreigners into their fold. One has to be born a Parsi- one cannot be converted. In this sense, Parsis are like a Hindu "Caste". Because of this rule, the community has remained small- there are about 80,000 Parsis,in India after all these centuries! But they manage their affairs through their elders and thus are self-governing, though Indian courts are prone to interfere in their internal religious matters. One has to seriously examine the question of why and whether a civil court of a secular country can interfere in the religious affairs and practices of a community where it does not affect the rights of others, so long as we do not have a common civil code.
I have written mainly about Brahmins here because they alone have no supporters among the politicians. No matter what they do- remove the tuft, give up the sacred thread, change name, etc, they will still be identified as Brahmins and discriminated against officially! It is for their elders to realise this and find ways to help the community on their own, without expecting govt support and without being a burden to others. They cannot continue like cats closing their eyes and imagining the world to be dark (or rosy)! And in the meantime indulging in empty rituals.
No comments:
Post a Comment