Hindu Santana dharma boasts of a pantheon of 330 million gods. Even the most ardent and the most avowedly devout Hindu can not enumerate the names of all these gods and certainly not tell what they symbolize; what powers obtain from their worship and what ramifications ensue because of their annoyance and displeasure owing to any of zillions of reasons. There do not exist manuals or guidebooks for every one of these gods. And even if the guidebooks and manuals did exist, how would laymen utilize them. This lacunae gives birth (and licence) to any number of god men, social leaders and religious despots who devise and formulate their own rites and rituals and are able to influence and indoctrinate gullible people to adopt and follow the same. Cults get created, the society gets partitioned. The tragedy is that, in due course of time, some of these men and women get anointed as gods and the pantheon gets further augmented.
Hindus are very fond of creating gods. Bhagwan Rajnish and Satya Saibaba are two of many such examples. Sachin Tendulkar is also deified as God of Cricket. There are temples dedicated to Rajnikant, Shivaji Ganeshan, Amitabh Bachchan and even Khushbu. AIADMK treats Jayalalitha as a super goddess.
It is an undeniable yet inexplicable truth that a lot of things are done by a mass of people without a thought and only because their predecessors had been doing those things. Many social and religious activities are indulged in by generations without the doers and propagators bothering to know the rationale behind the thoughts and actions; the guiding principle being 'What has been good for my ancestors is good for me' .
My confusion is multi-dimensional and wide ranging. I try to elaborate.
I sit down daily for offering my prayers in a small closet in which I have installed the idols of my favourite deities viz. Radha & Krishna. I understand a bit as to what Krishna symbolizes but do not know in which scripture Radha got introduced. Still I worship Radha and Krishna duo.
When I go to a temple, I am always faced with a dilemma as to which deity to go to first and the sequence in which to pay my obeisance to the multitude of deities whose idols installed in the temple. Very often, in a temple devoted to a single deity, there are a number of sub temples nay stalls where a panda extols some special attribute of the subject god and solicits some cash from the devotee. My confusion gets further confounded at the time of putting money in the "Hundi"; How much to put in Hundi for each god. I have caught myself, on a number of occasions, in being hesitant to part with more than a certain amount, which itself frequently varies because of an innumerable number of reasons and circumstances.
I am confused but I let it go.
Sikhism was born out of dissatisfaction and disillusionment of Guru Nanak with orthodoxy and ritualism of both Hinduism and Islam. Guru Nanak also did not approve of the overt and covert fight between the propagators of Islam and adherents of Hinduism. He proffered Sikhism as the via media solution where in both the Hindus and Muslims would shed their identities as Hindu and Muslim and would instead assume a new identity which he named 'Sikh' a colloquial distortion of 'Shishya' : the disciple. Some also say the word 'Sikh' is derived from 'Shikhshit' : the learned or the educated. The new identity was conceived to remove and resolve the differences. The intention was most noble. But the reality is that now we have three warring entities in stead of two. The contemporary Sikhism has its own rigid ritual protocols and practices.
I am confused because of the contradictions in the ways of contemporary Sikhism. Sikhs are very sensitive about 'Kesh' (hair) and the turban. Keeping the hair in their natural state without trimming is a diktat which ' true' Sikhs are mandated to follow. Kesh is one of the five 'K' identity marks of (Khalsa) Sikhs. Turban ( 'Dastaar') is not a directly mandated identity mark but a convenience which has assumed much more importance than hair that it is required to protect.
Sikhs are very protective about the turban. They get easily worked up and are ever ready for a fight in defence of the turban; They aver that nothing can be put over the turban. Fair enough; every individual or a group of individuals is entitled to follow some practices, which become their distinguishing characteristics. But my confusion is the inconsistency or dichotomy of the conduct. While the Sikhs vehemently protest against the statutory use of helmet while riding a two wheeler as that is perceived as infringement of their faith, they do not object to a Sikh cricketer wearing helmet when batting.
I am peeved to see many Sikhs wearing only a patka in place of the turban and still refusing the use of helmet. I am confused as to whether to call it faith or hegemony.
I am confused further because this very young faith (or as some of its adherents proclaim it to be a religion), has already spawned a number of sub sects and faiths which in-turn have their own fixations, rigid rituals and rites. Sant Nirankari Mandal and Radha Soami are two of the many examples. It is notable that SGPC, the self proclaimed patent holder and guard-general of Sikhism, does not consider these as off springs of Sikhism though the preachings of the two sects are based essentially on the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Granth Sahib. This subject itself can lead to an endless debate. I would leave it at this juncture because I am awfully confused about the same.
I return to my main confusion(s)
Hindu Sanatana Dharma promulgates polytheism, every god in its pantheon assuredly having a defined role albeit not known to the lay men. Some more essential and integral parts of Sanatana Dharma include Sanskara observance, idol worship, vrata fasting, abstinence, pilgrimage, holy dips in holy rivers, Havan yajna, mantra chanting, bhajan-kirtans, discourses, Shraddha, tarpan ( praying for the salvation of the dead ancestors), festival celebrations, charity or Dan punya etc. All these rituals being collectively called Karma Kanda. In fact, polytheism and Karma Kanda are the two main aspects of Hindu Sanatana Dharma which distinguish it from the other most popular and wide spread religions of the world. I am referring to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. Another very important and disconcerting feature of Hindu Sanatana Dharma is its refusal to allow conversions into it. A Hindu is born and not made. Proselytization is foreign to Hindu Sanatana dharma. A non-Hindu can not be turned into a Hindu. Shuddhikaran process of Arya Samaj does not enjoy wide acceptance. Yet another aspect that is the hallmark of Hinduism is reincarnation or rebirth; life after death.
Christianity is a monotheistic religion born as a reformation of Judaism. It forbids the practising of all the main aspects of Hindu Santana Dharma viz. polytheism, Karma Kanda and reincarnation. I am confused because I learn that there are an innumerable divisions or sects, each with its own justification for its existence, regimen of worship and general code of conduct. There are churches every where; churches belonging to different sub-sects. At many places, particularly in Mumbai, crosses bearing the inscription "INRI" are installed. To my mind, this is equivalent to polytheism. Christians wear cross, burn candles and incense sticks before the idols of mother Mary and Jesus, say graces at meals and before going to bed, observe lent and indulge in many other practices which together are tantamount to idol worship. Still Christianity is the most popular religion of the world. It is the religion of the wealthy nations, who in turn contribute huge sums of money to help spread the religion through out the world. Proselytization is encouraged by the church and is carried out overtly and covertly through charity, inducement, persuasion, promises of salvation and many other strategies.
However, in India, the contribution of Christianity can not be over estimated. Convent schools are the most coveted centers of primary and secondary education. They are the models which are now emulated or replicated by many indigenous educational societies viz. DAV, Indian Education Society, Sanatana Dharma Schools, Khalsa schools etc.
Christian colleges are also held in high esteem as they are reputed to not only impart knowledge in the various subjects of learning but also play very important role in personality development and social behaviour.
I am confused because in spite of the ostensible admirable contribution by Christian institutions in education and general welfare of the poor and the destitute, they are suspected to be merely the vehicles of spreading Christianity. I am also happy to admit and assert that by and large, they do not defy the Indian law and are less loud in their protestations against discrimination, neglect and maltreatment as a minority.
The next subject of my confusion is the dichotomy of Buddhism.
My knowledge of history, however scant, and my understanding of the basic tenets of various religions in general and Buddhism in particular, reveals that Buddhism does not encourage idol worship. But I learn that Buddha outclasses every other being with respect to. numerical abundance as well as grandeur of statues. Buddha statues are among the tallest structures in its class in the world.
My confusion gets further confounded because most of the tallest statues exist in China. And it is noteworthy that all these statues are not old, some being constructed fairly recently. Try the link below
My confusion continues.
Here comes my biggest confusion and the one I am most scared of expressing because of the danger of being misunderstood and being branded as irreverent and blasphemous.
Islam is the second most popular religion in the world, coming close on the heels of Christianity in terms of the number of followers in the world. India has the second (or third) largest population of Muslims in the world. Muslims constitute the biggest minority in India. However, there are pockets in India where muslims are in majority.
Islam is strictly monotheistic and prohibits iconolatry. It is also supposed to be ridden of elaborate rituals and ostentation. It is also supposed to be egalitarian and free of the malice of casteism.
However, I am confused and my confusion redoubles five times every day. The call for Azaan is broadcast five times.
The essence of Azaan is
' Laa ilaaha illalaah, Mohamed ar-Rasool Allah'
( ‘There is absolutely no deity worthy of worship except Allah,
and Mohamed (pbuh) is the Messenger of Allah.’)
God is great. There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.
But this is conveyed more elaborately as is given below:
Allāhu akbar, Allāhu akbar
Allāhu akbar, Allāhu akbar
Ash-hadu an-lā ilāha illā allāh
Ash-hadu an-lā ilāha illā allāh
Ash-hadu anna Muhhammadan-Rasulullāh
Ash-hadu anna Muhhammadan-Rasulullāh
Hayya ala s-ssalāt
Hayya ala s-ssalāt
Hayya ala l-falāh
Hayya ala l-falāh
As-salatu Khayrun Minan-nawm
As-salatu Khayrun Minan-nawm
Allāhu akbar, Allāhu akbar
Lā ilāha illā-Allāh
Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest. (repeated once more)
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah.(repeated once more)
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.(repeated once more)
Hasten to worship (salat).(repeated once more)
Hasten to success.(repeated once more)
Prayer is better than sleep. (repeated once more)
Allah is greatest, Allah is greatest.
There is no God but Allah
The above Azaan is Arabic Sunni Azaan.
Shia Azaan is slightly different as given below
Allāhu akbar, Allāhu akbar
Allāhu akbar, Allāhu akbar
Allāhu akbar, Allāhu akbar
Allāhu akbar, Allāhu akbar
Ash-hadu an-lā ilāha illā allāh
Ash-hadu an-lā ilāha illā allāh
Ash-hadu anna Muḥhammadan-Rasulullāh
Ash-hadu anna Muḥhammadan-Rasulullāh
Ash-hadu anna Alīyan walī-ullāh
Ash-hadu anna Alīyan walī-ullāh
Hayya ʿala ṣ-ṣsalāt
Hayya ʿala ṣ-ṣsalāt
Hayya ʿala 'l-falāḥ
Hayya ʿala 'l-falāḥ
Ḥayya ʿala khayr al ʿamal
Ḥayya ʿala khayr al ʿamal
Allāhu akbar
Allāhu akbar
Lā ilāha illā-Allāh
Lā ilāha illā-Allā
The differences are as follows
- Allāhu akbar is recited 8 times instead of four times
- The authority of Ali is added through the line "I testify that Ali is the authority (wali) of God"
- As-salatu Khayrun Minan-nawm ( Prayer is better than sleep) is replaced by Ḥayya ʿala khayr al ʿamal ( The time for the best of deeds has come)
- The ending line Lā ilāha illā-Allāh is recited twice.
There is a Zaidiyyah variety also, which is similar to the Sunny prayer except that
As-salatu Khayrun Minan-nawm ( Prayer is better than sleep) is replaced by Hayya ʿala khayr al ʿamal (The time for the best of deeds has come) as in Shia prayer
This 'assertion of faith'-cum-'call for prayer' is issued by every mosque to enjoin upon the believers to head towards the mosque. In my neighbouring locality, which is more like a ghetto with a predominantly Muslim population, there are six or seven mosques. Each of these mosques broadcasts Azaan separately. The calls are separated by very small intervals of time and some portions even overlap. Each muezzin tries to cry hoarse as if he were trying to out shout the others.
I am confused because I am not able to decide whether all mosques are talking about the same God or each one is extolling its own private God. Again, the volume is so high that it seems that the caller is trying to wake up God rather than the faithfuls.
Another fact that riles me no end is the broadcast from some of the mosques or perhaps from the attached madrassas, of songs, poetry and even roll call and other live instructions being imparted to the madrassa inmates.
Yet another confusing and deplorable practice being followed by some mosques is the use of loud speakers for informing the members of the community of some unfortunate deaths and the schedule of Janaaza and the exhortation for participation. It is categorically prohibited by Islam but no body seems to care.
Another topic which I am confused about is Islam's take on music. I have googled on this topic and have got confusing and contradictory information. The sum total of what I could glean from the mass of data is that Islam permits music which is rendered in the praise of Allah and the prophet.
The music of the Bollywood and Hollywood variety is unequivocally and emphatically labelled as Haraam or sinful. I am confused because there is quite a large number of music directors, lyricists, musicians and singers in Bollywood who pride themselves in being Muslims and are proud that they promote the cause of Islam. If we include the actors, writers, directors, choreographers and support artists and staff, this number will swell even further. I am confused whether all these people are committing sins by practising their art.
I learn that even Sufi music, though devoted to Allah and the prophet, is not regarded favourably by the Islamic purists. For that matter, Sufism itself is not widely accepted in Islam.
I also wonder whether Muslim classical musicians of the past and the present, some of whom have been / are the greatest exponents of this art, are considered as muslims by the same purists. This doubt gets further strengthened because most musicians begin their riyaz (practice) with invocation to Sarasvati, the Hindu goddess of music. I learn that this practice by followed by some muslim musicians too.
I am mighty confused because of the increasingly visible exposition of some hitherto neglected or even rejected diktats of the keepers of Islam. Some examples follow
- Celebration of Id-milad with zeal, fervour and festivities as opposed to the sobriety which marked this auspicious day till two decades ago.
- Use of the 'Allah hafiz' in stead of 'Khuda hafiz'.
- Offering of namaz by Muslim passengers in the corridors in running trains.
- Congregation of Muslim employees, during working hours, for saying the afternoon namaz, particularly on Fridays. This is true not only of government offices and establishments but also of public and private organisations.
- Sporting of long un-trimmed flowing beards by men, old and young.
- Wearing of skull caps.
- Wearing of burqa by women; covering all parts of body from head to toe with a very narrow slit for the eyes; which more often than not also covered by dark glasses.
- Insistence by Muslim women patients for being treated by only female doctors.
Of course, it is not my business to make a comment on how each community conducts itself within its own sphere of being. And I am talking about only about India. All my confusion and wonderment is only about the practices followed in India.
What confuses me is the hegemony exhibited by some communities, sects and groups when their indulgence in flagrant violations of their own religious principles and tenets is exposed and the helplessness of the government in containing or curbing them. It is perhaps the price of democratic freedom. It may be something else.
Well, I am confused and mighty confused at this and that.
No comments:
Post a Comment