Vivekananda also emphasised that the message of Jesus of Nazareth was meant for all of humanity, showing us the path of truth. As he put it, “In him is embodied all that is the best and greatest in his own race, the meaning, the life, for which that race has struggled for ages; and he himself is the impetus for the future, not only to his own race but to unnumbered other races of the world.”

While Swamiji was deeply respectful of Jesus Christ and acknowledged that His message was universal, he did not fully engage with the core aspects of Jesus’ teachings, particularly His focus on addressing the profound inequalities of the material world and His sacrifice for the downtrodden.

Rather than confronting these real-world issues, Swamiji sought to place Christ in the framework of a “Great Soul,” interpreting His life and teachings through the lens of his own Vedantic philosophy. In simpler terms, Swamiji seemed to suggest that the message of Jesus was essentially an articulation of the non-dualist Vedantic thought that he himself espoused.

Although Swamiji praised Jesus extensively in his lecture, a significant part of his effort was spent creating an artificial binary between the East and the West. Influenced by Orientalist writings, Vivekananda appeared to present an East-versus-West dichotomy to a Western audience in the early twentieth century. During this time, rapid industrialization had unsettled many Europeans, prompting some to seek solace in the “spiritual” East. The Western fascination with Swamiji’s words should be understood within this historical context.

In his lecture, Vivekananda strongly argued that Jesus belonged to the Eastern world (Asia). He went even further, boldly claiming that all great souls and incarnations originated in the Orient. As he stated, “No wonder, the oriental mind looks with contempt upon the things of this world and naturally wants to see something that changeth not, something which dieth not, something which in the midst of this world of misery and death is eternal, blissful, undying. An oriental Prophet never tires of insisting upon these ideals; and, as for Prophets, you may also remember that without one exception, all the Messengers were Orientals.”

However, Vivekananda failed to recognise that human races, religions, and spiritual practices are not confined to a specific region. People live beyond the Oriental world, practicing a wide range of faiths and relating to God in diverse ways. Even the concept of God is not central to some religions. Some faiths possess sacred texts while others have no history of revealed scriptures. These complex sociological and theological practices were overlooked by Vivekananda in his effort to create a sharp distinction between the Oriental and Occidental worlds.

Vivekananda extended this argument further, making the unsubstantiated claim that European society is primarily “political,” while the Eastern world is “religious.” According to him, “‌The voice of Asia has been the voice of religion. The voice of Europe is the voice of politics.” To support this view, he asserted that “the voice of Europe is the voice of ancient Greece.” He also suggested that because the ancient Greek civilization was primarily focused on the material world, its profound influence on Europe led the continent away from religion.

As he explained, “The Greek lives entirely in this world. He does not care to dream. Even his poetry is practical. His gods and goddesses are not only human beings, but intensely human, with all human passions and feelings almost the same as with any of us. He loves what is beautiful, but, mind you, it is always external nature; the beauty of the hills, of the snows, of the flowers, the beauty of forms and of figures, the beauty in the human face, and, more often, in the human form—that is what the Greeks liked. And the Greeks being the teachers of all subsequent Europeanism, the voice of Europe is Greek.”

Vivekananda largely overlooked that an influential segment of the Western world had claimed the Greek tradition as part of its own cultural heritage. However, the image of Greece has shifted throughout history; some scholars argue that Greece was once viewed as a part of African civilization. Moreover, the dominant discourse in post-Enlightenment Western civilization has often failed to acknowledge adequately the influence of Islam and other non-Western traditions on the rise of Europe.

It appears that Swami Vivekananda spoke within the framework of the dominant European narrative, which positioned Greek culture as the foundational heritage of post-Enlightenment European civilization. However, he gave this argument an intriguing twist by attributing Europe’s secular outlook to the ancient Greeks, claiming this to be the primary cause of Europe’s distance from religion.

The binary opposition that Swamiji established between the religious East and the materialistic/secular West profoundly influenced India’s nationalist movements and post-independence politics. Decades later, when Rabindranath Tagore delivered his lectures on nationalism, he appeared to draw on a similar logic, explaining societal phenomena through binary oppositions. In his lectures, Tagore framed a dichotomy between the social and the political, famously stating, “Our real problem in India is not political. It is social.”

While Swamiji rejected both Greek and European modes of thought, he crafted his own version of religion, which he saw as complementary to the teachings of Jesus. For Vivekananda, religion was crucial in Asia, uniting people despite their differences. Although the unifying role of religion cannot be denied, Swamiji’s lecture overlooked that this so-called religious solidarity is often fractured along caste, class, and gender lines. In other words, divisions by caste, class, and gender are frequently obscured by ruling elites who use religion as a tool to artificially forge unity.

Claiming that people in Asia are inherently religious, Swamiji argued that, unlike the Greeks, Asians are not confined to the material world but instead seek to transcend it, looking for something immutable and indestructible. Drawing on Vedantic philosophy, he suggested that religious individuals in the East go beyond the empirical world in search of “the changeless.”

In his depiction of the religious individual, Vivekananda presented a figure who disregards the material world, focusing instead on what is eternal and imperishable. In contrast, materialist and Buddhist philosophies critique this denial of the material world, emphasizing the dynamic nature of existence. Interestingly, even Jesus Christ—who fought for the rights of the poor and challenged social injustices—is appropriated within the broader Vedantic framework.

In my reading of Vedantic philosophy, I find that it contains some elements of equality, particularly in its belief that God resides within all beings. Since it claims that every individual embodies God, Vedanta has the potential to broaden the social foundation of Hinduism.

Vivekananda expanded on this concept in his lecture, emphasizing that God resides within the soul of every person. This aligns with the message that all are children of God. He expressed it as follows: “As man advanced spiritually, he began to feel that God was omnipresent, that He must be in him, that He must be everywhere, that He was not a distant God, but clearly the Soul of all souls. As my soul moves my body, even so is God the mover of my soul. Soul within soul. And a few individuals who had developed enough and were pure enough, went still further, and at last found God.”

However, the limitation of this perspective is its failure to address social inequality. If all are embodiments of God, then how do we define the oppressed and the oppressors? In other words, Vivekananda’s religious theory acknowledges the existence of sorrow but does not consider the causes of sorrow in the world. To escape from sorrow, Vedantic philosophy suggests transcending the material world. Yet, the philosophers of oppressed communities urge people not only to examine the roots of inequality but also to actively work toward eliminating them. The life of Jesus, as the Messiah of the downtrodden, offers numerous examples of the fight for an egalitarian world—an aspect that Vivekananda overlooked in his Los Angeles lecture.

[The author holds a PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His research focuses on minority rights and social justice. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com]

Related:

Vivekananda: Monk who highlighted Humanism of Hinduism

Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty

The post How has Swami Vivekananda looked at Jesus Christ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As we celebrate the birth anniversary (January 12) of the saffron robed monk who projected spirituality of Hinduism, the diversity and syncretic nature of India, it is very reassuring. His teachings are in total contrast to the present scenario, where many saffron robed are promoting hate and inciting violence in the name of same religion. Swami Vivekananda, the legend who conveyed the essence of Hindu religion as humanism and love; in his speech in Chicago will remain a landmark in times to come.

He could make impact as he courageously put forth the great values of Hinduism while underlying the inhuman practices prevalent in the name of the same religion. Sunil Khilnani (Incarnations, page 305) quotes a valuable saying of his, talking of Hindu religion Swamiji says, “No religion on earth preaches dignity of humanity in such lofty strains as Hinduism, and no religion on Earth treads upon necks of the poor and low in such a fashion as Hinduism.” For him poverty and caste system were the curses which needed eradication. In tune with that he sees God in the poor, Daridranarayan, and eradication of poverty and restoring dignity to the untouchables becomes his central concern.

He did not see that religions are in conflict as he picked up values of meditation from Buddhism. For him, knowledge was not restricted by boundaries and so for him Western science and rational philosophy were to be accepted and respected. He equally upheld the organizational energies of American social reformers. He was out to reconcile the best in human traditions irrespective of native or ‘Foreign’, and so Hinduism, rationalism and social radicalism were the ideals which he synthesized in his understanding and practice. While we are out to make temples and statues, he was against idol worship as was propounded by Brahmo Samaj.

Unlike many; for him Hinduism was not to be mixed with politics. He had moved the length and breadth of country and knew the deeper syncretism prevalent in our country. While Hinduism’s blend with politics was based on ‘Hate other’, Vivekananda’s Hinduism was seeped with love and unity of religions. While opposing the unwanted social practices prevailing in society in the name of religion, he called for rational thinking which may go against blind faith and dictates of priesthood.

While we are witnessing the phenomenon of love jihad to control the lives of women, he stood for freedom of women. And as we are currently made to look down on movements like farmers movement, he saw the contribution of struggles of people coming together for their interests, like workers movement in America contributing to betterment of workers conditions.

When one sees the prevailing atmosphere where a social common sense has been created against Islam, Muslims and spread of Islam in India, his understanding about diversity in India comes as a breath of fresh air. His understanding is for promoting amity in the society. Rather than looking at Muslims as aliens who attacked Hindu culture, he says, “Our mother land is the land where confluence of two great traditions-Hinduism and Islam-has taken place. Make Vedas the brain and Islam the body of this land. In my inner self I dream of such an integrated India.” (Dr. Dattaprasad Dabholkar, Shodh Vivekanadacha, endnote 41).

While we are witnessing the tragedy of violence and promotion of hate in the name of Religion, he saw God as one, “May I be born again and again and suffer thousands of miseries so that I may worship the only God that exists, the only God that I believe in, the sum total of all souls- the miserable and poor of all races, of all species.” (Volume V/Epistles-First Series/LXXVIII/ Mary Hale, July 9, 1897)

While currently lot of efforts are being made to hide the source of caste system under the carpet, he frankly wrote, “I have no doubt that according to the ancient view in this country, caste was hereditary, and it cannot be doubted that Shudras used to be oppressed… (Volume Vi Epistles-second series/Sir, August 17, 1889)

For him the diverse religions are no obstacle, as he sees religions as the path for attaining liberty and cessation of misery. One should have freedom to choose one’s path and live in mutual respect with other religions. In the atmosphere of present dominating Islamophobia, globally and more at home the sage teaches us, “If ever any religion approached to this equality in an appreciable manner, it is Islam and Islam alone. ((Volume 6/Epistles-Second series/CXLII/ Sarfaraz Hussain, June 10, 1898)

Currently social energies are being diverted to intimidate religious minorities. Muslims are being targeted for having spread Islam through sword and Christians for converting through force, fraud and allurement. He clarifies the real cause of conversions in tow of his letters, one to Pundit Shankarlal of Khetri (20^th September 1892 and another to Haridas Vithaldas Desai in November 1894 (Volume 5/Epistles-First Series/II, Volume 8/Epistles-Fourth series Nov 1894, respectively). In these letters he points out, “Religious conversions have not taken place because of atrocities of Christians and Muslims, but because of atrocities of upper caste.”

In matters of choice of food also he was very rational to point out that “We leave everybody free to know, select and follow whatever suits and helps him…Each is welcome to his own peculiarities and has no right to criticize the conduct of other.” Volume 4/Writings: Prose/What we believe in, March 3, 1894) While he had no issues with beef; he pointed out that cow meat was consumed during the Vedic period. It was also the object of sacrifice in the Vedic rituals. While speaking to a large gathering in the USA said: “You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions, he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.” (cited in Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 3 (Calcutta: Advaita Ashram, 1997), p. 536.) 

It is obvious that those who have iconised the legendary Swami are totally against his teachings. He is for eradication of poverty, for restoring dignity of poor and downtrodden, is opposed to caste and is for a Harmony amongst all the religions. Wish we can honestly follow his teachings rather than pursue aggressive politics of Hate in his name.

Related:

Hate Offender: Meet Deepak Sharma

Repeat hate offender Milind Ekbote once again rewarded with bail

All of you will die, your children too: Narsinghanand tells Haridwar cops as they arrest Jitendra Tyagi

The post Vivekananda: Monk who highlighted Humanism of Hinduism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nine-eleven matters because on this date in 1906, Mahatma Gandhi launched his non-violent resistance campaign at a historic mass meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was the birth of a new movement, ‘Satyagraha’, the relentless pursuit of truth and justice. Gandhi believed that they were non-negotiables; two sides of a coin. More than three thousand Indians (both Hindus and Muslims), and others gathered to support the beginning of civil obedience. Later, with ‘Ahimsa’ (non-violence), ‘Satyagraha’ would ultimately become Gandhi’s twin doctrine in belief and in practice. He used it effectively in his struggle against British colonial rule in India. Many civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela have, over the years, embraced this twin doctrine. Sadly, we still do not learn from the past; racism, xenophobia, exclusion, pseudo-nationalism, discrimination, and divisiveness seem to have a stranglehold on nations and peoples across the globe. The emergence of the ‘extreme-right’ ideology wedded to fascism and fundamentalism is a growing cause of concern. Some want to ‘build walls and fences’ to keep people out. ‘Satyagraha’ was a movement to make people realise that they have dignity, and to help build bridges.

Nine-eleven matters because on this day in 1893, at the very first World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda gave a powerful and passionate speech to end sectarianism, bigotry, fanaticism and violence on this earth by fostering the values enshrined in every religion. He spoke plainly, saying, “I fervently hope that the bell which tolled this morning in honour of this convention, may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons, wending their way to the same goal”. Ironically enough, his clarion call does not seem to evoke any positive response from right-wing Hindu fundamentalists.  A ‘World Hindu Congress’ was held in Chicago this past week. Most of the organisers and speakers were right-wing Hindus who spew venom on the minorities and others who take a stand for human rights in India. On September 8, the Alliance for Justice and Accountability (AJA), an umbrella organisation of progressive South Asian groups across the United States, held a protest outside the conference venue, with the stated goal of “standing in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in India who are fighting against the #Hindutva rule and will not be silent in the face of mob lynchings, rapes, murders, and the targeting of our leaders and academics.”
 
Nine-eleven matters because of what happened in the United States on this day in 2001. Any and every form of violence is unacceptable and needs to be strongly condemned. No violent act can be justified, whatever the provocation. That unprecedented violence in the US is remembered and defined by a date “9/11.” The very utterance of it evokes all kinds of emotions: from undiluted hatred to a feeling of utter helplessness in the face of rabid terror; from inconsolable grief at the loss of a loved one to heated debates on imponderables. A visit to ‘Ground Zero’ brings back painful memories of the almost three thousand lives that were lost in just one place. One is also reminded of the millions of people who suffer every day in Palestine and Yemen, Syria and Iraq, DR Congo and Sudan, Myanmar and Afghanistan, Venezuela and El Salvador, and so many other parts of the world. Though 9/11 will continue to remain etched in memory of many, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam and Cambodia, Germany and Poland and other places will not be forgotten. We need to stop all war and violence just now. We must close down the military-industrial complex and all nations need to de-nuclearize immediately.  Do we have the courage to say ‘never again’ this 9/11?

Nine-eleven matters because significantly it is also the start of the Islamic New Year 2018 officially marked as 1440AH (Anno Hegirae). The New Year commemorates Muhammad’s emigration from Mecca to Medina, known as the Hijra, starting in 622 CE. For many Muslims it is also a time of mourning. The period of prayers and fasting leads to Muharram’s tenth day, Ashura, when Moses managed to free his people from the Egyptian Pharaoh. Sunnis observed fasting as the prophet Muhammad asked Muslims to do this to show gratitude to Moses for taking them through the parted Red Sea. Fasting is not customary for Shia Muslims, who sometimes self-flagellate as mark of respect to the battle of Karbala. This is when Muhammad’s grandson, Imam Hussein ibn Ali, was killed after refusing to pledge allegiance to Yazid, the then successor of the Umayyad caliph. Very strangely, the day also marks the end of Rosh Hashanah, which for Jewish people commemorates the creation of the world and marks the beginning of the Days of Awe, a ten-day period of introspection and repentance that culminates in Yom Kippur, also known as the Day of Atonement. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are the two ‘High Holy Days’ in the Jewish religion. Amazing coincidences; but will they address the Shi’a – Sunni or the Muslim – Jewish divide?
 
Nine-eleven matters because Hurricane Florence, a tropical cyclone that has now intensified to a Category 4 storm is all set to hit Southeastern US. Thousands are being evacuated from the areas that will be hit. This is a grim reminder of Hurricane Irma, the catastrophic storm that left behind it a trail of devastation and death exactly a year ago and badly affected people and property all over Florida. Several millions more (particularly the poor) are affected everywhere because of hurricanes, cyclones, floods, and earthquakes. Some nations and people are still unable to accept the fact that the wanton destruction of nature and their over-consumption are directly responsible for global warming, which creates these catastrophic climate changes. The fury that so many experience today is not merely the ‘wrath of nature’ but has much to do with our lack of sensitivity and care of our common home: Mother Earth!   
 
Nine-eleven matters because ‘FEAR’ is the key! It is not merely the name of a book to be released, but the terrible reality that grips the lives and destinies of many people because of incompetent, autocratic, biased, violent leaders everywhere. Marketing and manipulations greatly contribute to the fact that they are in power. These people use every trick in the book to keep people divided. Today is surely about commemorations: the sad, tragic ones: a day of mourning. Nevertheless, it is also about new beginnings: atonement, fasting, prayer, truth, reconciliation, healing, building bridges, hope and resilience. Nine-eleven matters because the day is pregnant with meaning.

The post Why Nine-Eleven Matters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
In their systematic attempt to appropriate every important historical personality as a forefather of Hindutva, the myopia of jaundiced visionaries is evident. But selective counter-quotes will not help the secular cause either
 
Today, is the 153rd birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda. And. the Indian prime minister, first and foremost a  pracharak of the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS), began his early morning communications with the nation with tweets on the occasion. Vivekananda is one of the crucial figures that the Sangh has appropriated. The Vivekananda International Foundation that describes itself as an "independent, non-partisan institution that promotes quality research and in-depth studies" is in actuality affiliated to the  Vivekananda Kendra, a ‘charitable’ organisation set up by Eknath Ranade, a former General Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) The Vivekananda Kendra is said to be one of fifteen important front organisations of the RSS, which derives its income from the Vivekananda Rock memorial also set up by Ranade.
 
Rewind to August 1993 and note the performance. In August of that year, nearly 23 years ago, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) sponsored the Global Vision 2000 in Washington. The meet was meant, ostensibly, to commemorate Swami Vivekananda's celebrated address at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. But the stridency of the speakers did violence to the message of Universal Brotherhood delivered by the Swami a hundred and twenty three years back.
 
Here is what the main speakers said.  Murli Manohar Joshi: “We are committed to the rebuilding of a grand temple to Sri Ram in Ayodhya.” (to a loud applause). I saw the dream in the eyes of those young boys and girls and I knew that India would no more tolerate any symbol of subjugation or slavery. That was what we saw on December 6 (1992) – the most memorable day of my life." Uma Bharati, true to character, was more threatening and blunt. Pointedly referring to liberal Hindus who had responded to events of the previous year with anguish, she thundered: “To those of you who say you are ashamed to be Hindu, we want to tell you: WE are ashamed of YOU. After December 6, the tiger has been let out of the cage.” The occasion was a mere excuse. What mattered to the VHP was not the Swami's message but the fact that his appropriation could provide much needed legitimacy to the aggressive Saffron Front.
 
The symbol used then (and one that is still useful currency for the Sangh), was that of a towering historical figure, a man committed to Hinduism with a deep sense of spirituality who personified, in a sense, a rejuvenation of Indian self-confidence battered by colonisation and one whose thoughts laid the germs of the Hindu nationalist stream in the Independence movement.
 
But what was brandished at Vision 2000 by the VHP was not in any sense the philosophy of Vivekananda but an open celebration of it's own exclusivist, hate-ridden politics that led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid, deaths, rape and destruction.
 
Swami Vivekananda is not the only one subjected to this cavalier treatment by the Sangh Parivar. They’ve tried it before and since. With Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Shivaji, Dr. Ambedkar, Gautam Buddha, even with Gandhiji. The attempt is to grab prominent figures of Indian history, mythology and philosophy, selectively interpret their words and actions and project them as emissaries of a “Hindu nation” as only the Sangh Parivar sees it.
 

Secular responses to such efforts at misappropriation of the heroes of Indian history have been of two kinds. One has sought to tear away, through quotes and counter-quotes, from Vivekananda any element of Hindu chauvinism or superiority while belatedly acknowledging the secular thrust of his Spirituality. The other has merely scoffed at Indian civilization’s claim to tolerance and assimilation. Many problems beset both approaches. The first gets limited to a mere response to a Parivar-determined agenda with no attempt to shift the terrain of discourse and debate. The second, which shows scant knowledge of our own cultural heritage, fits well with the popularly flaunted stereotype of the “rootless”, West-oriented secularist. The latter has been regularly ridiculed by the saffron brigade for its inherent contempt and dislike of all things Indian (Read Hindu).
 
Noisy advocates of the Sangh Parivar have set themselves a crude, if simple, task. Once chosen, appropriated and “saffronised”, all discomforting or unsuitable (for Hindutva) aspects of our past leaders are glossed over in order to recreate a mythical Hindu tradition united in its distrust and hatred of Islam and Muslims.
 
Facts, however, do not fit well with Hindutva’s scheme of things. Sardar Patel projected as a protector of Hindu interests was, as Union Home Minister, staunchly against the state exchequer bearing the expenses for re-building the Somnath temple.
 
Soon after Independence, it was he, as Indian Home Minister, who wrote an anguished letter to the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Govind Vallabh Pant, urging him not to re-open the Babri Maslid dispute “while the wounds of Partition were still so raw.” But such details do not bother the saffron ideologues.
 
Some of Dr B R Ambedkar’s critical views on Muslims (and Islam) are today being crudely projected by pro-Hindutva writers in their desire to forge an all-Hindu unity. But they ignore his scathing views on the brutal inequalities within Hindu society and his life-long battle against it. What could be a greater show of protest against organised Hinduism than the mass conversion of thousands of Dalits led by Ambedkar to Buddhism, in October 1956?
 
For every passionate follower of Ambedkar there are as many stout proponents of the Gandhian approach. Many within the radical left circle have for long condemned Ambedkar as “pro-imperialist” because of his refusal to unconditionally support the anti-colonial movement. They fail to recognise the fact that the Dalit leader did not necessarily see liberation from the Hindu caste system and orthodoxy as a natural by-product of the anti-colonial struggle.
 
Ram is worshipped in the north, Ravana in the south. Which Asoka will we flaunt before the world today – the successful king who commanded the widest expanse of territory in ancient India through a series of wars on weak rulers? Or the anguished and lonely monarch who hit by remorse over the blood and gore caused by his ambition, renounced Hinduism and converted to Buddhism?
 
Must we worship one and shun the other? Must women of yesteryear, Mirabai or Razia Sultan, be any less regarded because they were women of their times typecast by history into the only two available roles – devoted lover or male-like ruler?
 
Do the literary works of Tulsidas and Shakespeare deserve any less mention because of their avowed male chauvinism?
 
The problem, in a sense lies in an inability to celebrate history. Selective approaches are not merely self-limiting but also reveal a shallow reading of man or womankind, the growth of civilization. In this instance of Indian civilization and history.
 
Above all, the strategy of the Sangh parivar is to push the average, peace-loving, religious and India-proud Indian against the wall. It is they who celebrate – however selectively and with a single goal in mind – our glorious history while the dry well of secularism has not much to offer to people. Well-orchestrated propaganda helps to drive home the point.
 
“The fundamental sanity of Indian civilization,” writes Romila Thapar in the first volume of The History of India, “has been due to the absence of Satan.” It is the very nature of this Indian being, unhampered by rigid notions of Good and Evil and able to regard other or unconventional mystical, aesthetic and intellectual traditions with benevolence, that perhaps results in his accommodative spirit.
 
Every historical figure, however tall, has also to be seen as a product of his or her times. Seen in this perspective, Vivekananda cannot be so easily pigeon-holed as “theirs” or “ours”. Why must we deny that even people who are not ritually-minded find participation in an aarti at the Ramkrishna Mission anywhere in the country peace-giving or soul elevating? Irrespective of his belief system, doesn't a non-sectarian individual experience something similar during a quiet service in a cathedral? Or, for that matter, while simply marveling at the architectural beauty of the Bada Imambara mosque in Lucknow?
 
Unfortunately one of the techniques of the Hindutva brigade is monopolizing of historical figures. In 1993, except the VHP-RSS brigade, the occasion of the centenary of Vivekananda’s Chicago address was largely ignored by ‘secularists.’ Similar other milestones of the Indian tradition are similarly left to the supremacists to grab. Does this not mean conceding the Indian cultural space to sectarian Hindus?
 
To remember Vivekananda and to acknowledge his contributions does not have to mean his deification. It in no way implies glossing over differences with aspects of his world-view.
 
The Swami, for example, viewed Hinduism as a spiritual reservoir superior to and vast enough to subsume all spiritual traditions. “This is the great ideal before us, and everyone must be ready for it – the conquest of the whole world by India – nothing less than that, and we must all get ready for it, strain every nerve for it. Let foreigners come and flood the land with their armies, her mind. Up India and conquer the world with your spirituality.”
 
But love (a synonym of spiritualism for Vivekananda) was his only weapon. “Ay, as has been declared on this soil first, love must conquer hatred, hatred cannot conquer itself. Materialism and all its miseries can never be conquered by materialism. Armies when they attempt to conquer armies only multiply and make brutes of humanity.” (Complete works, 33.276-77).
 
We may agree or disagree with Vivekananda. But how can we ignore that one of his greatest concerns was for the poor, downtrodden masses? “The one thing that is at the root of all evils in India is the condition of the poor. The only service to be done for our lower classes is to give them education, give them their lost sense of individuality. (Complete Works 4: 307-309).
 
Vivekananda’s commitment to the poor got translated into the Ramkrishna Mission, whose national network of volunteers are engaged in dedicated welfare and developmental activities even today.
 
Yet, the same Vivekananda supported the fundamentals of the caste system, even while staunchly opposing any notion of special privilege. “Caste in a natural order. I can perform one duty in social life and you another; you can govern a country I can mend a pair of shoes; there is no reason why you are greater than I because I can mend my shoes…. but there is no need to trample on my head… Caste is good. That is the only natural way of solving life. Men must from themselves into groups and you cannot get rid of that. Caste but no privileges.” (The Complete Works of Vivekananda, 3:245-46, 460).
 
We all may disagree. But denying one or the other aspects of the man is denial of a fact of history.
 
Eminent historian Sumit Sarkar says that in Ramakrishna and in the pages of the Kathamrita “there is no developed sense of a sharply distinct ‘Hindu’ identity—let alone any political use of it”. In an Occasional research paper Sarkar draws attention to how Vivekananda at the pinnacle of his radicalism had said, “forget not that the lower classes, the ignorant, the poor, the illiterate, the cobbler, the sweeper, are thy flesh and blood, thy brothers.” Today’s reality may be far from that ideal, but still “enough of the original catholicity” of the Ramakrishna Mission survives to this day, “to keep it — so far away from the contemporary politics of aggressive Hindutva,” Sumit Sarkar adds.
 
Other scholars like Jyotirmaya Sharma argue that Vivekananda’s views could lend itself to a pro-Hindutva interpretation. “Vivekananda’s interpretation of Ramakrishna is a simultaneous act of fidelity and distortion. In every instance, the skeleton of Ramakrishna’s thought is kept intact but the flesh and blood imposed on the skeleton often bear little resemblance to the original. In 1896, Vivekananda gave two lectures in America and England on Ramakrishna. At the outset, he confesses that he speaks on behalf of his Master, but the errors in interpreting the message are entirely his own. .. . What was the parity and equality of all faiths becomes “phases” of one “eternal religion” in the hands of Vivekananda."

Says Sharma, “It is worth marking that he calls them “sects” and not religions. But the overall tone and tenor is one of remarkable liberality. Now read the last line of the quote: “We must each have our own individual religion, individual so far as the externals of it go.” The plurality of faiths, then, is limited to the externals. Remove the externals and what will emerge is a universal faith defined by Vivekananda, based entirely on his reading of the Vedanta. The Vedantic ideal of Oneness and the Universal Soul would ultimately prevail. 

(Portions of this article have been archived from the cover story of Communalism Combat, A Disputed Heritage, September  1993)
 

Hi-Jackers of history

 
As the Sangh Parivar was never part of our freedom movement, it has no hero who can be offered to attain legitimacy as a patriotic body. They have, therefore, been trying to usurp national figures like Bhagat Singh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and others and project them as if they were members of the Parivar.
 
Now they have laid their hand on Swami Vivekananda. It is the Vishwa Hindu Parishad that is celebrating the centenary of Swamiji's Chicago address in the US. His complete works, in eight volumes are before me and I am trying hard to find something in common with the Parivar’s ideology.
 
Guru Golwalkar, the parivars chief ideologue, in his Dheyasmriti says: “If you examine closely, you will find that Hindu religion is the only one that can be called a religion (dharma). The others are not religions at all.” Sita Ram Goel, his disciple, elaborates further in his book Secularism: Rashtra Droh ka Dusra Naam.
 
“It is a mistake to accept Islam as a religion. And this is the root of all other mistakes. Hindus in their ignorance have recognized Islam or Christianity or for that matter any other religion. This recognition has to be withdrawn. This is the first implication of the emerging national vision.”
 
Swamiji's vision was different: “If one religion be true, then all others must be true  … As different streams mingle all their water in the sea, so O Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”
 
The RSS has drilled into the minds of innocent children trapped in shakhas that Hindus in India were converted by force. Swami, Vivekananda questions this falsehood.
 
“Why amongst the poor of India so many are Mohammedans? It is no nonsense to say that they were converted by sword. It was to gain their liberty from the zamindars and the priests, and as consequence you find in Bengal there are more Mohammedans than Hindus amongst the cultivators, because there were so many zamindars there.” The main attraction of Islam, according to Swamiji was its message of equality and brotherhood.
 
Guru Golwalkar said Christians and Muslims must convert to Hinduism if they want their rights as citizens. Swami Vivekananda’s soul must be anguished as he had declared that religious unity cannot be achieved by the destruction of others.
 
“Brothers, yours is an impossible hope. Do I wish that the Christian would become a Hindu? God forbid! Do I wish that the Hindu or Buddhist become Christian? God forbid! All must assimilate the spirit of others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.”
 
Ashok Singhal repeated in the US what he has been saying in India – that the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6 would be recorded in “letters of gold” and Hindus would not rest till the Ram mandir was built.
 
But what Swami Vivekananda said in the US in 1893 is true even today. “You erect churches (read temple in the present context) all through India. The crying evil in the east is not religion, they have religion enough . . . they ask for bread.”
 
It is hypocritical for anyone to own up Swami Vivekananda without disowning the teachings of Dr Hedgewar, Guru Golwalkar and fanatics like Ashok Singhal. The Sangh Parivar’s ideology has nothing in common with Swamiji, who spoke about the rise of Sudras and the downfall of Brahmanical Hinduism.
 
Courtesy: MIDDAY, Bombay, 1993.

The post Swami Vivekananda, theirs or ours? appeared first on SabrangIndia.