Shashi Tharoor
(2018), Why I am a Hindu?, Aleph, pp. 297
Works of polemic beginning with ‘Why I am (not)
something’ makes for interesting reading because of the focus on a single side
of the debate and the force of arguments. The first of these and arguably the
most well-known is Bertrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian, a speech
delivered for the National Secular Society, London which was later published as
a pamphlet. So, I was much intrigued when the latest book of Indian
Parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor came out last year, considering his brand of
secularist Hinduism is increasingly portrayed to be irrelevant in contemporary
India.
Tharoor makes his central argument in three parts. In
the first, he sketches his personal version of Hinduism with its eclectic mix
of beliefs and cosmopolitan view of the world. On the one hand, Tharoor
questions several Hindu cultural traditions such as caste system and
superstitions that have entrenched inequality among the Hindus over the
centuries. He then explains his personal need to be a Hindu, with its emphasis
on self-realisation rather than collective advancement, its doctrinal openness
and flexibility of practice.
Political Hinduism
In the second part, Tharoor focuses on political
Hinduism, which has endangered his personal HInduism. By tracing the ideology of
Hindutva or Hindu nationalism through the doctrines of its proponents, the
author demonstrates how the liberal and pluralistic ethos of Hinduism as a way
of life is incompatible with the cultural nationalist version.
In the third and the last part, the author presents his
arguments on how to take Hinduism back to its liberal fold. He argues that reclaiming
the intellectual heterodoxy of Hinduism is the key to this project. Hindus were
essentially henotheists, i.e., people who worshiped their gods whilst not
denying the existence of other gods. For example, Hindus did not have dogma,
prescriptive texts or even the need to believe in god to be accepted under its
umbrella. This is why Hinduism is sometimes described as a ‘federation of
philosophies’ or ‘fellowship of faith’. Reclaiming that version of Hinduism is
not only relevant for liberal Hindus but also for inter-religious peace in a
country such as India with immense religious diversity. Reform movement within
religion may be an important strategy to retrieve other ways of thinking, of
which textual work like this, may be the first step.
This book is well researched and duly annotated,
catering to lay readers as well as individuals who are familiar with the
religion. What makes it a compelling read is Tharoor’s personal conviction of his
arguments and his plea to bring back freedom of thought and belief that enables
Hindus and non-Hindus to live in peace. A timely intervention in these troubled
times!
