A friend of mine sent me yesterday on WhatsApp a “many times forwarded’ copy of Shashi Tharoor’s excerpted speech reportedly now going viral on the internet. It is titled “WHY AM I A HINDU?” which I read with great interest but great disappointment. For Tharoor as elocutionist, politician, author and astute diplomat, I have great admiration. But when I find him treading into waters in which I think he is all at sea, such as Hindu philosophy, theology and religion, I must say that I often find him a tad disappointing.
I will explain myself why I have such ambivalent feelings towards Shashi Tharoor but not before you have yourself fully read the Tharoor speech as reproduced below.
*************
My first reaction to the Tharoor speech was that it was it was “Tharoorian balderdash”. I chose the term balderdash deliberately since I wanted to express my thought with an uncommon English word that had every bit of the famed Tharoorian dash, panache and flourish.
My comment however did not go down well with many of my friends who are ardent admirers of Shashi. One friend immediately replied snapping back at me on Whatsapp:
“Whatever.! But at least he didn’t curse Hindus like his fellow (the Congress) party members..”
Another friend, a gracious lady who is an author and former business business-journalist was equally angered by and aghast at my comment:
“Why?! What’s wrong in what he says!”
Another learned friend from Udupi who is a retired academician, was almost apoplectic with dismay. He arraigned me with a severe reply after he had probably consulted an English dictionary to make sure “balderdash” meant exactly what I had intended it to convey:
““Balderdash” is a fun word. It refers to nonsensical or absurd talk, writing, or ideas. It’s often used to describe something that’s considered ridiculous, foolish, or utter rubbish. Example: “The plot of that movie was pure balderdash – completely unbelievable!” …. Tharoor’s speech is not balderdash…”, he thundered.
It is …! I insisted to him with a return message of equal vehemence. What does a politician like Tharoor know about Hinduism apart from its generalities? Does he know it better than our seers and Acharyas themselves ? It is balderdash indeed in my opinion to say that “there are no binding requirements to being a Hindu”.
Tharoor is blatantly misrepresenting Hinduism as some sort of inchoate, loose, unstructured and “yahaan sab chalthaa hai” kind of faith. We all are fond of parroting what the Supreme Court of India laid down as a cardinal but vapid definition of Hinduism … that “it’s a way of life” … and not any systematic body of religious thought . That Court observation is taken to be gospel truth by the rest of the country. It may be Constitutional gospel but then it is also equally cardinal religious truth that to be a Hindu you must have faith in the divine nature of the Vedas (“apaurusheyam“). In the speech above, do you notice that not once has Shashi Tharoor even mentioned the Vedas, except right at the very end when he blithely quotes a single rk from a Rg Veda only because he finds it convenient to suit his own fanciful purpose of providing a specious interpretation of it?!
In Hinduism, the very first article of faith is to embrace the Vedas as eternally valid revelations of uninversal Truth. Does Tharoor accept that article of faith or not? He has not said so in his speech. He has cleverly skirted it.
Those who reject the Vedas are not Hindus . Period. But in his speech, Tharoor is being so clever by half while interpreting a single, culminating line from the ‘nasadiya suktam” of the Rg Veda to negate the Veda itself! How then can Tharoor claim to be an enlightened Hindu himself?
The above riposte from me further angered my friend triggering a scholarly volley of messages from him:
““For a farmer (in some corner of India) who knows nothing about Vedas, who believes in worshipping Bhagawan in his simple routine, Hinduism has entirely a different meaning”. For a layman, Hinduism is a way of life where he is free to worship any Bhagawan of his choice. Seers, saints, tapaswis Swami-jis think from a different angle“. And those who don’t believe are also Hindus as it gives them freedom not to have any beliefs. A.N. Moorthy Rao ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._N._Murthy_Rao ) or G.T. Narayana Rao (https://www.veethi.com/india-people/g._t.__narayana_rao-profile-6474-25.htm) are legendary examples.
To buttress further his argument in support of Shashi Tharoor’s speech, my academician friend threw at me then a quote from a recent book review he had just read of the work of the noted Hindutva writer, Aravindan Neelakandan:
Aravindan Neelakantan: An in-depth critical review of the book ‘A Dharmic Social History of India’ has been done by Jataayu B’luru.
First, it presents a bold challenge to the prevailing narratives and dominant colonial interpretations surrounding Indian society and its historical evolution. It confronts the “standard model” which posits that Indian social history is primarily a story of Brahminical imposition of birth-based stratification, interrupted only by fleeting reform movements.
Second, it presents an alternative framework rooted in Hindu Dharma’s inherent values and its dynamic engagement with social reality over millennia, emphasizing the roles of yajna and bhakti in fostering social inclusion. This is done without any denial or suppression of the factual accounts of social stagnation or bitter instances from the 20th century when traditional religious institutions opposed social inclusion.
For “perplexed Hindu youths”, the book offers “ambrosia” by clarifying the true nature of Hindu Dharma concerning social inequalities and showcasing the historical contributions of saints, sages and leaders in uplifting the downtrodden. By exploring the inherent emancipatory potential within Hindu spirituality, it offers a vision of social justice achieved through harmony rather than conflict. It suggests that the path forward lies in following these examples, enabling Sanatana Dharma to “show the world how to attain maximum welfare for all people.”
************
Now, that my academician friend was taking our discussion to a shriller level of inquiry into the subject-matter by quoting a Hindutva scholar and author (who by the way, had himself written an elegant Foreword for my own published book (2024) on the history of Sri Vaishnavites of Tamil Nadu, “A Tale of Two Cities; The Decline and Fall of the “ubhaya vedantins”), I replied to him as follows and ended our Whatsapp exchange:
“Sir that’s exactly what I mean … you can be a practitioner of Hindu faith without being even aware or self-conscious that you are living the Vedic way of life .
Hinduism is a way of life rooted in a certain faith … please don’t forget that . But if you became aware of the Vedas by acquainting yourself with its tenets, and then choose to reject it or make a travesty of it by giving it your own fanciful interpretations of it … as Shashi Tharoor does so in his speech… you would cease then to be a Hindu … you’d be either a Buddhist, Jain or an Atheist. You would not be Hindu.
It is dead wrong to argue that “there are no binding requirements to being a Hindu”. Tharoor is wrong. To be a Hindu, you must abide by the Veda . It is a “binding requirement”. Of course , since we live in a secular and republican society, you can practice any faith you wish to . . There is no requirement you must be a Hindu to live here. But then that is a political ethic enjoined upon us by the Constitution of India. There is no Hindu ethic to say that Hinduism has no “binding requirement”. Tharoor may quote the “nasadiya suktham” to justify that dubious interpretation of Hinduism of his… But then he is guilty of misinterpreting it… and which is why I say, his speech is balderdash.”
***************
I promised my friend that I would later in a few days, write a blogpost here on my webpage to present my case in a more nuanced and less polemical manner. I hope to do so in a couple of days in Part-2.
Sudarshan Madabushi