One of the things I have learned over the years is that there are always different ways to view any fact, issue, object, ... To understand the "truth" I need to look at those various views and make some determination as to what seems most reasonable to me. Unfortunately collecting and understanding these various views takes a great deal of time and energy. Unfortunately, it is time and energy that I do not have to give to all of the important issues of the day. Perhaps this explains our often cynical approach to what we are told - that is certainly a lot easier then actually learning enough to make an informed and well reasoned decision.

At any rate, I appreciate Atish for making the effort, for providing an alternative view (and at least from my reading a most reasonable one) and teaching me something new.

Matthew Hile

The following letter is posted with permission from its author, Ethical Society member Atish Sen.

I am very upset with the July 22 platform on Hinduism and Modern Life by Anita Mehra. Christina and I had driven in from Columbia that morning to hear the speaker. The ushers were distributing the morning’s program, and with it a sheet containing the main points of lecture in the context of Indian history. I pretty much had a fit when I read the handout. It took Christina’s persuasion to stop me from marching on to the dais and challenging the speaker. I listened to the lecture with growing anger. It confirmed what I had suspected; the speaker was spewing fundamentalist Hindu propaganda.

Hindu fundamentalist advocate a much distorted version of Indian history and mythology in order to make their world view very grandiose. They also present the Hindu epics Ramayana and Mahabharat as history. The Hindu fundamentalists are fixated on Rama and his fabled reign because it represents a Hindu utopia. More of that story later.

In the lecture Mehra said that foundations of Hinduism dated back to 9000 BCE. The Hindu religious texts (Vedas) were as old as 4000 BCE. That Buddha, and Mahavira lived in that period. Also, the stories of Ramayana and Mahabharata was dated 4000 - 3000 BCE. Absolutely incorrect! There is no historical and archeological evidence to support these claims.

The Indus Valley Civilization which spanned the plains between rivers Indus and Ganges existed in the period 3300 – 1900 BCE. There is some evidence of a proto-civilization as far back as around 5500 BCE. Remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization can be found as late as 1300 BCE. These eras are pre-Hindu, at least as the fundamentalists define the Hindu period. The Hindu fundamentalists begin the Hindu era with the invasion of central Asian tribes (the Aryan invasion) into northern India. Their claim is of a massive invasion that defeated the Indus Valley civilization and established the Hindu era. Historical and archeological evidence points to a gradual migration from central Asia beginning about 1900 BCE. The demise of the Indus Valley Civilization is still unclear. They were most likely pushed southwards and/or assimilated into the immigrant population and culture.

The Rig Veda, the earliest known Hindu scripture, was written in the period 1700 – 1100 BCE and not in the period 4000 – 3000 BCE as Mehra claimed. Buddha lived from 563 to 483 BCE and Mahavira’s life spanned 599 – 527 BCE. These two were contemporaneous to Conficius (551 – 479 BCE). So, the claim that Buddha and Mahavira lived sometime in 4000 – 3000 BCE is a fabrication by Hindu fundamentalists.

The question of Ramayana and Mahabharata, the two Hindu epics, is a major part of the fundamentalist propaganda. According to Mehra these stories date to 4000 - 3000 BCE and that the characters in the two epics are real. The two epics actually are from the period of 900 – 700 BCE and not 4000 BCE. The character of Rama is thought to be based on a minor king of Kosala, a small kingdom in northern India, who reigned in this period. According to the epic Rama fought and defeated Ravana, the king of Lanka (supposedly modern day Sri Lanka) to free his wife Sita from captivity. Ravana had abducted Sita as revenge for being denied his claim to Sita as his wife. Rama was aided in this war by an army of monkeys whose general Hanuman is revered as a deity in northern India. Rama’s victory over Ravana is celebrated as Dussera and his triumphant return to Ayodhya is celebrated as Diwali, the two most important Hindu festivals in northern India.

Similarly, Mahabharata is based on a dynastic struggle that happened around the beginning of 9th century BCE and not 3000 BCE. According to the epic the conflict engulfed the entire subcontinent. The most famous part of Mahabharata is Bhagawat Gita, the sermon on duty delivered on the morning of the battle of Kurkshetra by Krishna to Arjun. The 18-day battle is depicted as carnage where few of the combatants survived. According to the epic, so much blood was spilt during the battle that the soil of the battlefield turned red permanently. Kurukshetra of today does have reddish soil (probably due to iron ore) that is seized upon by the Hindu fundamentalists as evidence of historical truth.

The Hindu mythology states that the universe was created by Brahma who then sleeps the rest of the day. Vishnu is responsible for welfare of the world. He is incarnated in various forms in order to rid the world of evil. Rama and Krishna are two of his most famous incarnations. When the world gets to be unsalvageable, Shiva destroys the universe. The life of the universe is one day of Brahma (~ 4.3 billion human years). Each day Brahma creates the universe again. According to Hinduism, the life of the universe is divided into four eras (yugs); Satya, Treta, Dwapar, and Kali (or Kal). In Satya Yug there is no ignorance and vice. Each succeeding yug sees a decline of virtue and increasing vice. Kala Yuga has no virtue and only ignorance, vice, and strife. At the end of Kal Yug Shiva destroys everything. The Hindu fandamentalists base their dates according to the archeoastrology that is derived from Hindu religious texts. This is the origin of the exaggerated antiquity as portrayed by Mehra. Also, according to Hindu fundamentalists (and Mehra) Kal Yug began with the Muslim invasions from Persia and central Asia in 12th century and the establishment of Muslim rule from 13th century onwards. Mehra also claimed that Kal Yug ended with independence in 1947. All this is pure propaganda. If the dating according to Hindu scriptures is followed strictly, Kal Yug has been on us for the last five thousand years and will last another 425,000 years. Also, there is no other era to follow, only complete destruction by Shiva and then re-creation of the universe by Brahma. The onset of Kal Yug that coincides with spread of Islam into India is a very convenient ploy by Hindu fundamentalists in their goal to rid the country of all other religions. They fixate on Islam because that sells easily. The Hindu fundamentalists are not tolerant of Christians, Jews (very few remaining in India), or Zoroastrians and would turn on them if they could sell that idea as easily.

The fixation on Rama is typical of the Hindu fundamentalist propaganda. Rama defeated Ravana, saved Sita and rid the world of all evil is the simplistic explanation of the epic Ramayana. Ravana is a metaphor for Islam and Sita for Hinduism. Owing to the historical animosity between Hindus and Muslims, this story is very palatable to those already inclined to hate Muslims (of whom there are many). Most of the story of Ramayana is very clear cut in terms of good versus evil. The subtleties in the epic are always glossed over. In Ramayana, Ravana is portrayed as a wise, brave, and a good ruler to his subjects. The kingdom of Lanka is prosperous and the people happy. Ravana’s only fault is his enormous ego and that brings about his downfall. After the battle, the gods order Rama to perform penance for killing a devout man like Ravana. I doubt that Mehra or any other Hindu fundamentalist would want to discuss this aspect of Ramayana.

Mahabharata is tricky for the Hindu fundamentalists. The story is much more nuanced than Ramayana and there are no obvious good and evil. The Kauravas who loose the battle are good and just rulers of a prosperous and happy kingdom. The Pandavas resort to underhanded and not so chivalrous methods to win the battle. The rule of the Pandavas is not happy. Their kingdom is decimated because of the battle of Kurekshetra. All adult males are dead. The Pandavas are punished by the gods after their death. Krishna too is punished for his deception of the Kauravas and reneging on his promise to them that he would not take any active role in the battle, but only be Arjun’s charioteer. Being an incarnation of Vishnu, Krishna foretells his own death as a consequence of his actions during the battle.

The last point I want to discuss is the origins of Hinduism and Indians. The fundamentalists are strong proponents of Aryan invasion into northern India and that Hinduism grew directly from that Aryan culture and that its development is unique to India. The people in the northern states of Punjab, Rajasthan, and Kashmir are very much into their Aryan ancestry and a sense of having fairer complexion and therefore ethnically superior to people of southern and eastern India. Archeological and historical evidence points to a much less distinct process. The migration from central Asia happened gradually over a millennium. Hinduism that developed in northern India is a mixture of the beliefs that the immigrants had and those of the Indus Valley civilization. For instance, the concept Shiva existed in the Indus Valley Civilization. A depiction of “pashupati” (lord of the animals) can be seen in the seals of Indus Valley Civilization. In one of his incarnations, Shiva is referred to as pashupati. There are other facts that point to an amalgamation of cultures and beliefs being the origin of Hinduism. The oldest form of Sanskrit (as in Rig Veda) is similar to Avestan, the language spoken in Persia during the same period. So there clearly were cross-cultural connections. Hinduism/Buddhism was the most important religion in south-east Asia until 14th century. The Angkor Wat and other such temples in Kampuchea, Bali and Thailand are a testament to that cross-cultural connection.

We Indians of today are a mongrel race of the original Australoid natives of the subcontinent, the tribes from central Asia (the so-called Aryans), Mongolians, Chinese, etc., etc., etc. The Hindus currently practice a religion that grew out of a mixing of cultures and beliefs. The concept of pure Aryan race became prominent in Europe in 19th century. The scholars of that period argued that while the northern Europeans were Aryans (the blued-eyed blonde type) as a race, the original Aryan culture was lost (with the Vikings considered closest) with the spread of Christianity. So the search of the original Aryans culture was focused on India. The European scholars of mid -19th century considered Hinduism was most unadulterated remnant of the original Aryan culture that was devoid of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic degradation. Hosts of European linguists, historian, and other scholars descended on India to study Hinduism and Sanskrit. While their motives were unsavory, their scholarship was often excellent. At one time the University of Heidelberg had the largest and the most prestigious department of Sanskrit and Hindu studies anywhere in the world. Oddly enough their scholarship was attacked by European churches as an attempt to subvert the Christian faith. The Hindu fundamentalist have continued to push the idea of Aryan purity of Hinduism, especially in northern India.

Anita Mehra did not address the topic of ethics in Hinduism in her lecture. I suspect that it was never her intention. That lecture was pure Hindu fundamentalist drivel with some populist Hindu philosophy thrown in. The Society would not invite a Christian, Jew, or Muslim of the same ilk, then why was there more care taken in extending invitation to Anita Mehra?