Are All Religions Great?

Submitted by Dr. S L Dhani IAS (R) (India), Aug 13, 2010 at 22:42

People are generally touchy about their own religion. Leaders of all religions seem to be comfortable with all negative aspects of their respective religions. They shall never reform themselves and any outsider is totally incapable of doing anything about it. As such, I would not like to comment on Islam. I would talk only about Hinduism, the religion of ny birth whom IU do not at all admire because it was my enemy at my birth and it continues to be my enemy even after I have acquired positions which are the envy of 98 % of Hindu population, not because of this religion but in spite of that.

But my case can be used to its advantage by Islam also, which stands equally polluted by anti-human religion whose only declared objective is exploitation, oppression and suppression of the masses, who were condemned to be called Sudras, as having no rights of any kind whatsoever. Such a religion ought to reform itself in order to fit in with the expectations of modern human values, for the sake of ensuring the best welfare of those who were formally set apart for exploitation etc. under Hindu customs and prescribed philosophy in the name of Manu0smriti.

Unfortunately, because of my birth in a so-called untouchable caste of Hinduism, I came to be called a Hindu without my consent. Perhaps I could go out of Hindu fold by converting to any other religion but after seeing the lot of the converts from depressed classes to other religions, I find that the low caste of the convert travels with them and that they can never get assimilated into another major religion.

If one turns to neo-Buddhism of Dr. B R Ambedkar, one comes to be called a Buddhist, after conversion, but then the "Buddhist" becomes yet another caste of Hinduism equally hated and equally persecuted by Hindus. Further, after giving up one's old religion, he justifiably loses aright to point pout the weaknesses of the old religion. In this sense, the convert logically loses the right of speaking against the older religion. Hence, I continue to suffer the ignominy deliberately imposed on me through my exploitative oppressive and suppressive region, that is, Hinduism, which continues to boast that every one is equal in the eyes of God (but not in the eyes of Hindus-on-earth?).

By staying in Hindus I am not all happy to give a demographic advantage to Hinduism, but the laws are such that I have to be counted s Hindu. Strangely, even after conversion to Buddhism, one remains a Hindu since Constitution of India says that Hinduism includes Buddhism. I am not able to digest this provision in the Constitution of India, whose chief architect was Dr. B R Ambedkar, who continues to be hated by the Hindus even after leaving this world for some unknown world.

By remaining in Hinduism, I think that I can talk about the weaknesses of Hinduism in the same manner, the Hindu Brahmanas spend their whole life in praising the same Hinduism to skies. I know through the interventions on the facebook, that Hindu diehards feel quite uncomfortable with my disclosures, which are taken by them as wild criticism. But on the other hand, no rebuttals of my points of view have ever appeared in the form of a publication from the side of the formal custodians of Hinduism. Thus, it is clear that not only I am a non-conformist Hindu but I am also an unwelcome critic. My force is the force of my logic and I am sure that Hinduism is devoid of all force to defend itself on human and moral scale. Rather its divisive caste system has been a perennial threat to stability of India, and the solution lies only through annihilation of caste, which had been opposed by Mahatma Gandhi.

In olden days, non-conformists in Hinduism could be crushed with the help of the state and with the help of upper caste musclemen or through the power of excommunication, since one's excommunication was sure to result in ignoble death of the "culprit". But modern India, is governed by Constitution of India, which is believed to have repealed the objectionable practices that had been sanctioned by Hindu scriptures. Thus, the Constitution has partially changed the old sweeping power of Hindu leadership.

Taking advantage of this facility I have been producing analytical books exposing the weaknesses in scriptural Hinduism. My writings have been appreciated by liberal Hindus, frowned upon by scriptural Hindus, My writings were written with the two objects:

1. To arouse the sense of sensitivity and sensibility in Hindu leadership; and

2. To educate every lower caste including Kshatriya, Vaisya castes and Sudra castes.

Both these objects could not be achieved mainly because of the reason, that the exigencies of modern competitive world, almost every non-Brahmin is almost totally blank about the evolution of Vedic religion into modern Hinduism, which was given shape to by Adi-Sankaracharys (d. 820). Thus, actually speaking, modern Hinduism is only as old as 12 centuries, but this fact is not being realized even by Muslims, for reasons known to them.

Dr. S L Dhani

website www.sldhani.com

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".