March to monotheism

If you have been watching the regular eruption of Hindutva frenzy in various parts of the country over the past decade — Gujarat, Mangalore, Kandhamal, and, now, Pilibhit — you must be wondering why so many Hindus are losing it. What is happening to the old belief in tolerance? Why are people becoming obsessed with “defending our culture,” making hate speeches (as in Varun Gandhi’s “hath kaat doonga”), and beating up women pub-goers?

The short answer: a male, macho Hindutva is fighting for supremacy with traditional Hinduism. The rough men of Hindutva believe that traditional Hinduism has become effete, incapable of holding its own against proselytising religions. They are now trying to fashion a new Hinduism that is militant, macho, possibly misogynist, less tolerant and more monotheistic.

The theme of Hindu weakness is a long running one. It has been muttered under the breath or stated openly for nearly 200 years now, ever since missionaries from proselytising religions ridiculed Hindu  polytheism. As generations of Hindus internalised these criticisms, we saw reformers — from Rammohun Roy of the Brahmo Samaj to Swami Dayananda of Arya Samaj to Swami Vivekananda — trying to strengthen Hinduism from within by adopting ideas from Christianity and Islam.

While the many gods remained, the reformers said they were but manifestations of the one ultimate god. Vivekananda talked of Hindus “developing a body of Islam and mind of Vedanta,” apparently to imbibe what he perceived as Muslim courage and aggression in contrast to Hindu pusillanimity. Gandhi had worries about Hindu cowardice. “I would risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race,” he said. If weakness, disunity and cowardice have been Hindu themes all along, the Sangh Parivar has taken these fears to their logical conclusion. It is seeking political strength by slowly fashioning a monotheistic approach to Hinduism: an ultimate Hindu holy book (the Gita), a focus on one central god (Ram temple above all), and physical aggression (trishuls). If the Sangh Parivar has its way, we can expect a stronger lunge towards monotheism and a reduction in diversity, pluralism and multi-culturalism.

If the upside of monotheism is universalism and egalitarianism, the downside is that it admits of no rival. There can be no middle ground, no compromise. Reality is binary. It’s either one or zero. It’s my god or your devil. The aversion to idolatry and icons emerges from the same logic: an icon or idol is a personal god; it empowers individuals. It is democratic. It allows any individual to fashion his own god.  Which is why iconoclast kings and priests have gone out of their way to destroy idols: the idea is to destroy the spirit of the empowered individual.

Polytheism promotes acceptance of diversity and plurality, making it difficult for power to be concentrated in one person. Monotheism allows for the consolidation of power. The Sangh Parivar’s elevation of the Ram temple issue is in line with its move towards monotheism and the consolidation of Hindu power. The link between monotheism and power is best understood historically. All tribal societies were polytheistic. The first attempt to introduce monotheism dates back to 1375 BC, when Amenhotep IV of Egypt declared Aton, the original sun god, as the one and only true god. Amenhotep’s monotheism wasn’t driven purely by theology. His Egyptian empire was growing.
Under him were  different peoples with different gods. To rule, he needed a universal god.

Sigmund Freud, in his book Moses and Monotheism,said: “Imperialism was reflected in religion as  universality and monotheism,” he said, adding, “Religious intolerance, which was foreign to antiquity before this and long after, was inevitably born with the belief in one god.” History offers us several confirmatory examples. After the council of Nicea in 325 AD, Constantine the Great had all alternative versions of the Bible junked in order to consolidate his power. The prophet of Islam opted for monotheism for the same reason. If  people worshipped all kinds of gods, there was no hope in hell that they would work together. Once the rival gods were eliminated, Islam was unstoppable.Akbar, the Great had much the same idea when he tried to create a composite religion (Din-e-elahi).  He issued an “infallibility decree” (mahzar) which said that if, in future, any questions arose relating to religious laws and their interpretation, he alone would be the final deciding authority. He got several senior ulema to sign this decree.

Militant Hindutva is on the same monotheistic power trip. It is seeking to replace  pluralist Hinduism with something that is more useful to attain power. If enough Hindus feel threatened by the power of rival monotheisms, Hindutva will take us in that direction. We may even end up replacing the narrow intolerance of caste with a broader intolerance of monotheism.