27 May 1999, 826 words
I am quite sure that there are true Hindus in Trinidad and Tobago. But I am absolutely sure that none of them are among the people who claim to represent Hinduism in this country. The Bhagavadgita says so.
For example, some months ago Maha Sabha head Sat Maharaj declared that ahimsa (non-violence) has been expunged from the Hindu literature in this country. Now not even Devant Parsuram Maharaj has claimed that Sat is an avatar (although I'm sure he'll do so when told to do so.) But, even if Sat Maharaj was an avatar, I very much doubt this would give him the authority to rewrite the Bhagavadgita. However, since no Hindu leaders have seen fit to contradict Mr. Maharaj, this is a clear case of silence lending consent. Apparently, in Trinidad, being Secretary-General of the Maha Sabha confers more authority than God.
The Bhagavadgita, however, clearly states that ahimsa is a fundamental tenet of Hinduism. It is one of the four physical virtues necessary in the worship of God (chapter17, text14). Those who eschew ahimsa are declared to be ignorant (13:12). It is listed, along with akrodhah (freedom from anger) and apaisunam (aversion to fault-finding) as the chief qualities of godly men (16:1-3). So not only does Sat not have the authority to expunge ahimsa but, since he falls short in all the other categories listed, I don't think he can justifiably describe himself as a true Hindu.
Now Hindus often say that Hinduism is not a religion, but a way of life. Presumably, this means that a Hindu is defined not primarily by what they believe, but by attitude and action. It would therefore be instructive to consider the character of those persons who claim to speak for the Hindu community in order to see if they measure up.
Among the holy qualities listed in the Bhagavadgita is daya bhutesu (compassion for all creatures). But Devant Maharaj can't even find compassion for other human beings: just a few weeks ago he wrote about the Kosovo crisis, blaming the situation entirely on what Muslim conquerors did centuries ago. Not a word of sympathy had he for the people being slaughtered now.
His Maha Sabha colleague Rajnie Ramlakhan is equally callous. When some months ago, an Australian missionary and his two sons - aged ten and eight - were burnt to death by Hindu fanatics, she wrote a column saying that, while she didn't approve of what happened, one had to understand that Hindus were put under a lot of stress by Christians trying to convert them.
A Hindu, says the Bhagavadgita, speaks words that "are truthful, pleasing, beneficial and not vexing to others" (17:15). Since Devant and Rajnie break this injunction nearly every week in their newspaper columns, they cannot call themselves true Hindus. Indeed, since the Maha Sabha spokespersons continually claim that Hindu India gave the world virtually all its philosophy, technology and spirituality - frequently distorting history and science in making said claims - it seems justifiable to say that these so-called Hindus are well-defined by the following texts from the Bhagavadgita: "Neither purity nor truth nor correct behaviour is found in them...absorbed in the conceit of pride and false prestige, they are always sworn to evil work..."(16:7,10).
However, there are also those individuals who, while making no particular claim to spirituality, insist that they are true Hindus "civilizationally", because history and biology makes them so. We can ignore the ridiculous assertion that there is such a creature as a biological Indian. The civilizational claim is more interesting. In order to be a true Hindu in this paradigm, a person would still need to follow certain philosophical tenets. For example, in Hindu rhetoric there are traditions known as jalpa and vitanda. Jalpa refers to objective argument and is related to the virtue of satyam, or truth, which a true Hindu always strives to adhere to. But vitanda refers to a debater whose only interest lies in trying to defeat their opponent. Such a person is always one-sided, frequently dishonest. Kamal Persad falls into this category.
In Sankskrit dialectics, one would say that Persad's prameyas (objects of knowledge), although focused exclusively on matters of race, are presented as svatah prasiddhih (self-evident), which is obviously absurd when dealing with such a subjective issue. Persad's opinions thus suffer from anavastha (lack of firm grounding), as they rest on nothing but his own prejudice. And, since such errors are totally against the best traditions of Hindu philosophy, Persad cannot claim to be a true Hindu in even the secular sense.
It seems then that true, true Hindus are in short supply in public life in Trinidad and Tobago. And, looking at what I have just written, a nice irony occurs to me: that, although I am a committed atheist, I am still a better Hindu than those who most loudly proclaim themselves to be such.
Copyright ©1999 Kevin Baldeosingh