| Hindus are not
in danger of being overly active and militant but of remaining so passive, resigned, and
apologetic that they are unable to function as a coherent group or speak with a common
voice about any issue. They have been very slow even to defend themselves against
unwarranted attack, much less to assert themselves or attack others. There is no danger of
a monolithic or dictatorial fundamentalism in India, like in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
The danger is of a divided and passive religion that leaves
itself prey to external forces and thereby gradually disintegrates. A little more activity
among Hindus, almost whatever it might be, would be a good sign as it shows that they are
not entirely asleep! To brand such activity, which is bound to be agitated at first, as
fundamentalist because it causes this sleep to be questioned is a mistake.
In this regard Sri Aurobindo's insight may be helpful
(Indian's Rebirth, p. 177). He said," The Christians brought darkness rather
than light. That has always been the case with aggressive religions-they tend to overrun
the Earth. Hinduism on the other hand is passive, and therein lies its danger.
It is time Hindus stopped accepting wrong designations and negative stereotypes of their
wonderful religion. |
