Unity of Vedic Religion and Modern Hinduism!

Very often in polite liberal circles, there is consternation when it is claimed that Hinduism is the religion of the Vedas. The immediate counter is: "No! That's a brahminical right wing view. Hinduism is extremely diverse, disorganized motley collection of South Asian faiths" I contend however that this fashionable view is very inaccurate. In my view much of the theological and philosophical beliefs of the Hindus actually stems from the Vedas. Also there is a case to be made that Hinduism is actually an extremely well organized belief system with a standardized canon, and a well defined philosophical framework, housing considerable variety within that framework. 

The representatives on the so-called “Hindu Right” often underplay the “organization” of Hinduism in their eagerness to distinguish themselves from the “Abrahamic” faiths. “Organized religion” has become a dirty word of sorts for both the Left and Right in India. So for many on the Right, Hinduism is “special” because it is not an organized religion. But the fact is Hinduism is extremely well organized. And the Right is stupid to deny this. (No offence intended)

Before one gets to the organization of Hinduism, let’s first examine the claim that modern Hinduism bears little resemblance to Vedic religion. This view is articulated by Michael Witzel & Stephanie Jamison in their 1992 work “Vedic Hinduism”- admittedly a well written work. Here’s what they say, “Vedic Hinduism" is a contradiction in terminus since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call "Hindu religion", - at least as much Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion” This claim by Witzel and Stephanie is problematic in a number of ways. 

Firstly the claim is so very opposed to the belief of most traditional Hindus who see themselves as part of the grand vedic religious tradition to this day.  But why is that? Why do academics of religion hold a view so very opposed to that of the practitioners on the ground? The most important reason lies in the very different understanding of the term “Veda” on both sides. Typically when academics refer to the “Vedic religion” they usually refer to the “Samhita” portion of the Vedas - the religion of mantras and sacrifices and elaborate rituals, which they believe is non-existent in modern Hinduism. But the traditional understanding of the term “Veda” is very different. When a traditionalist uses the term, he uses it in a catholic sense. Referring not merely to the Samhitas, but also the Upanisads (the knowledge portion of the Vedas). And not just the Upanisads, but the entire corpus of secondary literature inspired by the Upanisads. This literature would include the Sutra literature of different philosophical schools, the Bhagavad Gita itself, the numerous commentaries on the Sutra literature (known in Indian parlance as “Bhashyas”) and the theological / literary traditions inspired by these commentators. The Vedic religion is ALL of the above. And not merely the sacrificial rites described in the earliest layer (which may technically be obsolete).

Also the Hindu religion does not view the Samhitas as obsolete (though specific rituals might be). The ritualistic spirit of the Samhitas (captured by later “Purva Mimamsa”) is very much a part of modern Hindu religion. Though the rituals themselves may have changed in character. While the typical western academic sees the Samhitas and Upanisads as being at loggerheads with each other, the Indian mind does not see the latter as a revolt against the former. In fact a traditionalist would claim that much of the philosophical inquiry found in Upanisads can be traced back to the Samhitas. Two examples being Nasadiya Sukta (the idea of an “Agnostic God”) and “Purusha Sukta” (the germs of later Hindu ideas of division of labor).

The other argument of many indologists concerns theology. There is often the view that Vedic gods like Indra, Varuna, Soma are no longer worshiped in India today. Modern Hinduism’s theology derives mainly from Itihaasas & Puranas, and hence bears no connection to Vedic religion. But then this view downplays a few inconvenient facts.

  

Firstly the major modern Hindu deities - be it Vishnu or Shiva - are very much Vedic Gods. And fairly major ones at that

• Many Vaishnavites to this day chant Purusha Suktam, as they regard the Primeval Cosmic being described in it as “Narayana” or Vishnu - Worth reminding ourselves that this Sukta is very much a part of Samhita portion of Vedas - the part viewed as most remote from modern Hinduism
• The Shri-Rudram hymn (also known as Śatarudrīya) found in the Taittareya rescension of the Yajur Veda Samhita, is chanted by devout Shaivites to this day, in just about every other Shiva temple. Several indologists regard the “Vedic Rudra” as merely a proto-Shiva, and not Shiva himself. Yet the Rudram hymn’s description of Shiva is very much in line with later Puranic conception of the lord. Some of the adjectives used to describe Rudra in the Satarudriya include - 
Shiva (auspicious), 
Triambaka (Three eyed one), 
Tripurantaka (the destroyer of the three cities), 
Mahadeva (the great deity)
, Neelakanta (the blue throated one)
, Neelagreeva (the blue necked one)These are not alien to us. The Vedic description of the lord is very very consistent with that of Shiva today. So the point to be noted is that even if we were to use the highly restricted definition of the term “Veda” by considering only the Samhitas, there are still very very strong commonalities between the religious ideas in the Samhitas and modern Hindu religious ideas.

Now let’s look at the Upanisads. These are a highly influential body of philosophical texts, viewed by every Hindu as very much Vedic. Now why are these texts important? Because they lay out the basic philosophical framework / verbiage leveraged by all Indian belief systems. How closely are these Upanisads connected to modern Hindu religious practice? Very closely.


In fact the two foundation texts of modern Hinduism, Badarayana’s Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita - can both be regarded as texts that systematize the teachings in the Upanisads. In fact Upanisads along with Brahma Sutras and Gita, are together regarded as “Prasthana trayi” - the three indispensable texts in Hinduism. The massive sectarian diversity in India stems from the difference in interpretation of Brahma Sutras and Gita, which in turn are influenced by the Upanisads. It is often stated that there can be no new sect founded in India that does not begin with a fresh take on Brahma Sutras. That’s actually not a very exaggerated comment. 

There are five broad interpretations of the Brahma Sutras that are still extant today. And these five broadly encompass nearly all the Hindu sects that exist today.

1. Adi Sankara Sampradaya (Monism)

2. Ramanuja (Qualified Monism)

3. Madhwa (Strict Dualism)

4. Nimbarka (Dualistic Non dualism)
5. 
Vallabha (Pure Non dualism)

Every Hindu sect can be bucketed under the philosophical framework expounded by one of these five streams. All these five traditions emerged from commentaries written by philosophers who lived between the 8th and the 15th century. And these commentaries were on Brahma Sutra - a "Vedic age" text - the very religious epoch that is regarded by many academics as being remote from modern Hinduism.

The other argument worth making is that the dichotomy between Vedic literature and Puranic/ Itihaasa literature that is often drawn in academia, is not accepted by traditional Hindus. To devout Hindus, there is no distinction between Puranic Hinduism and Vedic Hinduism. For eg: The Gita itself can be viewed as an Upanisadic text, while being part of an Itihaasa. Its author is arguably Veda Vyasa, who is also credited with having authored Brahma Sutras as well as having arranged the Vedas. Vyasa is also credited as author of the important Puranas. While it may seem crazy to attribute so many important texts to a single individual, it is less crazy than it sounds. Many scholars have pointed out the similarities that exist between the Gita and the Brahma Sutras. Both texts reference each other! And they both discuss Sankhya and other rival philosophies at length. So it is plausible that tradition may be right here that a single dominant figure had a hand in the current rescission of both texts.

So to conclude here are some takeaways from this discussion

• Hinduism is more organized than most people think, with a remarkable intellectual continuity, much of which is by design and not accident
• The sectarian diversity in Hinduism (which is held as evidence of it being disorganized) actually stems from a difference of opinion on the same set of fundamental texts - which are Vedic in origin
• Modern Hindu theology is not disconnected or remote from Vedic theology, but in fact descends from the latter, as illustrated in the example of Satarudriya hymn.

To position Vedic religion as a predecessor or a relative of modern Hinduism is simply not accurate. Regardless of one’s ideological or political affiliation, the unity of the two needs to be acknowledged more often by more people. Hinduism is very much the religion of the Vedas!

I would like to acknowledge and thank Sh. Changanti Koteswara Rao garu - whose lectures indeed inspired me to put forth this detailed view on my religion and Sh Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma whose books are the source of many views expressed.

All views expressed here in this article are personal

Indian Electoral History - An insight into robustness of the Indian democracy

India- A democracy in real sense:

India became a republic in 1950 and held its first parliamentary elections in 1952. What was so momentous about this event was that a country largely illiterate and unused to democratic process transitioned to universal adult suffrage in a manner unlike any other country. Close to 80% of the adult population in India was illiterate at the time of the first general election. Yet every Indian was given the right to vote across the country. A very very radical transition.

This is in sharp contrast to say a country like UK, that was NOT a democracy throughout the sixteen, seventeen and eighteenth centuries - when it had its great Industrial Revolution and managed to lift millions above mere subsistence living for the first time in human history. To put the Indian miracle into perspective, it is worthwhile to note that the United Kingdom had a franchise limited to less than 30% of its population even as late as 1914. Even in 1927, most women could not vote in UK. UK moved to 100% franchise only in 1928! This is despite the fact that UK had well over 80% literacy in 1900 - yet the franchise was under 30%, limited to men of property for the most part. So the Indian experience was indeed exceptional. 

Yet how has Indian democracy fared over the past 70 years. Pretty well, as we have mostly held free and fair elections. But it is often opinionated that one party dominated power for too long despite evident non performance.While that may be true, it was largely an outcome of the parliamentary system and the "first past the post" set up. In terms of Vote share, the Indian National Congress never got a majority of votes in ANY general election. Not even in 1952. 

Era of Centralist Congress with Left inclined leader, Nehru at helm

So let's look at how the Congress's vote share has changed in India since 1952 - INC vote share in 1952 was 45%. This however translated to a thumping majority of 364 seats (out of 489). The voter turnout in this election was surprisingly low at 45.7%. The interesting point to note is that even in the very first election where one would have thought Congress was the supreme political power and had no alternatives, 55% of Indians actually did not vote for its candidates. 

In 1957, the Congress vote share actually improved to 47.8% and 371 seats. The opposition was heavily fragmented. The second largest party in both 1952 and 57 was in fact CPI - with 3.3% vote share in '52 which improved to 8.9% in 1957! So the interesting thing to note is that in both 52 and 57 the main challenge to the Congress was not from the Right. But from the Left. The Congress party was perceived as a centrist / center-right party in those early days, despite having a rather left-wing leader in Nehru. 1957 also saw the formation of the first non-Congress government in an Indian state. Kerala saw the victory of CPI that year. A historic moment as it was the first time that Communists had won power through democratic means anywhere in the world (not counting San Marino).

In the next general election in 1962, Congress party's vote share remained high at 44.7% (361 seats). CPI remained the second largest party with 9.9% vote share. However this year was the first time that there emerged an "Indian Right" with a decent vote share. The Swatantra party had been formed 3 years prior to the 62 election. It was arguably India's first explicitly conservative party. The other conservative party in the fray was Bharatiya Jan Sangh founded in the early 50s. These two parties won 7.9% and 6.4% vote in 1962. So for the first time, the Congress faced opposition from not just the Left but also the Right. These two parties put together won over 14% votes. But it was unfortunate for the Indian conservative movement that Rajaji's Swatantra and Jan Sangh never formed an alliance.

Era of Indira Gandhi: Leftist Congress giving  Space for of Right to Rise

1967 was a significant election because it was the first time Congress fought the elections post Nehru's demise. L.B Shastri was a candidate chosen by internal party factions, and never led the Congress in a general election. By 1967 after he had passed on, and Congress projected Indira Gandhi as its Prime ministerial candidate sidelining her conservative rival Morarji Desai. One could say that this was the elections when Congress became more explicitly a left wing party than ever before in Indian politics. What this meant was that opposition to Congress now was primarily from the Right, and not from the Left unlike earlier elections. 1967 saw further strengthening of the Indian Right with Swatantra winning 8.7% votes and Jan Sangh 9.3%. In total these 2 parties won 79 seats!

Between 1967 and the next general elections in 1971, the Congress had a split. Indira Gandhi was expelled from the party and formed her own left-wing Congress (I) as opposed to Congress (O) - a more centrist party led by the likes of Morarji and Kamaraj. However this did not hurt Indira at all in 1971. The elections put to rest speculation on which faction would emerge as the "real" Congress post split. Indira's Congress won 43.7% of votes (352 seats), while Morarji led Congress (O) won just 10.4% of the votes (and 16 seats). In fact in 1971, a "right wing" alliance was formed - with Congress (O) of Morarji aligning with Rajaji's Swatantra and the Jan Sangh. Yet this alliance and the first consolidation of the "Right" did not help matters. The alliance just won 24% of all votes and 51 seats. Part of the reason why the "Right" didn't do well was because it had declined between 1967 and 71. Rajaji was now a frailer, older man. Jan Sangh too had lost Deen Dayal Upadhyaya. Its young brigade led by Vajpayee and Advani was yet to emerge forcefully on the national stage.

The intervening years had also seen Congress move firmly to the Left. With its Garibi Hatao slogan, populist schemes such as de-recognition of princes and nationalization of banks. The Congress was now clearly a Left wing party unlike in 1952. This was also a period of declining political morality. Indira Gandhi was accused of electoral malpractice by the Allahabad High Court in 1975. Instead of resigning she declared an emergency and suspended the democratic process. India was not a democracy from 1975 to 1977. So the elections that were supposed to happen in 1976, did not happen till 1977, when Indira called for fresh elections. This election saw the first defeat of Congress on the national stage and the victory of the Janata Party led alliance which consolidated all non Congress votes. While it is definitely true that there was a very strong anti-Indira sentiment in 1977, one must note that Congress (I) still won 34.5% of the vote that year. 

So Indira's defeat was caused by the first "Mahagatbandhan" in Indian politics when parties as diverse as Congress (O), Jan Sangh, Swatantra, Socialist party, Akali Dal, DMK got together to consolidate the Anti Congress vote. This coalition won 345 seats and 51.9% of votes. What's striking about 1977 was that it was the first non-ideological alliance in Indian politics. The first time socialists joined hands with Hindu conservatives to defeat a common enemy. This lack of ideological coherence was also ultimately the cause of its fall in 1980. The schism in this grand alliance came in 1979 when socialists withdrew support to Morarji Desai the PM - a man who was always seen as a conservative in Indian politics. Charan Singh, succeeded Morarji. But couldn't get the requisite support. Elections were called in 1980.

In 1980 Congress roared back to power with 353 seats, 200 more than the 153 it won in 1977. This reversion to Congress happened largely because the opposition lacked the ideological coherence to stick together. The socialists and the nationalists had little in common. An interesting thing to note is that Congress vote share in 1980 was 42.7% (up from 35% in 1977) - a big increase yes. Nevertheless 57% of the people did not vote for Congress candidates. Clearly underscoring how important opposition unity is.

Era of Rajiv Gandhi - Fall and Rise of Right Forces

In 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated, and elections were called again, a year ahead of schedule. Rajiv Gandhi rode on a sympathy wave and Congress came back to power with 404 seats. But this "sympathy" factor is overstated by analysts. Even in 1984, when INC won more seats than ever before or after, the Congress vote share remained BELOW 50%. It was 49.1%.

The right wing faction of the erstwhile Janata Party had now morphed into the BJP - which made its debut this election - winning just 2 seats. What's interesting about Indian politics of this time is the decline of the Right. The Right (comprising of Swatantra and Jan Sangh) had won over 14% of the votes back in 1967, as noted. But 17 years later in 1984, the Swatantra was dead. And the BJP won just 7.7% of votes. This period from 1967 to 1984 - is a dark phase in the history of the Indian conservative movement. The Right had a chastening experience in 1984. And that was when it decided to position itself more firmly and strongly with Hindu causes - a decision that changed Indian politics.

The next election in 1989 saw a massive shift in results. Congress won just 197 seats (down from 405), the Janata Dal (basically the left-wing faction of 1977 JP) won 143 seats and the BJP (the RW faction of erstwhile JP) won 85 seats with Advani at the helm. However vote shares tell us a less dramatic story. Congress actually won 39.5% of the votes in 1989. Sure, it was way below 49% won in 1984. But still by far the highest. Again it was the Gatbandhan of the LW JD and the RW BJP that kept Congress out, brought VP Singh to power. But again this was an alliance of convenience. The socialists and populists in JD had little in common with the conservationists in BJP. The govt had to fall due to its internal contradictions. Chandrasekhar was around for a while with outside Cong support. Eventually he too fell.

Era of Real Coalition Politics:

We had elections again in 1991. But this time Rajiv was assasinated in the last leg of campaigning. The decline of Congress continued. It got just 35.7% seats in 1991 down from 39% in 1989. However its seat tally improved to 244. And it formed a minority govt with outside support. The years between 1991 and 1996 saw the further strengthening of BJP in the wake of the Ayodhya movement. But the govt in power was surprisingly stable despite being a minority govt. Credit partly has to go to PVN Rao - a conservative right-of-center Congressman. But PVN Rao's rule did not help Congress at the hustings.

In 1996, the Congress slide continued. Its vote share was now down to 29% (a huge drop from 35% in 91) And it won just 140 seats. Rao's conservative style had not worked. The Congress ditched him and turned to the left again. The BJP now was clearly the single largest party. Its vote share was just 20% in 96, yet it won 161 seats (21 more than Congress). It was kept out of power till 98 by a Cong supported left-wing coalition called United Front. But its assumption of power in 1998 was inevitable. The BJP assumed power in 1998, but was nevertheless reliant on allies to get to the majority. It was brought down by its southern allies in 1999. However a BJP led alliance re-emerged in 1999. In that year's election BJP won 182 seats and 23.8% of votes. However it is interesting to note that the Congress managed 28% of votes (same as in 1996) even in 1999. But just got 114 seats. The story of these years was the decreasing electoral efficiency of the Congress. It became less and less good at converting votes to seats. The BJP led NDA enjoyed power under the strong leadership of Atal Vajpayee from 1998 to 2004 - a 6 year period of center-right govt unprecedented in the history of Independent India.

But 2004 was a remarkable election that saw a center-left alliance come back to power led by Congress against all expectations. It's interesting to note however that Congress vote share in 2004 was just 26.7% seats (down from 28% in 99). So its decline as a party continued. Yet, there was a consolidation of votes against the BJP and not surprisingly there formed a "United Progressive Alliance" - a left wing alternative to NDA, that managed to cobble together the majority with outside support from the Left front. In 2009 the UPA consolidated its position, and Congress arrested its decline as a party by improving its own vote share from 26% back to 28%. However in 2009 the Congress got more efficient at converting its votes to seats and ended up winning 206 seats on its own. The period from 2004 and 2014 is a 10 year long period of center-left dominance in Indian politics. Which in some ways was inexplicable. It followed a 6 year reign of a center right govt led by Vajpayee (which was perceived positively on the whole). So the re-emergence of the center-left and the arrest in the development of BJP was hard to explain. The most attributable reason was the vacuum in BJP leadership and its inability to drive home its exceptionalism and its conservative credentials.

Real shift of power from Centralist and Left forces to Right Conservative force:

The lesson was learnt in 2014. It was a year of very strong anti-incumbency against a deeply unpopular UPA govt. The BJP rallied strongly behind Narendra Modi - inarguable the most popular Indian leader since Indira Gandhi. The outcome in the 2014 elections was remarkable. And the shift observed between 2009 and 2014 was the most radical in Indian history excepting the 1977 elections.  For the first time since 1984, a single party (BJP in this case) got to 272+ seats on its own! In terms of vote share, this was the first time a Non Congress party got over 30% seats in a general election. A remarkable milestone in Indian history. The BJP vote share in 2014 was 31%. And the Congress vote share was 19% (translating to just 44 seats). This was a HUGE shift. 

The increase in BJP's vote share from 18.8% in 2009 (under Advani) to 31% in 2014 - is without a precedent in Indian electoral history. There has never been a 5 year period when any party has achieved such a stupendous rise in vote share. This remarkable transformation was attributable in large part to one man - Narendra Modi. Yet it is sobering to note that BJP's vote share in 2014 was still lower than what the Congress obtained in 1991 (when it formed a minority govt with 35% vote). While the Modi govt remains extremely popular it has to be mindful of history and form alliances with prudence. As this thread on Indian electoral history shows, "Gatbandhans" have often caused the single largest party to sit in opposition several times since 1952. 

This electoral history also suggests the robustness of the Indian democratic process and its durability notwithstanding the pessimism all around the world in 1952 - when few countries gave the "Indian state" any chance beyond a decade or two.

                                                All views mentioned in this article are personal