Does one have the right to be a non-believer?

India along with the rest of the ancient world has been rich with native wisdom. They had the freedom to believe or not believe in God. Hence there were multiple faiths existing simultaneously with no compulsion to be branded under an umbrella term such as Hindu, a name given by those foreign to it. Ever since, it has been glued with fevicol deep in our minds which is not only difficult to define by each Hindu, as understandably and rightly so there are so many variations, but it also got drilled into the psyche that he or she is a Hindu. No wonder when a question is asked“Who is a Hindu?” or “What makes you a Hindu?” the response is often delayed and embarrassingly vague. To make it easy here is the long list of all those considered Hindus.

Who is a Hindu?

Indian dharmic traditions would range from those who accept vedas as authority (Astika traditions)- sankhya, vaiseshika, mimamsa, yoga, vedanta to those who reject vedas as authority (Nastika traditions) - Bauddha, Jaina, Charvaka. Charvaka who have been pure materialistic atheists prevailed from the very beginning and were despised even by Bauddha and Jaina for their materialistic outlook. However, even if those following their respective faiths may have hated each other they resorted to debates to win over each other but did not take lives in the name of God and belief.

An umbrella term Hindu was not required (and is still not required )as long as the plural expression of the cosmic oneness was practised freely across the ancient world, as I have highlighted in my previous write up “Re-root to native wisdom.” For whose sake is the umbrella term important? It is not for the Hindus as they are called. It is for those who other them as non-believers.

We will struggle to find an ideal umbrella term although the closest would be Dharmic. However, as the othering of non-believers of this land has already been done and popularised under the name Hindu we are now left in a Limbo to accept this given name or to reject it. So when one is asked “are you a Hindu?” and lost his life for being one, that person was actually a pluralist or even an atheist and would not have had a clue as to what this killing is all about for being a non-believer. Completely naive to the concept of one true God that the perpetrator passionately believes in and asks to read the sacred verse perhaps as a ritual to say “now he is a believer” so that he ascends to heaven before he is killed. Are we allowed in this group to ask a question? “All for what?” Surely not science.

The ancient world also had only one God who was a true democrat and whose gender was variously described as he/she or it, who delegated various cosmic and earthly responsibilities to various subordinate gods and gave plurality to humanity to express themselves freely and even reject and curse him/her/it. However, it appears that the modern world’s God has declared humanity as two sets of people only. “Those who believe in me vs those who don’t believe in me.”

Non-believers were variously called including Pagans, infidels etc. An umbrella term Hindu equates to Pagans and infidels and is only useful for the monotheistic religions to club all under the non-believers category.

Unfortunately an artifical umbrella term Hindu is being required because this category is now forced to accept the narrative that they are non-believers of the religions of the world and therefore have to keep justifying that there is only one God.

The main reason that neighbouring countries, which were once part of India, were formed and continue to be hostile is based on this principle alone. Believers vs Non-believers. Prior to that wars were in the name of provincial expansions or perhaps tribal dominance. It was only after the advent of concept of believers vs non-believers that religion became the reason for war and conquest.

To conclude we come from a tradition which doesn't mind asking the question "What is God?" Interestingly Srimad Bhagavatam answers that question as follows:

•       Some say it is Svabhava (one’s own nature)

•       Some say it is Karma

•       Some say it is Time

•       Some say it is God itself

•       Some say it your Desire

केचित्कर्म वदन्त्येनं स्वभावमपरे नृप ।एके कालं परे दैवं पुंस: काममुतापरे ॥ 4.11.22 ॥

kecit karma vadanty enaṁ svabhāvam apare nṛpaeke kālaṁ pare daivaṁ puṁsaḥ kāmam utāpare ॥ 4.11.22 ॥

Let us maintain that level of openness to debate and explore the absolute truth. Om Tat Sat.