Now that India has a BJP Government led by an ex-RSS propagandist Narendra Modi, those little quixotic utterances of Parivar hotheads that would otherwise go hardly noticed, are making headline-worthy news. And the gem that's been arousing much debate is the question of Hindu-ness of Indian Muslims. The RSS chief says all Indians are Hindus, as India's real name is Hindustan. Now that's a very funny way of putting things, for Hindustan is an antiquated name for India as given by her Muslim rulers, specifically.
What exactly is Hindu-ness?
The problem with such topics, as with in fact any topic on Hinduism, is the general ad widespread confusion on what exactly constitutes Hindu-ness. Now I've of course argued often, that this is actually as true of Hinduism as for Christianity and Islam, that there are no 'single doctrines' of any religion, and that there only 'dominant doctrines'. Even so, the general definition of a Muslim is often very clear - as stated in Islamic Kalima itself, a Muslim is someone who believes in a unitary theism, with additional qualifiers on the overall Abrahamic(i.e Judeo-Christian) revelation and particular emphasis on the recognition of the Prophethood of Mohammed. Is there such a general definition of a Hindu? Of course we can put something forward on those lines: a Hindu is someone who believes in panentheism, within the context of Indic (Vedic & Shramanic) traditions and a recognition of the Avatar-hood and guru-hood of various personalities. Now compare that - the Hindu definition is befuddling in its generalized notions of theistic worship, traditions and teaching.
Can Muslims be Hindus too?
If viewed from those definitions, most certainly not. Actually a counter-question of interest here is, why should Muslims be Hindus in this parochial sense? This is a problem perhaps of the Euro-centric self-perception of modern Hindus, and a desire to create a European-style state in India. It would be of interest here, to examine how Hindus viewed Muslims in the medieval period - upon examination of various movements, personalities and religions, it seems that generally, Hindus were not antipathic to the pan-asiatic and mystical elements in Islam. While Hindus often fought against Muslim political control, on a societal level, they did not try to disturb Muslim religious practice. The Vijayanagara Empire, Hemu, Shivaji and the later Marathas, all militant Hindus, had Muslims in their armies and territories who were left unmolested under their rule. It seems that Hindus looked upon Muslims under the prism of the guru-hood, rishi-hood or Avatar-hood of Mohammed or Ali, and the disciplic successor chains of Sufi brotherhoods, as possibly, another sect in the vein of their own many sects. What is fascinating is that after extended periods of acculturation to the Indian religio-spiritual temperament, many medieval Muslim movements arose, that too viewed Hindus from their own prism of the possible Prophethood of venerated Indian figures such as Rama or Krishna. Thus it is, that even the most fanatical of Muslim sultans, often patronized Hindu ascetics, ashramas and temples on par with fakirs, pirs, and Qanaqahs.
Indian syncretism
Aside and away from fanatical movements on either side, on the ground, Indian Hindus and Muslims seem to have sought syncretistic meanings in each other's faiths, at least by the late medieval period. For Hindus, Muslims could be Hindus, following the teachings of a non-Indian Guru/Avatara (Mohammed/Ali), a non-Indian revelation (Koran), with their own smritis and dharma shastras (The sunnah, and the fiqs). Muslim holymen thus, were disciplic successors of this foreign guru-parampara. This type of understanding is prevalent in many medieval Hindu schools of thought/movements such as the sants, of whom the Sikhs were a later radical example.
However, this is not the way in which the modern Sangh-Parivarites or Muslims look at each other. Therefore it is very diffuclt to talk past each other in this atmosphere of 'agree or choke'. This is why, the very loud proponents of 'Muslims are Hindus' theories on one hand, actually also protest on the other hand, the Hindu worship and veneration of Muslim holymen such as the Sai Baba or Shirdi!
Malik says:
Well in my opinion, this type of dichotomous view of Muslims is counter-productive. The medieval Hindu view of Islam in terms of their own dharmic conceptions and Muslim view of Hindus in terms of their own prophetic and Sufi traditions, are in the end, perhaps the only peaceful meeting ground for the two faiths. Any attempt to violently include the other in their own fold according to superficial definitions of each other, are only going to lead to further violence in a region drenched in the blood of religious clashes...So finally, there is nothing wrong if new deities emerge - veneration of the Shirdi Sai Baba as a Hindu Deity is not dis-similar to the veneration of the Sathya Sai Baba or Mata Amritannandamayi as a Hindu Deity. In fact all those who disagree on such things do not understand the deeper traid recognized in tantra-sadhana, as well-enunciated in Tibetan schools - Yidam (the Deity), Guru (Spiritual Master) and Dakini (Protective Spirit or Force) are all necessary for succesful sadhana. While deities such as Ganesha, Shiva, Rama, Krishna etc are important as focal points, a live Guru and a protective force with which one can establish a connection (which is where neo-deities fill in) are also essential. So, let the Deities multiply!!
