Abhishek Banerjee,
a mathematician at IISc Bangalore, is probably the best “columnist” today in
India. Recently, he made an interesting point on Turkey’s thuggish act of converting
Hagia Sophia into a mosque. He said that believing Muslims hate India because
we are the last standing Pagan culture. All other cultures in the world
converted to one of the Abrahamic religions, or to communism which too is a
kind of Abrahamic religion.
This remark really
got me thinking. To begin with, let me clarify that in my opinion Hindus are
more than Pagans. We describe ourselves as a “Dharmic” people, and we believe
that Dharma is a far more profound idea than paganism. However, we do share our
personality with Pagans in many fundamental ways. So in this write up, I will
refer to ourselves as “Pagans”.
While I fully agree
with Abhishek, I found myself asking this question - what are the traits of
pagans - the important facets of their collective ethos, and how and are they
different from “Abrahamic” personality. Let me make a crude attempt at listing
the critical differences between the two. I think it might help us Hindus
understand ourselves better, and maybe it will motivate us even more to defend
the free, democratic Nation-State that India has become. So here are the most
important differences (in my opinion) between a “Pagan” and an “Abrahamic”
mindset:
1. Pagans are
polytheists, Abrahamics are belligerent monotheists: We take this
for granted, but as I think more about it, this seems quite a significant fact
- why aren’t there monotheistic Pagan cultures? Well, there might be an odd one
(none that I know about), but all significant Pagan cultures have
been polytheistic. At the very least, no pagan culture was antagonistic towards
“others”. We all know about myriad Hindu Gods, but then Greco - Roman religions
also had many deities. Pre-Islamic Egyptians were likewise polytheistic. So
were pre-Islamic Persians / Zoroastrians.
And think about it
- why should it be so? On the face of it, it may seem unimportant. But it is
not. It is a critical difference that determines their vastly different
collective ethos. Not only are Abrahamics avowed monotheists, they seem
offended by the idea that any society should have multiple Gods. Abrahamics
seem to have acute anxiety about this and they seem to want to attack and
humiliate Pagans only on this count. Why this anxiety? Why should
heavens seem to fall (to them) if people worship multiple Gods? It seems
irrational on the face of it, but for the moment, let us record this and move
on.
2. Pagans admit flaws
in their Gods, Abrahamics insist their “One God” is perfect: All of Hindu Gods,
every single one, is admitted as having flaws. Indra is egoistic
and promiscuous, Shiva is very intense and prone to anger, Brahma is known to
have lied and lost the privilege of being worshiped. The list goes on and on. A
little research I did on Greek Gods revealed similar view of them by their
worshipers. Zeus, for instance, is said to “mate everything in sight”. More
research is sure to confirm this about other Pagan Gods.
Abrahamic faiths
not only insist on one almighty “God”, but this God is believed to be perfect
and infallible. Of course, to non - believers, this almighty seems far from
perfect. Allah of Muslims, for example, not only comes across as exceedingly
egoistic (don’t you dare worship anyone other than me!) and cruel (eternal hell
for worshiping anyone else besides me), but also doesn’t seem to know basic maths!
He committed errors while guiding his followers about share of inheritance!
The point is that
Abrahamics do not admit any flaws in some being out there assumed to be
omnipotent. Of course they tie themselves in knots when questioned about these
imperfections, but they have an immense desire and insistence on a flawless,
omnipotent being.
This is another
critical difference between Abrahamics and Pagans. I suspect it is rooted in
the psychological make up of the respective followers. It results in profoundly
different kinds of societies. One immediate implication is that Abrahamics are
less tolerant of “imperfect” behaviors. Pagans accept that human beings will
come with all kinds of flaws and the society must factor that in while building
institutions and forming the social contract. Abrahamics too have imperfections
like their supposedly “flawless” God does, but they are perpetually defensive
and in denial about it. It turns them into a natural hypocrites.
3. Pagans celebrate
sexuality and romance, Abrahamics have anxiety around sex and women: I invite
people to look at the way Hindu women dressed historically (i.e. before the
first Abrahamic - the Muslim, set foot on the subcontinent). There are enough
depictions on temples and cave carvings, in the paintings of Ajanta, and in
Hindu literature. Contrast it with the way traditional Muslims and Christians
insist their women should dress up. A clarification here - the present day
nominally “Judeo - Christian” western civilization is different. It sort of de-abrahamized
itself during the Renaissance, when it adopted modernity and secularism,
retaining only vestiges of orthodox Christianity. People like Brazilians too -
while devoted Christians on paper, actually are more native American and
African Pagans than devout Christians. I am open to being questioned on this,
but I seriously doubt a believing Christian would look at the Rio carnival as
anything but depraved debauchery.
The matter goes
beyond women’s dress. If you study Hindu Gods’ “lives” - the reference points
for Hindus to get their sense of right and wrong, you find Hindus celebrating
romantic love between Goddesses and their partners. Sometimes, as in the case
of Radha, her consort is not even married to her. We still enjoy Raas Leela
every year. All devatas and Eeswaras deeply love their women. The
love isn’t asexual. There is enough to tell you that their love is of a typical
loving, sexual couple. There is no embarrassment about sexual desires.
On the other hand,
in both Orthodox Christianity and Islam, sex is shame. In Christianity, we are
all “born in sin” from which we need to be “saved”. Abrahamics endeavor to keep
their women in some manner of confinement - Muslims more strictly than
Christians, and then create spaces for sexual fulfillment that are thoroughly
demeaning to women. All “sultans” had harems which were little more than
private brothels, women therein being little more than playthings, to be handed
down to the next lower ranking “amir” after the more powerful one was done with
her.
This separation of
women’s roles between sexual beings on the one had, and respectable wives on
the other, is a feature of Abrahamic faiths. Hindu civilization, modern day
western civilization and I am sure other Pagan cultures, don’t separate these
roles for women. We all respect women even while we take cognizance of their
“sexual” roles.
At this point, it
is pertinent to point out that one limited exception to this is Communism which
we clubbed with Abrahamics. In Communism, there isn’t an endeavor to box women
into confined spaces. However, even in communism, there is no celebration of
romance and sex. Just that the shackles are reduced as compared to other
Abrahamics.
4. Pagans handle
“authority” lightly, Abrahamics are obsessed with matters of authority and
power: To understand this, we need to look at the interaction between someone
powerful like a king and a powerless subject, in the imagination of respective
people. Sure enough, there is protocol in the Pagan cultures too - the subject
has to bow to the king. Maybe signal subordination in other ways. But there is
an ease and comfort between a powerful and a powerless in Pagan cultures.
I can recount scene
after scene in Sanskrit literature which show how easygoing the Hindu kings were
with their subjects. One, just for illustration, is when Ram is about to leave
Ayodhya for his vanvaas, and gifting cows to Brahmins before he leaves.
A destitute Brahmin named Trijat comes to him and requests for a gift so he may
live better. Ram asks him, half jokingly, to throw a stick and then Trijat
could get all the cows standing till the landing point of the stick. Trijat
does it and gets the gift of a thousand cows. The point here is that a powerful
prince being so lighthearted with a common man is a norm within Hindu culture.
Extreme sternness and abject humbleness in “lesser” mortals is the norm in
Abrahamic cultures. Its as if the slightest gesture of “equality” between the
powerful and the powerless poses extreme threat to our Abrahamic sultan.
These were the most
noticeable differences I could narrate from my observations and studies of
different cultures. Some points to be made here before I close - one, like I
said earlier - the West today is definitely not an Abrahamic culture. It is not
a “Christian” civilization. It is an inheritor of the Greco - Roman
culture. It abandoned orthodox Christianity long back and is only nominally
Christian. Two - I do not claim this write up to be a rigorous study, though I
am certain this can be a starting point for one on this subject. Moreover, most
of my observations are based on Hindu culture, though whatever little I have
learned of other Pagan cultures like Greeks or Egyptians matches the traits
listed above. Three - it should be obvious, but bears stating - there are many
individuals, even powerful kings / leaders sometimes, in either culture who
nevertheless show traits of the “other” i.e. A powerful Hindu might behave like
an Abrahamic, or a prominent Muslim might be “soft” like Pagans. I have described
the mainstream ethos of different cultures. There being billions
of individuals in either culture, the number of deviants could run into crores
even if a small percentage overall. This small segment could even be large
enough to create a deviant subculture within an overarching mainstream culture.
To conclude, I think Abrahamic mindset is driven by:
1. Extreme anxiety in
matters of sex (my woman may not desire me, may tempt others with her
sexuality, may enjoy herself with other men), leading to a certain way of
treating women.
2. Extreme anxiety in
matters of power (My status may be challenged by / lost to “lesser” mortals who
are not accepting of my authority and status).
These instincts
lead Abrahamics to act in certain ways, and we can see the result all around.
Pagans, on the
contrary, are naturally “free” people and create societies in which an
individual does not have to be a “fighter” to flourish. In these societies
individuals of many diverse temperaments can prosper. At their best, the Pagan
societies have been the most productive in matters of economy, arts, science
and technology. Abrahamics can’t be similarly productive by themselves.
Historically, they have done well only when they could access some Pagan
society to “feed” on. In the absence of subjugated Pagans available to
“carnivorous” Abrahamics, these societies tended to flounder.
Pagans being
natural prey for predatory Abrahamics, they need to develop defence mechanisms
to ensure their survival. I leave that topic for another day!
Sanjay
