Why I am a Hindu was written by Shashi Tharoor in the year 2018 whereas, Why I am not a Hindu was first published in 1996 by Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd.
"Is it even possible, a thoughtful friend asks me, of Hinduism as 'pristine' and thus implicitly say, 'I am Hindu' without acknowledging that what one means is not some eternal category of belief but a set of self-descriptors that is contingent on history?" – One of the lines from the Author’s note in Why I am a Hindu that hooked me. Shashi Tharoor says that everyone has their own individualistic approach to religion and culture (here, Hinduism) and that is what this book tries to point out in the first section- that Hinduism is essentially so diverse a religion that different people can have different contradictory interpretations about it and everyone can be right. "It is also true that in a religion as vast, capacious and evolving as Hinduism, there is much in the religious texts that contradict themselves, and each scholar can find scriptural justification for a point of view diametrically opposed to that of another scholar, also with his own scriptural justification."
He also writes, “If a Hindu chooses wrongly or unwisely, among the options offered to him, it is not Hinduism’s fault”; which to me seems like a rather stupid justification for poorly constructed narratives that popularise the ideas of discrimination and patriarchy, and are yet revered by the society till date (Mahabharata and Ramayana).
“What is ironical is that the recitation of several names of one God or many Gods is construed as wisdom, whereas knowing the language of production and the names of productive tools is not recognised as knowledge. The Brahmins have defined knowledge in their own image.” These lines speak about how Brahmanism in Hinduism has always been dominant and blatantly ignorant about the local gods and lower caste preferences that they never made them to the books. Even the language spoken by the Dalitbahujans was never a part of any educational institution.
“Bramhanical patriarchy does not provide any scope for questioning, debate and discourse. Human beings are not supposed to relate to nature and to other human beings, they must relate only to the ‘other world’. This is a negation of the very humanity of the human being.”; says Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd and rightly so. While according to Shashi Tharoor, Hinduism seems like a theoretically perfect religion that embraces individuality; Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd calls it out as a very rigid, bigoted religion that is collectively destructive to the minorities.
Caste
“People belong to a religion only when they know that they are a part of the people who worship that God, when they go to those temples and take part in rituals and festivals of that religion. My parents had only one identity and that was their caste.” – One of the first lines in the book, Why I am Not a Hindu. While Why I am a Hindu deals with how Hinduism has strived to survive against other religions and become one of the major religions of the world, Why I am Not a Hindu talks about the chaos Hinduism is within itself.
The Rig Veda does not mention discrimination in its original texts, says Shashi Tharoor. However, the later interpretation of it- the Purusha Shukta verse had body parts of a human being divided according to caste. “India had castes, but not a caste system: the rigidities of caste as we understand it today was introduced by the British in their desire to understand, categorise and classify the people they were ruling, in order to control them all the better” , writes Shashi Tharoor and he has some examples of great sages who were from lower caste and inclusive of other religions to back it up.
However, Shashi Tharoor understands that he belongs to a privileged class and mentions about how his childhood was blinded from the caste. To Ilaiah Shepherd, his caste was his identity and it couldn’t be separated from him even if he wanted to- an identity equivalent to a blot in his life.
There are some great insights on caste discrimination by Tejaswini Tabhane in page 78 that Shashi Tharoor agrees with.
The epics and the status of women
‘Hindu Goddesses and Us: Our Goddesses and Hindus’ is a chapter that is a must read! Great interpretations about the Hindu epics, the local gods and goddesses and status of women, etc.
The most popularised saga in Hinduism is the Mahabharata. People preach it and believe in it till date, but the whole story is filled with negativity and displays discrimination. Eklavya, a low-born was asked to “sacrifice” his thumb in order to make sure that Arjuna, a prince, remains the best archer. Brothers have deadly blood wars with each other. Women are put at stake for stupid bets as if they are objects without an identity of their own. Krishna was a Yadhava- low born, but his political role in the Kurushketra was that of a Kshaitriya, defending the Brahmanical dharma. The story is based on righteousness and dharma, but where is the dharma in shedding blood all over the place, asks Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd.
Ramayana was created in order to bring the Bramhanical patriarchy to the south zones of the country, which were ruled by Dalitbahujan leaders like Tataki, Shambuka, Ravan, etc. It is basically about Bramhanical victory over Dalitbahujans and establishing restricting roles to women as they did with Mahabharata in the North.
The local Gods and goddesses are independent of their partners, in fact, we do not know if they even have partners, and are logical and relatable to the people, unlike the epics of Mahabharata and Ramayana which were basically created to brainwash people to follow a particular bigoted, dominant order.
Mahabharata is a complex narrative that is equivalent to the real world scenarios where there are a lot of complicated contradictions and making choices is difficult, writes Tharoor. If Arjuna doesn’t choose to fight his brothers, then an era of unrighteousness will prevail. It is a complex narrative that not everyone can process rightly to dig out the true intentions. He does agree with the bigotry that exists in the epics, but says that it’s ultimately the human mind that is supposed to take the right values.
The place of women in Hinduism is very conservative and restricted. Women in a Brahminical society are defined by the roles they play in supporting their husbands, cooking food and not being out-going. Women oppression is an accepted fate in a Brahminical family as women are not expected to raise their voices. Patriarchy is dominant in Hinduism. This is what sets the women in the Dalitbahujan castes apart, as they are out-spoken, they work along with the male members, eat with them, and even drink with them; unlike Brahminical women who have to eat only after the male members of the family and aren’t allowed to drink.
Conclusion:
Hinduism, originally, is something pure, individualistic and inclusive. The book is filled with various sources to back this up. The “Hinduism” that we see today is Hindutva. Hinduvta ideologies are initiated by political leaders who profit from dividing the people into groups based on their religion, caste, majority/minority, etc; which are centralised around the concept of nationalism in order to establish a bigoted patriarchal dominancy that often and ultimately results in communal violence; and Shashi Tharoor is strongly against it.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd’s point is about how mainstream Hinduism that outcasted the Dalitbahujans suddenly took them under its umbrella of religion in the recent times during the religious fights. He lashes out about the ironies in the religion and the internalised wrong practices (Hindutva) that are celebrated.
According to me, both are on the same page in terms of social practices that are ethically wrong, but one hopes for evolvement of the practices that suits the times and says that it is ultimately an individual’s choice to choose the right things despite being brainwashed for centuries by blind practices; and the other just hates the whole Hindu religious body for establishing such narrow-minded ideologies in the first place due to which a whole community has had to face oppression for ages, the influence of which is seen till date. While one based the book on the most ancient texts and defended, at some points, we could say even glorified Hinduism; the other based it on their personal experiences and seemed to put out all of his frustration by logical arguments relevant to the recent times. However, at some points I did feel like Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd got carried away, but then I do not know if it is because of the points raised by Shashi Tharoor or because of my lack of experience with any such things related to casteism because of the privileged class I belong to.
Overall, I’d recommend one to read both the books in order to gain different perspectives over Hinduism and choose for themselves as to what appeals to them the most.