Yes, Hindus are idol worshippers: But what’s wrong with that?

There are some well-meaning people who are saying that Hindus should explicitly state that they are not idol worshippers. They consist of those born as Hindus, those who have ‘converted’ to Hinduism, and well-wishers of Hinduism but not technically ‘converted’ to Hinduism — all with deep empathy towards the Hindu civilisation and culture. To understand why Hindus worship the idol, one has to understand the significance of the idol to the Hindus.

Before I proceed further, there are many who say that the word ‘idol’ is not a correct meaning of the object which is worshipped by Hindus. The correct term is that which the Hindus use in their languages — namely ‘murti’. And, as Rajiv Malhotra has rightly said, ‘murti’ is one of the many untranslatable words into non-Indian languages. While there is merit here, I will use the word ‘idol’ to explain the essential message that I wish to convey. Since the opponents will then say ‘Hindus are murti worshippers’ and the calumny will continue. If in the explanation below one does a find-and-replace for an idol with murti, the message does not change.

The projection that the worship of the idol by Hindus is wrong has been going on for more than a couple of centuries. Right in the first such encounter, the Hindu saints said: We worship the eternal being through the idol, which helps us focus our attention. And ever since, the same explanation has been given every time, whenever the issue is raised. There has been no statement as to why it is wrong. It is just that the Christians and Muslims say: We say it is wrong, and therefore it is wrong.

When a temple is built, there is an elaborate consecration ceremony called ‘pran-pratishtan’ to infuse life in the idol. So, when a Hindu visits the temple, the objective is to see and be seen. If there is a crowd, the Hindu cranes his neck to establish eye contact with the idol, so that the deity knows that he/she came to the temple.

The history of vandalisation of temples shows how deeply attached Hindus are to the idol. As in the case of Goa, just a day or so prior to the destruction of a temple by the Christian missionaries, the idol is whisked away to a safer place, often at a great physical risk to the Hindus who were protecting the idol. And they would make a temple at the new site, and the pran-pratishtan ceremony is performed again.

Then there are examples of the idols being buried, or immersed in a pond, so that the invaders would not vandalise the object, even as the temple is destroyed. This is with a hope that in the future, Hindus will be able to recover the object and the prayers would begin again.

There is a case of the Hindus placing a duplicate idol in front of the garbha-griha of a temple that was under attack. And, just to ensure that the invaders are fully deceived, the Hindus would sacrifice their lives to resist the destruction of the duplicate.

This deep attachment of the idol is well known to those who seek destruction of the Hindu civilisation and culture. To extinguish this attachment, often a small damage — like breaking a finger — was enough. The invaders knew this very well, and if they did not have the time to cause long lasting physical damage, this strategy was used.

Thus, to ask the Hindus to say that they do not worship the idol, just because someone is asking for it without giving any cogent reason, is patently wrong. What is needed is to instruct those who are giving the false projection of the idol to give up their programme of calumny and tell the truth to their followers.

A few years ago, in the context of the California high school textbook case, Hindu parents in the state wanted to change the term polytheist that was used to refer to Hinduism. Like in the case of idol-worshipping, polytheism has a negative connotation in general parlance. However, the parents realised that the term monotheism was also not a correct way to refer to Hinduism, they wanted to use the term monist. Professor Jakob de Roover, a well-wisher of Hinduism, criticised the Hindu parents who were seeking the change. I wrote to him that being an academic he should first get the negative connotation of the term changed. And to do this, he should get his academic colleagues to undertake the programme of change. Then the general public will no longer view polytheism negatively. I do not know if he has made the attempt. Until then, blaming the Hindu parents should be stopped.

It is said that the Christian and Muslim children are taught that both idol worshipping and polytheism are bad. Who exactly are the teachers? Who exactly prepares the course material for the teaching?  And why is it being continued even now, when there is clear evidence that such teachings make these children think bad about Hinduism?

In the West, where Islam and Christianity is being taught, Hinduism is also taught alongside. And then there is teaching of comparative religions. It is realistic to assume that those academics teaching the non-Hindu are being informed by some of their colleagues the correct (and the sublime) meaning behind various Hindu practices, as well as the philosophy of Hinduism. I am sure that they have read books and articles by Hindu scholars — both clergy and laity. Most importantly, they would have read the lectures of Swami Vivekananda at the 1893 World Parliament of Religions in Chicago.

Hindus will continue to teach their children the Hindu faith, philosophy and culture. If the Christian and Muslim children are still taught to think negatively of concepts like idol worship and polytheism, should not the academics accept, at least partially, their own responsibility in the state of affairs?

The programme of calumanising Hinduism is being strongly resisted by Hindus at large. Some in academia have made earnest contributions in this battle, with the numbers increasing day-by-day. Just as they have successfully resisted the call to make the holy Hindu symbol of Swastika a hate symbol, the Hindus will also recover the true meaning of idol worship and polytheism and remove the negative connotations that are presently attached to them in the minds of the general non-Hindu public. As in the case of the Swastika, many in the academia are part of this battle. It is for the others in the academia to decide whether they too will participate on the side of the Hindus.

Note: The various points narrated here are those that came about through discussions in Hindutva circles. A special mention needs to be made of Shrikant Talegari, who had said: “Hindus are idol worshippers, but what wrong do we do.”

The author is a Vice President of Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Views expressed are personal.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.