I have preferred to write another opinion instead of posting my views on, "Why insult against Hindus doesn't attract outcry?"

The opinion of Sankara Subramanian deserves a good applause. The attempt has been made in the right direction.

The topic of Hinduism is very old and has lot more than what we can perceive within the framework of our little lives here.

The Hinduism defined by the great sages has no framework attached. It equates all living things into it and determines the lifestyle for healthy living and attaining the spiritual maturity. The four Ashramas (stages of life) defined by Hinduism, for example, are applicable to all religions equally.

Hinduism as it was determined originally shows itself in the Upanishads, which tells you about whole life in this universe. But later the political influences on the society determined a framework.

The Vedic age followed by the first dynasty Mauryas and it went on until the Sanga dynasty assumed the power. Pushyamitra Sanga who was a bishop killed the last of Nanda king to become the king himself.

It was during Pushyamitra's time did the first framework of Hindu dharma started in the form of Manu Dharma Shastra.

Manu divided the society in the form of classes depending on the occupations. Because the King Pushyamitra was a Brahmin, Manu Dharma Shastra gave highest place in the society to Brahmins and it followed the way.

For some time this division based on occupations worked but for later generations, the system clan was appearing more appropriate to take the occupation rather than by choice.

The social rules started becoming rigidified. The social framework became such that you get a castee by birth and it determines the occupation in the society. People of other castee cannot creep into this job.

As Subramanian expressed, the rules became rigid and stayed without proper explanation behind them.

The invasions on Indian society by Mughals and the English left long lasting impression and the cultural values were redefined. Lack of leadership skills generated out of suppression by invader's rule made some of the people to bring back the old customs without understanding the meanings and they started making their influence directly.

The first fifty years of 20th century saw a kind of renaissance and Indian society started becoming vibrant and emerging strong.

The secularism adopted by the new Independent India Government started another impact on the Indian society. The divide between Hindu and Muslim societies were increased because of partition and that divide was exploited by politicians to the maximum possible extent.

The secular principles were used to oppress Hinduism and appease Muslims to derive the vote banks. Hindu society was divided into parts by increasing the divide in the name of class, creed and locality for the benefit of the politicians.

Today, Hindu society is standing on a fragile ground. People first think about their own family, then the castee group, then the locality and the religion comes last. The same principle had been applied to Muslim society also by dividing between Shias and Sunnis.

Because the population size is less the divide is not as visible as it is in the case of Hinduism.

Hindus now became more of casteeists than religionists. The caste comes first before the religion. This helps in dividing the groups easily.

When the issue of temple was brought out in Ayodhya it was supported by Hindus and the evidence is advent of BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), which had no place in national politics until then but went on to become a force to lead the country for five years.

Today, Hinduism is a fragmented religion with no trace of cultural heritage left. We are not very sure why the festivals are being celebrated and the new generation of youth believe that it is all old-fashioned.

Touching the feet of a Guru (teacher) is being considered as a shame by youngsters and in those circumstances no wonder we disrespect our own Gurus like the Shankaracharya.

US society has not dissociated the clergy men on whom sexual allegations surfaced, did not disown presidents like Kennedy or Clinton whose sexual excesses resulted in loss of billions of dollars of public fund, they accept Deepak Chopra who had to face a case from a prostitute, but in India we go into things which sound irrelevant and unbelievable.

It is easy to believe that Shankaracharya misbehaved with a woman or had sex even to satisfy our vicarious urges and we do not consider this as disrespect to our religion because religion is not deep routed into our blood from our childhood as it takes place in case of certain other religions.

I appreciate the attempt by Sankara Subramanian and we need more of such analysis.

Sarangadhara Sinha

What do you think of this article ? Click here to post your views