Is Hinduism not a religion?

In what can be considered a bizarre judgment, deities have been pronounced as supernatural powers of the universe that do not represent any religion.

So, when believers participate in the Durga puja, fast for Lord Shiva, recite from the Hanuman chalisa, are they only invoking supernatural powers? I am merely conveying the observations made by the Nagpur income tax appellate tribunal. The normal reaction of devotees would be to express anger, for this is effectively giving the gods merely mythological status, not rooted in the real, in as much as any religion can be.

But this is unlikely to happen, as there is money involved.  An income tax commissioner denied tax exemption to the Shiv Mandir Devstan Panch Committee Sanstan on grounds that it spent more than 5 per cent of its expenditure on religious activities.

Here are some points from the report and my response:

The I-T act stipulates that for the purpose of tax exemption, an institution or trust must not be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. Differing with the I-T commissioner's order, the tribunal said, "Expenses on worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanuman, Goddess Durga and on maintenance of the temple cannot be regarded as having been incurred for religious purposes."

Worship is different from maintenance. People can worship anywhere; to maintain a place of worship though is a technical matter. Supernatural powers are supposed to be omnipresent and omniscient, so they exist outside the confines of temples. The temples are religious structures, as are those of any other faith.

The tribunal went on to say that Hinduism was neither a religion nor a community. It consisted of a number of communities having different gods worshipped in different ways. Even the worship of god was not essential for a person who had adopted the Hindu way of life, it said. "Hinduism holds within its fold men of divergent views and traditions who have very little in common except a vague faith in what may be called as the fundamentals of Hinduism.”

In principle, this is possible. There are different gods, worshipped in different ways among the varied castes and sects. Each contributes to building places of worship for these specific gods; money is donated and collected for the purpose of a “vague faith in…fundamentals of Hinduism”. But you ask a Hindu and it is unlikely that anyone would point out to any particular god/goddesses. That is more likely in films and TV serials. 

The caste system has an ingrained hierarchy, and the Yadavs who are considered low caste are Krishna bhakts. Now, Lord Krishna is not confined to them and in a different avatar is revered by others. So also Lord Ganesha. Or Goddess Durga. They have different names as well and might represent two completely different forms at variance, most prominent being Durga as Kali. Ravana too is seen in distinct ways – as the evil force and the intellectual sage.

How can these disparate aspects fall into a single faith? I am not questioning polytheism. It has its virtues for believers. But, going by the tribunal statement, it amounts to obfuscation if an attempt is made to deny a oneness, and that too only to get tax benefits.

The tribunal further expressed:

...the word 'community' meant people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations and who have common rights and privileges. This may apply to Christianity or Islam but not to Hinduism. "Technically, Hinduism is neither a religion nor a community.”

Neither Christianity nor Islam is monolithic, although they are monotheistic faiths. There are sects in both – the only commonality being the supremacy of one god. In that sense, these religions are more supernatural because they started with the ‘Word’ and have messengers, apostles and angels. There is only one holy book for these two, but how many Hindus would say they do not swear by the Bhagwad Gita and instead choose only some Vedas or Upanishads?

Regarding communities, Hinduism divides them along regional/caste lines whereas Islam and Christianity do so on the basis of sects. Why, even in Zoroastrianism there is a certain emphasis on Parsi and Irani, and Buddhists and Jains follow their versions. Sikhism also has its panths, and is in fact close to monotheistic. Visit any locality and you will see Hindus too living as communities. There is social activity based on ‘communal’ compulsions.

This was what started the argument.

The I-T commissioner had said that expenses for building maintenance, providing free food, festival prayers and daily expenses related to 'religious purposes'. This added up to more than 5% of the organization's expenditure. The sanstan had countered this, saying its temple was open to everybody, irrespective of caste and creed. "The temple does not belong to a particular religion. Installing idols is not a religious activity.”

I am all for providing benefits like food and alms to the poor, and it is not possible to comment on this particular case. The discussion is beyond it. If Hinduism has different ‘ways’, then does it not appeal to only limited groups? There have been instances when certain castes have not been allowed inside these temples. Also recall that singer Yesudas, a Christian, was not permitted to sing bhajans in a temple.

I wonder what would be the consequences if this tribunal’s remarks become the template for the concept of temples. Would we then even need a Ram Mandir? If for some unfortunate reason a temple is destroyed, should it be avenged? (If it is due to natural disasters the tendency is to see it in superstitious terms as the wrath of god.) Since they are supernatural, how does a ‘form’ become important, and how true is it?

Fact is that idols are about religion, except perhaps in the hands of a sculptor.  

© Farzana Versey