Mrinal Pande on why Hindu theology must be taught by Muslims

Mrinal Pande, a former head of Prasar Bharati, writes in the Indian Express-

“India belongs to the Hindus, the Mohammedans, the Sikhs, the Parsis and others. No single community can rub over the rest. One day’s fight brings permanent loss to the country. It brings disgrace upon us.” (MM Malaviya at Congress Session, Calcutta 1933)

One wonders how this fierce upholder of unity and equality, founder of the Banaras Hindu University, would have felt at the sight of some 20 students sitting outside the university’s Sanskrit Vidya Dharma Vigyan, raising slogans against the appointment of a fully qualified assistant professor, Firoze Khan, on grounds that he is a Muslim — they reiterated their protest but called off the 15-day dharna on Friday. Their leader, Chakrapani Ojha, says that as per Hindu shastras, a Muslim cannot teach dharma vigyan (theology). Never mind the fact that Khan was shortlisted from 30 applicants, duly interviewed by a (mostly Hindu) panel of experts from the university and finally selected on the basis of proven merit and learning.

Malaviya did not say Hinduism belongs to non-Hindus. It was not his opinion that a Hindu priest could learn Dharm Vigyan from a Christian or Muslim. The original 1915 Act establishing Benares Hindu University clearly stated 'Provided that the members assigned to the Faculty of Theology shall all be Hindus'. This clause was dropped from the 1966 amended Act, but this was long after Malaviya had passed away. The unvarnished truth is that Pandit Malaviya understood that a given Faith can only be securely imparted by those possessed of that Faith to a higher degree. That is why he caused a stone 'shila-lekh' to be set saying that only Hindus (including Jains, Sikhs & Buddhists) were permitted to study or teach in the Hindu Theology Department.

S. Radhakrishnan confirmed Malviya's views. He wrote-

Firoze Khan is fully qualified to teach Sanskrit. But Sanskrit is not Dharm Vigyan. It is not Hindu paddathy or karma kanda. I know English, but this does not mean I am qualified to train Anglican priests. Firoze Khan would be an ornament to the separate Sanskrit faculty which exists at BHU. Since there is no vacancy there, it seems he will be accommodated in the Ayurveda Department. What is indisputable is that he is  out of place in the Dept. of Hindu Theology which caters to aspiring 'Sastris' & 'Acharyas' who will earn their living as Hindu priests mainly dependent on orthodox clients for performing 'graha sutra' domestic ceremonies. Unlike Christianity or Islam, the humble Hindu priest goes to the homes of his clients and derives the greater part of his income by conducting rituals in the time honored way.

Forget Hindu Shastras, common sense tells us that only a member in good standing of a particular Faith can impart a like Faith to young people.

A separate point is that it may be that there are some elderly Professors who hope this Muslim will convert to Hinduism as a result of teaching Hindu aspirants to the priesthood. They may consider that it is worth sacrificing the worldly prospects of the students so as to 'save the soul' of this talented young Muslim whose family, it appears, have participated in Hindu worship for a hundred years. However, this is not a fit and proper objective for a Publicly funded University to pursue. 

It is obvious that these students and their faceless instigators are not aware of the 1962 collection of the BHU founder’s speeches on the concept of dharma.

It is obvious that Malaviya did not think Muslims should be employed in that particular Department. This was enshrined in Law at his insistence. Even after the Law was amended in 1966, the principle was respected for over 50 years. Why has it been flouted now? Is it for the convenience of the administrators or the benefit of the students?

Mrinal Pande speaks of 'faceless instigators'. What instigation does an aspirant to Hindu priesthood need to reject a teacher who knows nothing about Hindu priestcraft and who belongs to another faith? Suppose you were enrolled in a University to study Mathematics. The administration appoints a teacher who is not a Mathematician but who has a PhD in Chinese. What good is that to you? Should you not protest that your education is being ruined just to suit the convenience of the administrators?

Mrinal Pande overlooks the fact that Pandit Malaviya specifically excluded non-Hindus from the Dept of Hindu Theology. She writes-

The learned educationist says, again and again, that ultimately there is only one Supreme Being whom peoples following different religions worship under different names,

One may as well say 'All Knowledge is One. Studying Chinese will make you a better Mathematician.'

but the concept of dharma must undergo a constant and vigorous churning of philosophical ideas, traditions and practices prevalent at the time. The truth, he writes, will rise to the surface on its own.

The concepts of religion are a fit subject for philosophical speculation. They have nothing to do with the correct performance of religious rituals by a person hired specifically for that purpose. A Hindu priest, while performing graha sutra ceremonies for a client may say 'I'd like to explain the concepts behind this ritual'. The client is at liberty to tell the priest to keep his opinions to himself. The situation may be different for Muslim or Christian priests. This is a good reason to exclude Muslims and Christians from instructing aspiring Hindu priests in how to perform their duties so as to make a living. This is because no 'constant churning of traditions and practices' is permitted while performing Hindu rites and ceremonies. Either the thing is done as it always has been done or what has been performed is mere mummery.

Malaviya was born a Hindu and remained a Hindu and died a Hindu. Did he hire Muslims to conduct his father's funeral? Of course he did! Then he slaughtered a cow and held a big barbecue where everybody got drunk on Jack Daniels and started discussing all sorts of concepts.

Holding on to this inclusive concept of dharma, he travelled through the country, raising funds for realising his dream. Among the generous donors for the cause of learning, there were Indians from all communities. Among the royals was the then Nawab of Rampur, a Muslim who donated Rs 1 lakh, a host of Hindu and Muslim students of Darbhanga who donated a purse of Rs 1,000, a Muslim beggar who gave Re 1 and many chaprasis and patwaris at Bilhour, many of them Muslim, who donated a month’s salary each.

Why did they do so? The answer is that the vast majority of the courses offered at BHU were of a purely secular nature and people of any religion, or none at all, were welcome to enroll there or to teach there. The exception was the Dept. of Hindu theology which trained Hindu priests.

“Universities”, said Annie Besant, at the court meeting of December 12, 1920, “are made by love, love of beauty and learning”.

Annie Beasant did not attend a University. She rose by her own merit. Had she got a degree, she would have known Universities, like other Institutions which charge money for providing a service, are made by the desire to secure a livelihood.

“For students,” Malaviya ji wrote, “their religion is acquiring knowledge”.

Knowledge of Religion is only securely acquired if it causes Faith to be firmly established within oneself. It can only be imparted by those who have more of it in the first place. Firoze Khan may be an expert in Sanskrit literature but there is no reason to believe he is not a good Muslim. To suggest that he could be instrumental in imparting Faith in a creed he has no truck with is to call into question his own Religious identity.

So why these protests at the BHU, whose founder’s “spirit of accommodation” and selfless service Gandhi ji mourned on his death, as he grappled with communal fires in Noakhali? 

These students protested because the University had chosen a lecturer without considering whether he could benefit the students such that they could go on to earn a living. Currently, this particular Department has a high standing. An orthodox granny is happy that the new family priest has a Sastri degree from Benares. All that will change when it comes to be known that there are Muslim lecturers there.

These students have acted out of enlightened self-interest. They are advertising the fact that students of this Dept. are orthodox Hindus. They will come and perform graha sutra rituals, not start quoting Kama Sutra or demanding to be fed mutton korma!

They have already won, because Hindus now have increased respect for the alumni of this particular Dept. Prof. Khan will be accommodated in another Faculty. Very wisely, he is keeping a low profile. His own people might turn against him if he starts talking tosh about the unity of all Religions. They would suspect he and his family were apostates.

Why was this motley crowd permitted to use a redundant scriptural ruling to bar all non-savarna, non-Hindu males, and by extension, also all females, from the teaching and learning of Sanskrit and/or debating the veracity of the so-called scriptures and rules they quote?

There is no such 'Scriptural ruling'. Sanskrit was broadcast to far countries like China and Japan by non-Hindus.

A Hindu priest won't get any clients if people think he spent his time at College 'debating the veracity of so-called scriptures' and then getting drunk and sodomizing his room-mate.

How could a handful of agitators dare to block a duly appointed professor, force him to return to his native city of Jaipur?

In 1965, a Muslim minister tried to have the word Hindu removed from the name of the University. He failed because of student agitators. His political career did not long survive this debacle.

By contrast, the young Professor from Jaipur has a very promising academic career ahead of him. He will teach Sanskrit- because that is what he loves doing. He won't teach Hindu theology because that is not his metier.

Contrast the indulgence shown towards the disruptors with the severe beatings to the JNU students in Delhi when they demanded a roll-back of the steep increase in their annual fees. It is obvious that dharma in the context of Sabarimala, Ram Mandir and the BHU agitation can be a near obsolete idea but, boy, look how it will command the joint forces of custom, tradition, money and institutions of a secular state.

But JNU is utterly useless. Why should the tax-payers fund its cretinism? The author may think prostitutes should take over Sabarimala and that no Ram Mandir should be built. But will she risk her life trying to assure these outcomes?

Subjected to scrutiny, each time the state blessed version of Hindu dharma turns out to be basically a cluster of several unformed and half-formed idea atoms, swirling furiously without a God particle of their own.

The Higgs boson is the God particle. Atoms, or anything else with mass, can't exist without it. There is a cluster of unformed shite in the writer's brain. Let us not subject it to scrutiny. We might get typhoid.

Semantically, the word dharma emerges from the Sanskrit verb “dhri”, which means to carry and to protect, call it a set of universal principles of justice. This is the dharma that, in Mahabharata, a Brahmin is ordered to go learn from a lowly meat-seller selling dog meat in a drought ravaged town.

She means the Vyadha Gita which features a wealthy meat vendor who has attained the highest spiritual knowledge. He is not lowly. He lives in a palace. This woman is confusing that episode with the story of Vishvamitra being forced to purloin and consume dog meat during a terrible drought, to illustrate the doctrine of 'apadh dharma' or exigent circumstances.

But in India, over the centuries, as Pali, Prakrit and then Persian became court languages, Sanskrit gradually came to be understood by very few and spoken by even fewer, most of them Brahmins.

This is nonsense. The Jains and Buddhists chose to write in Paninian Sanskrit so as to preserve a clear distinction between their Revealed Scripture and later commentaries. Few Brahmans understood Sanskrit. That was a good thing. They had no incentive to change the lore they memorized.

Sanskrit scriptures began, then, to be glibly quoted by this inbred circle that guarded their language as though the laws of Rta and those of Manu had all been divinely created at the same time. They were not.

Rta has no laws- it pervades the Cosmos in a univocal manner. Manusmriti clearly distinguishes between different epochs and states that laws change accordingly.

One thing which does not change is common sense. If you are training to work as a prostitute, a priest is not a good preceptor. Similarly if you want to be a lawyer, don't study under a Theoretical Physicist. This is not to say that Priests or Physicists aren't good people or that they are bad at teaching. It's just that they can't impart a skill they themselves lack. Even if you pay no attention in class- like me, when I attended the LSE- it is still a good idea to be able to say your Professor was someone eminent in your chosen field. Thus, if you are a Hindu priest, it is a point in your favor if you say you were taught by Professors named  Shastri or Joshi. It counts against you if your Professors had names like Honeytits or Cumbucket. At any rate, that has been my own experience and the reason I had to give up my career as a purohit, to concentrate to making it big in Porn as a P.Chidambaram impersonator.