The Decline of Hinduism amongst Hindus

The Decline of Hinduism amongst Hindus

Many Hindus believe that we now enter a period in the age of this world that is called ‘Kali Yuga’ or the ‘age of vice’ characterised by the decline of morality amongst men, the inability to separate right from wrong, corruption between relationships between the strata of the society, between friends and family; just to mention a few. Even a sceptic or a non-Hindu would be pressed hard to disagree given the self destructive nature that men have demonstrated in recent times.

For a long time, I struggled to understand this particular concept which I felt somewhat seemed like it represented the hypocrisy of Hinduism. I failed to understand how Hinduism, a religion that is meant to save and guide mankind predicts its own inability to save man from sin. That surely a religion so pure and true, would be able to save its believers from being condemned into a realm of impurities and sin, and through its teachings help them achieve self realisation.

But upon embarking my slow and steady religious journey, I have stumbled across a series of remarkable observations and realisations, and maybe even possibly am beginning to comprehend some of the very core concepts of Hinduism (and other religions). Stark obvious to many, but a fundamental concept that had previously eluded me; for I have learnt, that God and religion may never save every soul that exists, but instead, every soul has the opportunity through God and religion to save itself from self damnation; that bad and evil is not the failure of God or religion, but purely the absence of it.

I risk incurring the wrath of many sceptics and atheist, who will simply point towards the numerous wars, crimes, pain and suffering that has been inflicted by one man onto another in the name of God and religion. However, I can only assure you, that these very men, who used God’s name and religion in vain, have never really understood either, and were purely driven by themselves or others like themselves, who were victims of the failings and misconceptions of religious teachings. It is only lately that I have realised that although I have been born a Hindu, and practised Hinduism all my life, it is only over the last few years I have began to live as a Hindu. This draws me towards the compulsion to explain the decline of Hinduism or more accurately, the lost principles of Hinduism amongst Hindus.

I recently attended a temple function, during which a priest delivered a sermon, teaching the temple crowd about some of the aspects of Hinduism. Thirty minutes into his sermon, I left, slightly disappointed by the narrow teachings of the priest. Alternating between Hindi and English, the priest explained parts of text quoted from the Ramayana, teaching the temple crowd about the value devotion as opposed to temptation, warning against seduced by superficial beauty and encouraged the crowd to learn and acquire knowledge; advising his audience to live proudly and true to the values of an Indian, and rejecting the corruption of the west. Everything the priest delivered, was direct, relevant and most importantly gave good guidance and direction to all those who listened. But his single shortcoming was his failure to understand, that the concepts of Hinduism extended beyond the cultural and traditionalistic limitations of the Indian subcontinent. Simply put, the priest implied that one ought to live the life of a traditional Indian. In fact, implicating western civilisations as the reason of corruption amongst Hindus may even be perceived as a denial of their own inability to withstand the test of globalisation.

Hinduism was born by the side of the Ganges River in the ancient Indian civilisation, and naturally many Indians would have lived and practiced Hinduism to an extent, the terms ‘Indian lifestyle’ or ‘Indian culture’ could perhaps possibly be used interchangeably or perhaps synonymously as Hinduism, at that point in time in history. But the evolution of society, culture and tradition has changed all this. The traditional Indian culture that was largely shaped and influenced by Hinduism may no longer reflect the true teachings of the very religion that shaped it.

Therefore, although the Indian culture and the teachings of Hinduism may be have interchangeably influenced each other to the point the teachings of Hinduism is immersed in the traditional Indian culture and vice versa, a Hindu must learn to demarcate these two areas to be able to appreciate Hinduism in its purest form. This however, may appear to be a task equivalent to seeking the ‘Holy Grail’, purely because unlike other religions, Hinduism, does not draw its religious authority from a single source, but instead relies heavily on the numerous ancient Sanskrit texts that exists in the form of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, the ‘smritis’, and even from the epic poems Ramayana and the Mahabharata of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part of. And it is of utmost importance that these texts and scriptures are interpreted in the context in which they were written, hence heavily influenced by the Indian culture and traditions.

Therefore, I understand, and perhaps am able to forgive Hindus who are under the misconception that the traditional Indian culture and lifestyle epitomises the principles of Hinduism. What irks me however is the failure of Hindus to evolve and adapt these very principles to the modern day and ultimately the failure to develop and live by the principles of Hinduism.

As simple example is as follows:
“...Hindus may pray to God in the various forms He has chose to reveal Himself to man. Whether it be through the reincarnation of Lord Vishnu in the form of Rama, or through Lord Krishna the charioteer to Prince Arjuna in the battle of Kurushetra.

…As a Hindu, a child would often be taught to clasp their hands together, in front of these idols, and pray; with prayer being in the form of offering thanks to God for all He has provided us with, apologies for our numerous shortcomings or sins we have committed and finally submitting to God our needs, so He would bless us in all our future endeavours and help us achieve them. We were taught to prepare myself for the rituals, on how to participate and conduct ourselves during these rituals. But very often that was the extent of how much an average Hindu child is taught about the religion…”

Temples, parents or religious classes that teach Hinduism is a rarity, and may be limited to selected religious texts or pure mythology. Hence, when the priests would chant prayers and mantras in Sanskrit and calmly conduct each step of the meticulous and complex rituals, very little of the procedure itself is understood by the Hindus participating in the ritual, but eventually simply learn to accept it. Enduring ignorance in silence, the core teachings are simply lost and masked by our ignorant diligence in performing prayer without understanding it, hence rendering prayer, worship and devotion meaningless. Worse still, is the blatant ignorance that has beset many Hindus, who are dominated by prayer, worship and rituals, forgetting or in some cases never learning about the facets of Hinduism that deal with complex but important concepts such as dharma, karma and conduct.

Outside prayer, worship and devotion, ‘Hinduism’ as it is practiced now fails to prepare Hindus to face the realities of life, due to the neglect of the principles of Hinduism. Adopting a broad generalised view, merely comparing Hinduism to other religions such as Islam and Christianity, it appears to me that Muslims and Christians generally understand and grasp the principles of their respective religions better than Hindus with Hinduism. This in turn allows Muslims and Christians to be better prepared to face the realities in life, such as dealing with significant stressful life events, such as birth and separation, dealing with fortune and misfortune, conduct of relationships between family, relatives and friends, roles and responsibilities and ultimately death.

Hindus, generally less knowledgeable in Hinduism, are often left confused and lost in the face of reality. Thus Hinduism becomes superficial in meaning, as the valuable teachings of the ancient Sanskrit teachings such as the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita are gradually being replaced by ritualism and symbolism. Ask any Hindu about his or her purpose in life, and do not be surprised if your question is met with hesitancy or a long winded philosophical answer; clear evidence of the stark lack of knowledge of the religion by its followers.

Religion is meant to guide and lead. It is meant to provide direction, a source to derive strength, faith and hope. Therefore if Hinduism is to serve its purpose as a religion, it needs to be accessible to its believers. It needs to be practical and practicable in this age in time. Instead of clinging on to the ritualism, symbolism, traditionalist mindset that defined Hinduism in the culture of the bygone ages of ancient India, present day Hindus need to understand that globalisation has changed the face of this world.

The culture of ancient India may not necessarily be practicable now, but Hindus must learn that that does not imply Hinduism is impractical. Hinduism should not be confined to India or the Indian lifestyle. It purely means that Hindus must reach back into the depths of the religion to acquire knowledge and learn the principles of Hinduism, to understand how Hinduism can be practised in the present and the future. Although the outlook of future Hindu practise may appear different from ancient practise, the core must remain the same. This evolutionary process which dictates change in practise of Hinduism may be criticised by many traditionalist who may claim that changes in traditional Hindu practice equates to deviance. But I view this evolutionary change as not deviance, but instead an expansion of our knowledge and understanding of the religion and hence brings us closer to God.

My belief is simple, “A man who calls himself a Muslim, who attends the mosque and prays like a Muslim, and acts like a Muslim but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Islam is not truly a Muslim. A man who calls himself a Catholic, who attends the church and prays like a Catholic, and acts like a Catholic but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Christianity is not a truly a Catholic. Likewise, a man who calls himself a Hindu, who attends the temple and prays like a Hindu, and acts like a Hindu, but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Hinduism is not a truly a Hindu.”

I do not pretend to be the epitome of knowledge with regards to Hinduism, nor am I a learned scholar in the religion. Instead, I am a purist, who by chance stumbled across the principles of Hinduism and am currently in pursuit of the knowledge that has gradually been dissipating away from Hindus. From what I have learnt, I believe that the way forward to reverse the decline in the Hindu religion is to pluck the principles of Hinduism from its traditional and cultural landscape, to learn it in its purest form, to subsequently allow it to be re-taught correctly to present day Hindus who wish live by the principles of Hinduism. Perhaps then, even Hindus will understand Hinduism better.

The Voice of Malaysia: A loud whisper

Part II: Malaysian Indian loyalists and a conclusion

I now extend my discussion into the relevance of the elections to minority of the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia: the Malaysian Indians. Consisting of ‘only’ 8% of the Malaysian population, this ethnic minority group have previously largely been discarded as politically insignificant. But recent events have dismissed such claims.

Loyalists to the former ruling coalition, Malaysian Indians have always retained hopeful faith in the governing body and the former ruling coalition could almost certainly rest assured that by large they secured the Malaysian Indian votes. However, this loyalty was taken granted for; and so often in the past has been perceived as passivity or even viewed by some as incapacity.

But the recent handling of a number of issues that remain close to the hearts of the majority of Malaysian Indians provoked an overwhelming emotive response that unearthed dissatisfaction and distrust towards the former administrative body. When their loyalty was met with betrayal involving matters closest to their hearts, a strong sense of injustice swept the Malaysian Indian community. As Malaysian Indians largely felt that their plight went unheeded and their voices muted; in perhaps the largest ever show of unity amongst the Malaysian Indians, they made a bold statement by doing the unimaginable, voting in the opposite direction.

But soon afterwards realising that they now faced the possibility that there may not be any Malaysian Indian holding office in the cabinet, there was a lingering doubt amongst Malaysian Indian voters’ post-elections whether they shot themselves in the foot by voting against the former regime, which at least guaranteed representation of Malaysian Indians in the governing body’s highest administrative task force.

The presence of Malaysian Indian representation within the cabinet was important to them, because it served as an assurance that there will be a voice from the Malaysian Indian population to the cabinet and vice-versa; that these representatives will moderate the decisions and policies formed by the cabinet, taking in consideration their views and interests which otherwise might pass over.

But history has taught us otherwise and more importantly not to repeat our folly. I only need to point the Malaysian Indians towards their increasing political and socio-economic marginalisation to help them realise that apart from ethnicity, these ‘representatives’ only served as an illusion of representation. These representatives who have time and again claimed that they will champion the cause of Malaysian Indians have undeniable failed; not only in terms of addressing the marginalisation of Malaysian Indians, but also in their respective portfolios, thus ultimately failing all Malaysians.

The lack of dedicated leaders who possesses integrity, moral principles and key leadership skills amongst the Malaysian Indian ranks is not surprising given the conservatism and traditionalist mindset of this population. Refraining from commenting on the individual make-up of our administrative body, I fail to see any Malaysian Indian in this point in time, who is truly capable as a leader for not only for the Malaysian Indians, but for a the multi-ethnic population of Malaysia.

Most definitely there will be quarters that disagree, pointing out the fact that there are many successful Malaysian Indians that surely are capable. To refute such claims, I merely have to ask of simplest questions, “Who?” I have no doubts that there are many Malaysian Indians who have achieved remarkable success in their respective fields, to the extent they command huge respect from the masses, and their achievements will remain as a yardstick against all aspiring Malaysian Indians who enter the field, will be measured against. In areas such as medicine, business, law and education, there is an undeniable pool of talent amongst Malaysian Indians. However, the majority of them are pure academics with little else to offer apart from the expertise in their respective fields and therefore, they will continue to ‘serve’ and not ‘lead’.

I have always believed that academic achievement alone is not a sensitive measure of intelligence or ability. If only such academic talent were combined with charisma, dynamism, a sense of duty towards society, management skills, principles and integrity, then perhaps the Malaysian Indians may have a capable leader. So although there are numerous Malaysian Indian academicians who have been earmarked as potential candidates for leadership, I fear this potential will remain untapped and the Malaysian Indian population will fail to have a true leader that they can look up to, and they will remain largely remain a ‘serving class’.

In light of that view, I firmly believe that the cause, interest and views of Malaysian Indians will be better represented by a capable Malaysian non-Indian leader, compared to an incapable Malaysian Indian leader. If the Malaysian Indians can see past the racial barrier, they too will see the importance of a good leader regardless of ethnicity, enabling them to aspire for greater heights which would be impossible under incompetent leadership.

However, indelible mistakes have been made in the past by previous leaders purely stemming from their cultural sensitivity towards the various ethnic groups. A good leader can only address the needs and concerns of a population if he/she can first understand their nature, more so with Malaysian Indians who are conservative and traditionalist. Merely taking a stand and implementing policies with disregard to race, culture and religion is not plausible mainly for two reasons:- 1) the multiethnic population of Malaysia still remains close to her roots, and 2) prolonged subjugation of the population under racial politics has heightened racial tensions and persecutory feelings amongst ethnic groups.

Therefore, all leaders should attempt to be accustomed or if not, at least be sensitive towards the cultural and historical aspects associated with the all major and minor, ethnic and religious groups. Lest they fail, I fear that the ethnic groups will continue to grow unnecessarily suspicious and racial tensions will only worsen, sending the society back to a time where people only thought that only ‘our kind’ will every truly understand ‘our needs and concerns’.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has named four Malaysian Indians in his cabinet, which should at least alleviate some of the concerns of the Malaysian Indians; temporarily at least. Given the poor performance of MIC and Gerakan within the Barisan Nasional in the elections, these appointments signify diplomacy within the coalition and perhaps the greatest testament to Barisan Nasional power-sharing concept. I certainly hope that these appointees will embrace the huge responsibility trusted onto them and quickly realise that their duty lies not solely to the Malaysian Indian population but to all Malaysians alike, and serve the Malaysian people by leading by example, instead of being preoccupied with racial politics as their predecessors were. I commend their appointments (although not necessarily in agreement), as it has given them a chance to step out of the shadows of previous premierships, and hope they will be able to re-educate their peers and help them achieve political maturity from within the party. More importantly, they also need to convey these messages across to the people that actually matter – the public of Malaysia.

The results of the election have been described by many as a political tsunami. Whilst I acknowledge the momentous outcome of the elections in terms of history and evolution of Malaysian politics, its impact and the consequences that follow, I dare not go as far as to describing it as a tsunami. This is purely because more crucially it is this next five years which will truly paint a more accurate picture of the effects of the outcome of the elections. This is a test for both Barisan Nasional and Barisan Rakyat.

Will Barisan Nasional change their tried and tested methods which have they have relied on for decades, to meet the changing needs of the people that are gradually rejecting Barisan Nasional’s ideologies; or will they persevere and continue employing detrimental racial politics under the guise of power-sharing to ensure racial harmony.

Can Barisan Rakyat deliver the changes that they promised to bring to the people, and perhaps more importantly can three parties with vastly divergent view points and a host of inexperienced staff settle on a level platform which will allow the formation of an effective people’s government?

A slip from Barisan Nasional if they choose to remain stubborn will result in a true political tsunami in the next general election and we may perhaps see a new government consisting of the current opposition. However, on equally dangerous footing, a slip from the Barisan Rakyat if they fail to live up to the high standards they preached pre-elections will leave voters utterly frustrated – prompting voters to revert back to the safer option. Expect to then see a landslide victory for Barisan Nasional leaving Barisan Rakyat to rue on the glorious chance that they failed to capitalise on; a chance that may not come by for a long time.

Therefore in my opinion, I believe it will be the next general elections that will tell us who truly emerged victorious in the 2008 Malaysian general elections.


(Disclaimer: This essay purely conveys my reactions, thoughts and opinions on the outcome of the recent elections as an impartial individual with no political affiliation. The focused discussion on the Malaysian Indian population is an attempt to calm their fears and reassure them that they remain relevant to the Malaysian society if they can accept their limitations and bridge the gap between racial barriers. I also believe that my arguments are not exclusive to just the Malaysian Indians but are relevant across all ethnic groups if Malaysia intends to truly achieve the racial equality and harmony she craves for.)

The Voice of Malaysia: A loud whisper

Part I of II: The evolution of public will

As the wave of initial euphoria of the recent elections passes on, I believe many are left with a residual feeling of doubt and guilt, as the people of Malaysia who finally have managed to muster enough courage to push for a change now stand on very unfamiliar territory.

Whilst Barisan Nasional will work arduously to dissect the cause of their defeat in post-mortem, unless they dig really deep, they will fail to see that the ethnic groups in Malaysia are finally ready to break racial barriers. Likewise Barisan Rakyat too faces a stiff challenge in working around the stark differences around individual party policies to form a coalition that serves the public that voted for them.

I personally am in disbelief at the results of the elections, a clear testament to how I had underestimated the public masses of Malaysia.

Racial politics has been the bread and butter of Malaysian politics since pre-independent Malaya, and the power-sharing policy of Barisan Nasional to ensure representation of each ethnic group in the government has been their magnet to secure the support of the public. This policy served Malaysia and the public sufficiently in early post-independence, when racial barriers set up by the British as part of their cleverly schemed divide-and-rule policy were impregnable; a time when people believed that their interest could only be conveyed and represented to others, by someone belonging to their own respective ethnicity.

But times have changed. Globalisation and perhaps to an extent overpopulation has brought us all much closer to not only our neighbours, but also to the rest of the world. And in many ways, too close for comfort for a proportion of the population who have failed to embrace this phenomenon. Ethnic and cultural divides are now even less well defined than the borders or even the laws of the land and surely ethnic and cultural barriers are slowly fading. We must accept that the longer we continue to dwell on our differences, the longer and harder it will take to accept the inevitable change. Instead we should choose to focus on the similarities we share and cherish our differences that are unique to us as a precious keepsake.

But unfortunately in the multiethnic Malaysia, a handful of our politicians have tactlessly continued to employ racial politics to remind us of our differences to reinstall these barriers; in what I can only perceive as a hapless attempt for personal political gain at the cost of suppressing the natural evolution of social development of the Malaysian public. Consequently, in the last decade, racial tensions appeared only to be escalating, and it seemed that the racial harmony within the multiethnic society that Malaysia paraded internationally only served as masquerade; a mask underneath which racial tensions were carefully concealed threatening to erupt at any time, a façade or perhaps even better described as the conspiracy of silence of the Malaysian public.

The numerous rallies before the elections were early symptoms of a depressed society, that our executive committee failed to diagnose and address adequately. Furthermore, the situation was not helped by leading authorities, who failed to attend to the needs of these groups sensitively. On numerous occasions, their claims were often dismissed as trivial or worse still went unheeded purely because it was deemed that they were those belonging of the minority.

It is inevitable that the administrative body in a democratic organization will lean towards meeting and satisfying the needs of the majority. It most basic terms, majority rule is amongst the core principles of the governance of a democracy which often can result in the tyranny of the majority; where in the interest of the majority, the interest of the minority can be overlooked and disregarded.

Rousseau wrote in the ‘Discourse on Political Economy’, that a popular government has at its object the good of the people and follows the general will (majority) of the public. However, he immediately recognized that the decree of the general will, will inevitably impinge on the individual rights of the public; majority or minority regardless and hence acknowledged the necessity of a uniform set of laws that apply equally to each individual according to the general will and a good leader who is able to govern according to the public will, without completely overlooking the rights of the minority population.

But above it all, Rousseau underlined with utmost importance that the government should not directly control these laws but instead be adherent to these laws that are administered by legislators, and this lawful government should be lead by a leader who is not blinded by ambition, but one who has integrity and adheres to the principles of moral values. Only then can a leader run the government according to the general will of the public, whilst ensuring that the rights of the minority remain protected – “…let their country therefore be a common mother to all the citizens; let the advantages which they enjoy there make them cherish it; let the government allow them a share in public administration sufficient to make them feel that they are in their home county, and let the laws, in their eyes, be nothing less than the guarantee of liberty for all..” (Rousseau)

The election results are reflective of the paradigm shift of the public will. The only question that remains is whether Malaysia has a leader within her ranks who possesses the integrity and principles that are guided by moral values that will allow him/her to form a popular government that appeases both the majority and the minority.