For a man who earned his spurs among some of the sharpest intellects in the West, and is as articulate and sophisticated as any elite liberal would dream of, Shashi Tharoor’s fidelity to the culture of his upbringing is worth remarking on. ‘Why I am a Hindu’, his 17th and latest book, which, going by the title alone, would seem to be a sign of a soft spot for saffron, actually turns out to be the opposite – it challenges the blinkered worldview of ‘Hindutva’ but from the viewpoint of a Hindu believer, which makes the challenge all the more effective.
In an exclusive interview with TOI at his home in Thiruvananthapuram, Tharoor emphasises the fact that Hinduism always encourages each person to seek the truth for herself and that pluralism remains Hinduism’s greatest legacy, something in imminent danger from forces that pander to the ‘least common denominator’ of Hindu society.

Excerpts from the interview:

You have written a great deal about Hindutva, which tries to project a false or even opposite idea of what Hindu culture is all about. At the same time, you are less critical about Hindu religion and practices. Why is it so?
I don’t feel guilty of that charge. I have tried to deal with problems of caste, the relatively cynical uses of reincarnation theory, the role of gurus and godmen… all of which are part of the faith but distorted in some ways. So, I am not avoiding these issues in the book. But I spend more time on aspects of the religion that appeal to me. This book is not meant to be in any case a comprehensive look at Hinduism where I would analyse every plus and minus. I have rather presumptuously called the first chapter ‘My Hinduism’. It is about my understanding about the faith I have grown up in, which I have observed, which I have learnt, read and studied and that is the Hinduism I try to describe. I’m not claiming that mine is the only true depiction of Hinduism. What I am claiming is that Hinduism doesn’t have any compulsive rituals, holy books. We don’t have a Hindu Pope and a Hindu Sunday. You cannot change that and still call yourself a Hindu.

What is your answer to those who suspect political motives in bringing out such a book at this juncture that hits the BJP and Sangh Parivar hard? Especially, when many Congress leaders are struggling to publicly establish their Hindu credentials.
I don’t think anything that I have said is new, in the sense that my books for the last 30 years have reflected some of these concerns. The Great Indian Novel talked about dharma, the novel Riot is about the violence in the lead up to Ram Janma Bhumi movement, From Midnight to Millennium openly discussed my Hindu beliefs and talked about the shame I felt about the Babri Masjid demolition. So, these are very consistent concerns I have had. Therefore, I would say that I should be exempted from that charge. But certainly, the BJP has given us no choice but to deal with the issue of Hindutva because that has pushed it into our faces. This is now very much evident in the government and in its ruling ethos of Hindi, Hindu, Hindutva. And I don’t happen to agree with that.

You have written in your book that pluralism not secularism is more apt in the Indian context. In other words, what is meant by the term secularism in the Indian context is actually pluralism. Can you elaborate?
I believe that in the Indian context, secularism just means pluralism. A Western dictionary will tell you secularism is the absence of religion but in India, with our profusion of religions, such a definition would never work. In India, therefore, secularism is intended to mean respect for all faiths, where the government doesn’t privilege any one of them. The prevailing attitude has been, and remains, that all religions are equally valid to their believers. So, if you wish to follow a different kind of worship from me, it is not my right to judge. In any case, Hinduism says to seek the truth within; seek within yourself. You are finding your own way of worship, your own way of belief, and I respect that.

You seem to have a soft corner for Deen Dayal Upadhyay. You have devoted over 20 pages on his work. You have even accused the present BJP leadership for not living up to the expectations of Upadhyay. ‘The prophet of BJP has so far been honoured in lip service rather than literally’, you say in your book. Do you think the practice of ‘integral humanism’ professed by Upadhyay would provide more sophistication to BJP?
There is much about integral humanism for the moderate intellectual to admire. Upadhyay seems to be anchored in the Purusharthas and at the same time to have genuine faith in social justice. The problem with him, however, is his complete rejection of the Constitution on the grounds that it embodies what he calls ‘territorial nationalism’ – the idea that the nation of India is this territory and all the people living on it. He says that is wrong; a nation is not a territory, it is people, and in the Indian case that means the Hindu people. He therefore wants a Hindu rashtra. That would end the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of belief and of religion enshrined in the Constitution. Our Prime Minister says the Constitution is his holy book and at the same time swears by the ideas of Upadhyay. I point out the contradiction.

You have criticised the 1951 Religious and Charitable Endowment law which gives state governments the power to take over Hindu religious institutions. But such a view is that of Hindutva forces, not Congress or the communist parties. Do you really want the governments to keep away from acquisition and administration of Hindu temples?
I am troubled by the idea that we have a different law and practice for one community than for others. In general, it is a sound practice to allow believers to administer their own places of worship. Some sort of regulation makes sense to prevent corruption and maladministration, but I don’t see why the government should be running temples – or churches, for that matter.

‘I consider myself a Hindu and a nationalist, but I am not a Hindu nationalist. It’s time to take Hindu dharma back from the fundamentalists’, you write. Who do you think could play a crucial role towards the same?
All of us. The Hindu public in democratic India could start demanding their faith back from those who have hijacked it. The #NotInMyName protests were a good beginning. And I would hope that our more enlightened modern religious leaders could add their voice to this as well.

 ‘…A secular government and materialist Bollywood combined to produce the religious underpinnings for the rise for Hindu cultural nationalism in India’, you said while speaking of the way Ramayana and Mahabharata were serialised on a government-run television channel. Are you in favour of selective censorship?
No, not at all! I believe Ramanand Sagar and BR Chopra were fully within their rights to make these serials and I am fully within my rights to criticise them. Don’t confuse criticism with censorship! At the same time there is little doubt that they did play a role in awakening a sort of lowest-common-denominator Hindu consciousness which gave the BJP fertile ground for their own rise. You may remember the BJP even gave election tickets to the actors who played Ram and Sita in those serials….