Britain's first State funded school Krishna Avanti Primary School at Harrow has come out with its unique definition of a 'practicing Hindu' for the purpose of framing the school's admission policy. Only the practicing Hindu's wards would be eligible for admission -- those who pray daily, voluntarily work in the temple, abstain from all types of meat and intoxication. First, the term 'practicing' is not applicable to Hindus. Any child born to Hindu parents is a Hindu by birth, unlike Christians where the child has to be baptised only then he can become a practicing Christian. This is also the case with the Muslims and the Jews. Among Muslims it is 'Sunnat.

In the West there are any number of non-practicing Christians and Muslims but no one will use the word 'non-practicing Hindu' for a Hindu. Religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism have one book, one God. As per the claims each of them has exclusive powers for salvation, others are destined to go to hell. In that sense of religion Hinduism is not one. Hindus do not exclude any one. One can pray anywhere, temple or at home. He needn't pray at all and yet be a Hindu. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have fundamentals and commandments. In Hinduism there are no commandments. In Bhagvad Gita Krishan tells Arjun, 'I have told all about dharma yet you may do as you like to do'. Being vegetarian is good but not compulsory. The same applies to intoxication. Even an atheist and an agnostic can be a Hindu. It is monotheistic, pantheistic and polytheist at the same time. They can even choose mysticism.

The concept of 'practicing Hindu' is irrelevant to Hindus. Hinduism can't be defined. It is limitless. How can one define a Hindu who worships a number of deities. Indefinability is not the weakness of Hindus. It is their strength. Polytheism gives way to tolerance and paves way to respect to other religions. What we see today in Hindu society is the result of continuous nourishing of cultural traits. This continuum was never broken even during the period of political defeats and struggles. There are people who claim continuous evolution of Indians for thousands of years but at least 6,000 years of history can't be discounted.

Arnold Toynbee, a great historian of the 20th century remarked: "It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in human history, the only way of salvation is the ancient Hindu way. Here we have the attitude and spirit that can make it possible for the human race to grow together in to a single family".

"There may or may not be only one single absolute truth and only one single ultimate way of salvation. We do not know. But we do know that there are more approaches to truth than one, and more means of salvation than one. This is a hard saying for adherents of the higher religions of the Judaic family (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), but it is a truism for Hindus. The spirit of mutual goodwill, esteem, and veritable love...is the traditional spirit of the religions of the Indian family. This is one of India's gifts to the world."

"At the close of this century, the world would be dominated by the West, but that in the 21st century India will conquer her conquerors."

Any number of quotations from historians and philosophers may be given to recapture the image that India produces in various eras but a question arises. How could Toynbee be so sure in concluding that if the world is to survive then there is only one way and that is going back to the ancient Hindu way? He must have visualised the destruction of mankind in piling up of nuclear weapons by contenders to world power and the emergence of a new religion called Marxism which claimed 170 million lives just in 60 years from three continents. He must have seen the barbarity of Christians and Muslims in North and South America, Australia and Europe. That is why he used the word "supremely dangerous moment". He had visualised the magnitude of disaster.

Yet he did see a way out in the ancient Hindu way? As a historian he knew that India had never attacked any country. Chinese philosopher Hu-Shih who was ambassador to the US during 1938-1942 said that "India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without having to send a single soldier across her borders". That is also true for Central Asia, Afghanistan and Iran. (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar are only yesterday's story) Thailand and South-East Asian countries up to Cambodia have the same story to tell. This happened due to inner conflict resolving and harmonising relations among various people of the world.

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, November 25, 2007