Polytheism as an antidote to monotheistic intolerance

Anticipating by some years Jasper Griffin’s article in the Spectator of April 13, 2006, my brother-in-law, as agnostic a member of the Hindu community as I myself, half-seriously suggested in 1997 that Hinduism should incorporate into its pantheon of gods, both Jesus and Mohammad. We have done that to Lord Buddha, Bhagwan Mahavira and Guru Nanak. It would make for an all-encompassing religion that included both these religions and thus remove all possible antagonisms between them and Hinduism. He went on to add, tongue firmly in cheek that, to accommodate atheists and agnostics like himself and me, Hinduism should also add to its pantheon two new gods called “Agnosticeshwara” and “Atheisteswara” (Ishwara = God).

Jasper Griffin’s article, interesting as it is in its exposition of the intolerance of monotheism when contrasted with polytheistic religions like Hinduism, unfortunately seems to accept that it is possible to have a set of strong beliefs, not necessarily scientifically proved, which can be more tolerant than the book beliefs of the middle east.

In accepting a number of Gods who may or may not be only partially successful in answering prayers, Hinduism, as a way of life, treats religion as a hesitant and perhaps unsure way to salvation. It is this hesitance and the need to make doubly sure (which then becomes never ending) that makes religions like Hinduism accept the essence of agnosticism. Mr. Griffin has touched on this point with felicity. However it is still a faith, not based on evidence just as much as are the book religions, and therefore just as subject to the self imposed limitations of accepting as truth that which is not supported by evidence.

While it is true that the book beliefs, all of them, have been the scourges of mankind and have caused untold misery, and that all three are monotheistic, it does not necessarily mean that polytheistic faiths are necessarily tolerant. Monotheistic faiths direct their aggression outward towards those who are “unbelievers”, while polytheistic faiths tend to subjugate their own adherents with myth laden rubbish like caste and sati. At the same time it is also true that a religion like Hinduism allows agnostics like myself to exist within itself. Unless one looked at polytheistic religions as merely the lesser of the two evils, and not necessarily as an antidote to monotheism, one would not be giving the evil of religion its due.

This brings me to the strange case of the coexistence of Hinduism with the religion of the Parsees – Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion just like the other religions of the middle east. Yet it coexists peacefully with a polytheistic religion like Hinduism in India. What is it that makes it so special? Why can the other monotheistic religions not be like Zoroastrianism? The answer seems to lie in their different approaches to proselytisation. Zoroastrianism does not accept converts. It offers spiritual succour to those born within the faith, and to none else. As a result no Hindu can covert to Zoroastrianism. This leads to a situation in which two religions, perhaps less intolerant of each other than the book religions but intolerant nevertheless, live in peace in a spirit of benign mutual social ostracism. The Parsees mind their own business and do the Hindus no harm. The Hindus do the same to the Parsees. Hindu Parsee weddings are rare. While a Parsee bride married to a Hindu may be accepted into Hinduism, a Hindu groom is not only not accepted into Zoroastrianism but the Parsee bride is also shooed away. Only now has Zoroastrianism started to accept children born of Parsee-Hindu unions if the father is a Parsee. Zoroastrianism is the best example of how a monotheistic religion can live peaceably with polytheism.

What is surprising is that mankind has lived in the lap of superstition and religions of various kinds ever since it became sentient and started calling itself Homo Sapiens – the Homo that thinks. Even if we accept that human history goes back some fifty thousand years that is about the time that it has lived with and created and glorified all the gods that it could create or imagine. During this long period it has been able, through its religions to think up all sorts of ways to torture and bring to harm its own species. Having done so with marked success for so long, it should have come to the conclusion by now that the unreasoning sets of beliefs that it follows is responsible for all the misery that it causes to itself; and abandoned religion and belief in God altogether. It has done nothing of the sort.

This leads to only one conclusion: That in the face of a complete absence of evidence that religion, any religion does any good to mankind, we still do the rounds and boost the "babas" and "sants". We still persecute those who do not subscribe to our silly beliefs. And we would rather build a temple or mosque or church than an educational institution that taught us how to think. Something is seriously wrong with the mental makeup of mankind.