Sebastian Kappen’s Thoughts on Hindutva Sebastian Vattamattam Sebastian Kappen (1924 - 1993) was an Indian theologian, doctored in 1961 with a thesis on ‘Praxis and religious alienation according to the economic and philosophical manuscripts of Karl Marx.’ His subsequent studies had been geared to the requirements of transformative social action in India. This led him to an investigation into the liberative and humanizing potentials of the original teachings of the historical Jesus as well as of Indian religious traditions, particularly the tradition of dissent represented by the Buddha and the medieval Bhakti Movement. The last few years of his life witnessed the emergence of Hindutva as a fascist force in India. Dr. Kappen wrote many articles responding to this, the last being entitled as ‘Hindutva: Emergent Fascism?’ Recently this writer compiled six of Dr. Kappen’s essays, edited and published as Hindutva and Indian Religious Traditions.1 In 1522 a Dominican Bishop wrote from Goa to the Portuguese king, “And let him, who wants to live in the island, become a Christian, and he shall possess his lands and houses, as he has till now done; if not, let him leave the island.”2 This spirit of intolerance and bigotry was never akin to Indian religious tradition. Then how comes that many a proponent of Hindutva today sounds exactly like the Catholic Bishop quoted above? Dr. Kappen addresses this question with a deep analysis of the Indian religious traditions. From Mother Goddess to Vedic religion The discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization in the 1920s, and the subsequent investigations, have proved the prevalence of matriarchy and Mother Goddess cult in the pre-Aryan civilization, in the Indian subcontinent. Kappen identifies this period as the deepest layer of Indian civilization. Agriculture, the main mode of production in which women took the leading role, was then the economic factor behind the preeminence of the Mother-Goddess cult. In this early stage of development, humans found themselves thrown into the midst of inexorable cosmic forces. It is only natural, that they saw the Divine in every mysterious object. ‘Of all things what appeared most enigmatic to our forebears, was the process of conceiving and giving birth, of which women held the secret.’ 3 Thence emerged the cult of Mother Goddess. The economic factor, such as the change over from hoe to plough cultivation, together with the invasion of the patriarchal Aryans, brought about the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. But elements of the Mother Goddess cult still persist in our society. The religiosity in the early Vedic period was based on the magical identity of the microcosm with the macrocosm. Humans found themselves entangled in ever-recurring cycles of cosmic phenomena, which instilled in them a cyclic sense of time. The Divine was identified with the cosmic order (rita). Humans could influence it by symbolically re-enacting the cosmic cycles at a microcosmic level. This belief led to the discovery of a magical-religious technology of manipulating the Divine, and the emergence of a priestly class of religious technicians called Brahmanas. They evolved and propagated what Kappen calls ‘gnostic religiosity’. In gnostic religiosity, the microcosm and the macrocosm are conceptualized respectively as the Atman and the Brahman. Ignorance of this non-duality (advaita) was construed as the source of all human alienation and suffering. Humans could escape from the entangling cycles of birth and death by jnana (enlightenment), the knowledge of the non-duality of everything that is, of Atman and Brahman. The Brahmanic gnostic religiosity, Kappen observes, is not an escape but an ‘in-scape’. It is an ‘inscape’ from the cyclicity of existence and suffering into the timelessness of samadhi. Humans and their concrete life activities are reduced to mere appearance (maya), the play of the unqualified (nirguna) Brahman. This total submission to the cosmic laws, as well as the denial of human subjectivity is the essence of the doctrine of karma, which is a law of necessity, not of freedom. Gnostic religiosity is highly individualistic, an individualism that excludes the other. Bhagavad Gita preaches this philosophy of unconcern in no unambiguous terms: “ Wise men do not sorrow for the living or the dead.”(Gita, 2.11)