Read the following and identify and develop the final conclusion as well as considering any intermediate conclusions. Then click on the text to see a possible answer. Examine how this differs from your answer and discuss whether these differences are significant.

How well does Hinduism respond to the challenges of secularisation?

It could be argued that there are many significant challenges facing Hinduism in the context of secularisation. For example, the growth of rational and scientific thought poses challenges to traditional Hindu beliefs such as reincarnation and the existence of deities. In addition, although there is the growth of religious pluralism (open debate between religions to promote understanding) this also brings with it the issue that competing world-views reduces the overall credibility of a singular view significantly enough as to weaken its truths claims. Another serious challenge to Hinduism in India has been the secularisation of the Indian state itself and conflict between secular laws and religious laws. Therefore, there are possibly several areas of challenge that has arisen for Hindus today, and it is crucial to critically analyse pertinent responses from within the Hindu tradition to such challenges and evaluate their overall effectiveness.

We can begin by analysing the responses of two key figures within Hinduism: Ram Mohan Roy and Dayananda Saraswati. These individuals provide us with different insights into the nature of Hinduism and therefore demonstrate different ways that Hindus have responded to the challenges of a secular society.

Ram Mohan Roy believed that the perfect society could emerge from a combination of Western scientific rationalism and Eastern spirituality. He advocated the application of reason to religious, political and social issues. What is interesting is that Roy operated in a context of a British ‘Christian’ rule of India and what many would consider an underlying oppression and extortion of the people of India by the existing government. However, Roy also faced many social and political issues within his own Hindu society such as sati, oppression of women, the caste system and an overall context of a lack of education and poverty for Hindu nationals. Roy challenged many social and cultural aspects of both religion and government and had a vision for a society that could strip away any negative influences and conflate the positives of both East and West. Indeed, Roy’s approach could be seen by some as a ‘modern’ solution and a positive response to challenges made.

Saraswati’s response to secularisation or any other challenge to Hinduism was a very different. Saraswati made an aggressive defence of Hindu traditions against secular challenges, wanting to maintain the ancient Indian religious traditions. He emphasised an education that made use of Western rational, scientific thought to justify Vedic religious education. Through such an education he hoped to create a new identity which could compete with the West on the West’s own terms as well as ensuring that Vedic and ancient Indian values were maintained. Saraswati’s approach was a rational defence of the Hindu faith.

Overall, from these two examples, we could say that Hinduism offered an effective response to the challenges of secularisation.

Identify any intermediate conclusions and final conclusion in the following evaluative answer. Then compare with other class members to see if there are any significant differences. Develop the final conclusion.

The practicality of Hindu teachings on wealth and poverty in the modern world

Hindu dharma (duty) encourages Hindus to work hard and earn money. In this way they can support themselves and their family. This is in keeping with one of the four purushartas (aims or goals) of life, artha. Artha is about gaining wealth by honest and lawful means. In today’s world and especially in the developing countries this can be seen as an idealistic teaching in the face of the problems of unemployment created by a lack of education and skills. Therefore, putting Hindu teachings about dharma and artha into practice can be problematic.

In addition to this, the varnas limit the jobs a Hindu may have, since it is only appropriate for a Hindu to have a job suitable for their caste. However, in recent times, especially in the cities, these attitudes have been breaking down somewhat, allowing members of lower varnas to fill professions before filled only by higher ones. Indeed, some occupations go against basic Hindu beliefs, irrelevant of caste, making it unlikely to find a Hindu fashion model or butcher for example. This really raises the question of the practicality of the Hindu teachings on dharma and artha in relation to the needs of today’s changing world.

Some find the Hindu attitude to the cause of poverty unacceptable in today’s world - they believe that if they are suffering so in this life, it is because of bad karma built up in a previous life, so many do not feel the guilt felt in other societies when they see a beggar. However, Gandhi did manage to change many Hindu beliefs by teaching that it is wrong to think that a poor person is only getting what they deserve. He believed that everyone was a part of God, and people should recognise that they share the same world and should care for one another. In a sense, Gandhi’s attitude towards wealth and poverty was one of collective karmic responsibility for a positive future for all as opposed to an individual view of karmic responsibility.

Despite Gandhi’s attempts, many Hindus consider their attitude to wealth and poverty to be realistic. The aim of every person is to earn money and avoid poverty. This is a completely practical approach to life. The idea of individual karmic responsibility is rational. In this way many Hindus do not see the accumulation of personal wealth as an evil as it is in line with artha. However, Hindus do not let greed overcome them, and within the overall perspective of the four aims of life must keep perspective in line with dharma. This leads to a balanced lifestyle.

Overall, Hinduism could be said to have a responsible approach to wealth and poverty but only if in line with the teachings of dharma.