Dear Editor,

IT is obvious to anyone who pays attention that Hinduism in Guyana, mainly through its two national festivals, Divali and Holi, is interpreted in ways by political parties and their various surrogates to promote their respective agendas, and to condemn their opponents. No one dares to take the same liberty with Christianity and Islam, the reason being that the adherents of these faiths themselves will fiercely guard against any trivialisation. The world knows to what extent they are prepared to go to defend their beliefs. But, with Hindus, it is different.

We are in the forefront promoting the most devastating kind of sacrilege. We know, for example, how, in the 1970s and 80s, leaders of the Hindu community conferred divinity on prominent politicians of the day, making them the equivalents of Rama, Krishna and Shiva.

The latest demonstration of the tendency in this regard is seen in the Eyewitness column, entitled Post Phagwa Postings, in the Guyana Times, March 29, 2021, where the writer, invoking “some deep, unconscious prompt”, makes a link between the acronyms of Post Phagwa Postings (PPP) and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), and offers a “modern take” on the old story of Prahalad and his tyrannical father.

If making the link between the acronyms is not enough to churn the stomach into nausea, the writer goes on to demonise former president David Granger into the evil and tyrannical king, who had become drunk with power, and, on the other hand, to divinise the current President, Dr. Irfaan Ali, into the youthful Prahalad, that paragon of virtue possessing an unparalleled and unwavering devotion to the Lord, and the Lord alone.

One can ask many questions about the significance and appropriateness of this “modern take”, but I leave it to readers, especially Hindus, to ask questions, seek answers, and form their own conclusions. But, I have two concluding points to make. I noted at the beginning that Hindus themselves are often in the forefront in volunteering in the desacralisation to Hinduism as in the present case. Eyewitness himself has not only demonstrated an acquaintance with Hinduism, but one gathers from the column that he is a Hindu. In any case, I do not believe a non-Hindu would ever dare to engage in any “modern take” as we see in the present case.

The second point I make is that in no case do we find a permanent and eternal conflict in narratives of Hindu legends. There is always a reconciliation in the end; and in the case of Prahalad and his father, such a reconciliation was seen in the final embrace between father and son. Of course, in the end, the father was also put to death by the Lord, and, as Eyewitness must know, death at the hands of God is indeed synonymous with final liberation, in this case, the ultimate reconciliation.

Obviously, this conclusion could not fit the “parallels”, and would make the “modern take” meaningless.

Yours sincerely,
Swami Aksharananda