BOOK
REVIEW Green lessons
from India's past Dharma
and Ecology of Hindu Communities: Sustenance and
Sustainability by Pankaj Jain
Reviewed by Piyush Mathur
As
religion has become one of the more
tele-advertised commodities (as well as an alibi
for and a target of violence), it has become
difficult to trust - let alone relish - any talk
about it. It may, therefore, be refreshing to heed
a parallel development involving, on the one hand,
academic critiques of secularism and modernity,
and - on the other hand - re-visitations of those
aspects of religion and spirituality that
demonstrate particular benefits.
Pankaj
Jain's book belongs to the latter trend: It is an
ethnography of three communities - the Swadhyayis,
the Bishnois
and the Bhils - that
emerged at different points in time in what is now
called India. "While ... the Swadhyaya movement
... arose in the mid-20th century in Gujarat as a
'New Religious Movement'," the Bishnoi community
was founded in the 16th century, and references to
the Bhils go at least as far back as the 13th
century (pg 1).
These communities
fascinate Jain because, without being
"environmentalists" they have been more successful
than the science-reliant, planning-oriented state
in setting particular examples of "ecological
activism" (pg 2):
If Bishnois are saving animals and
trees from invaders, they are simply living
their traditions, not 'protecting the
environment' per se. If Bhils continue to
practice their rituals in their sacred groves,
it is their ancient tradition, not 'saving the
bio-diversity'. If Swadhyayi are building [tree
temples], they are simply expressing their
devotion and reverence for all creation
according to the teachings of the [Gita], not
'restoring the environment'. (pg
126)
Curious about what else to call
and how else to explain and characterize these
conservational attempts, Jain digs up their
historical and field-based empirical details and
offers for (and through) them a theoretically
innovative framework of explanation and
intervention.
The significance of
dharma Creditably rejecting both
"'environmental ethics' and 'religion' to
interpret" the activities of such Indian
communities, Jain proposes using the concept of
"dharma", instead. He argues that "dharma" is the
"organizing principle" indigenous to India that
"individuals interpret and apply ... in their own
situations freely" (pg 113).
As "the
dharmic Indic traditions have [inspired] Indians
to limit their needs" (pg 120), dharma could "be
developed as an alternative anthropological
category to study Indic traditions [and]
successfully applied as an overarching term for
the sustainability of the ecology, environmental
ethics, and the religious lives of Indian
villagers" (pg 3).
But inasmuch as dharma
is also viewed as "a numinous power" by which to
maintain and run society as well as the world,
Jain believes that it "can help transcend the
dichotomy of sacred and profane" - and "be
effectively used to translate the scientific
ecological awareness" for India's local
communities (pg 113, pg 102, and pg 115
respectively).
To support his proposal,
Jain provides an evidence-based reasoning
attesting to the fundamental multidimensionality
of "dharma" that he theoretically covets as well
as touts:
[T]raditional, comparatively much
less modernized Indian groups do not see
religion, ecology, and ethics as separate
entities. In line with the etymological
definition of dharma, their duty, virtue,
cosmic ecological order, and
spiritual aspects of their lives are all
intertwined just as dharma in its various
definitions and meanings includes duty,
virtue, cosmic ecological order, and
spiritual aspects of lives. (pg
126)
Socially, "dharma ... can help
spread environmentalism because of [its]
multivalent significances" - given that "Hindus,
Jain, and Sikhs of diverse backgrounds" as well as
speakers of both north- and south-Indian languages
use that term "to describe their traditions". (pg
105)
Etymologically,
Dharma is derived from Sanskrit
dhr meaning to sustain, support, or
hold…In the Vedas prthivim dharmana
dhrtam signifies dharma as sustainer of the
earth. Although the Vedas celebrate the idea of
rtam, cosmic order or rhythm, the term
'dharma' also appears in the [RgVeda], most
notably in the Purusa-Sukta 10.90, 'tani
dharmani'…[T]he idea of rtam was being
reworded into dharma by the time of
Purusa-Sukta. Earlier, yajnas
[ritualistic sacrifices] were performed to
maintain the rtam of the universe. (ppg
106-107)
Further:
[T]he first usage of dharma itself
is a reinterpretation of rtam in the [RgVeda].
Although both rtam and dharma have the sense of
cosmic law and order that 'sustains' the
universe, the mechanisms to achieve it shifts
significantly from physical sacrifices to
metaphorical sacrifice of a cosmic
person…[entailing] the move away from
materialistic pursuits to more metaphysical
ones… (pg 107)
But to the extent that
"the first few references of dharma in the Vedas"
are interpretable "as cosmic law and order," the
meaning of that concept must necessarily
incorporate the "ecology of the planets, the sun,
and other cosmic entities." However, Jaimini's
Purvamimamsasutra (ca 300-200 BCE) had
rendered "dharma" as that which causes the
good-and can be grasped and performed via Vedic
instructions; in this respect, "dharma signifies
virtues and righteousness" (pg 107).
Unraveling the meanings of "dharma"-
including within the folk realm - Jain briefly
charts its history, in which religions indigenous
to South Asia show up as particular spins on that
term (even as its reinterpretations continue via
various texts, polities, philosophies, and
historical interfaces) (pg 108-109). Through this
flux, "dharma" has nevertheless retained an
integrity:
By participating in different
activities related to ecology, the practitioners
of traditional communities ... not only undergo
somatic experiences but also ... 'relive' the
lives of Vedic sages and other mythical figures
... This is the embodied imagination or the
'ecological mind' where perceptions,
self-perception, and symbolic ideas resonate
together. This is the level at which dharma
means something to Hindus before it has acquired
its extremely diverse lexical meanings and
social functions. It connects the practitioners
with the experiences of their gurus and their
natural surroundings. (pg
114)
Dharmic ecology: Ascetic,
devotional Jain calls the dharma-induced
environmental care "dharmic ecology" - deeming it
"a unique avenue for approaching environmental
restoration today" (pg 4). While restricting its
usage somewhat for rural, traditional Indians, he
does not consider it incompatible with the modern
environmental movement or even modernity. In fact,
he briefly illustrates that the Swadhyayis and the
Bishnois have flourished through modernity (pg
111).
However, he distinguishes dharmic
ecology from the "social ecology" of "the
activists of the Chipko movement" - whose
predominant motive behind hugging the trees to
prevent their felling was economic. They had
correctly viewed "their surrounding forests" to be
critical to meeting their "survival needs" (pg
130).
Within "dharmic ecology," Jain
identifies two key strands: ascetic (stressing
austerity and renunciation) and devotional
(faith-based, theistic, even celebratory,
engagement with life intended to uphold sets of
virtuous ideals). In contemporary times, Jain
argues, "The ascetic model will need to be
prescribed for…those [with] extravagant
consumptions…[while] the devotional model may be
suitable for both higher and the lower classes"
(pg 118).
The three communities: The
Swadhyayis, the Bishnois, the Bhils The
bulk of the book comprises sprawling profiles of
the three communities: their origins, histories,
beliefs, practices-and modes of spread;
multidimensional biographies of Shastri Pandurang
Vaijanath Athavale (the founder of the Swadhyayi
Movement) and Guru Jambhesvara (the founder of the
Bishnois); and their ecological details as
obtained through fieldwork.
The Swadhyaya
movement - "inspired from Indian cultural
heritage" and present "in about two dozen
countries" - comes across as a radically
cosmopolitan, intentionally transformative,
socially interventionist, experimental, and
spiritualistic amalgamation of various religious,
political, and intellectual traditions (pg 19).
Retaining "the Upanidasadic philosophy"
that sees "divinity in every particle," the
movement undertook many tree-plantation,
water-conservation, sanitation, animal-welfare
(specifically cow welfare), land-rejuvenation, and
agricultural projects (that Jain details) (pg 32).
He also describes many successful Swadhyayi
efforts at promoting cooperation among the
farmers-and harmony between Hindus and Muslims.
Viewing them as part of "dharmic ecology",
Jain sub-classifies these efforts into "arboreal
dharma" ("a dharmic environmentalism to worship
and nurture the trees for their unique
qualities"); "earth dharma" ("water harvesting and
agriculture"-rooted in Athavale's teaching that
the earth is the sheltering mother of all, and
given that the first two types of the four
categories of Swadhyayi priests are required to be
"experienced agriculturalists"); and "bovine
dharma" ("a dharmic environmentalism to serve the
cows as mothers") (pg 31, pg 38, pg 41
respectively).
As for the Bishnois, the
two key points of illustration include Guru
Jambhesvara's 29 rules and "120 statements"-and
the community's conspicuous contributions to
wildlife and tree protection. Eight of those rules
relate to ecological caring, "including
non-sterilization of bulls, keeping the male goats
in sanctuary, prohibition against killing of
animals, cutting down of any types of green trees,
and protecting of all life forms." The Guru
forbade "blue clothes, because the dye for
coloring them is obtained by cutting several
shrubs," mandated vegetarianism (pg 59), and
"advised people to follow only those gurus who
preach non-violence" (pg 60).
Jain details
several recorded episodes of the Bishnoi
community's efforts (pg 67-72). These include a
1978 incident whereby one "Mrs Rama Devi
breast-fed a fawn to save his life" (pg 69) - and
another on September 9, 1730, whereby "249 men and
69 women" got themselves butchered as they hugged
khejari trees to prevent their felling by Maharaja
Abhay Singh's soldiers for a royal project. (The
first person to hug those trees was Amrita Devi, a
woman, after whom India's government named a
national award for wildlife protection in 2001.)
Some believe that the Bishnois were a tactical
inspiration behind the "Chipko movement" (pg 52).
Jain also highlights the Bishnois'
contemporary encouragement of animal
lovers-including through a "nationwide wildlife
protection organization called All India Jeev
Raksha Sabha," which (founded in 1975) was
instrumental to "the banning of the hunting of the
Great Indian Bustard in Rajasthan in 1978" (pg
70). (That organization itself had morphed from
one "'anti-hunting committee'" that had been
founded in 1966.)
The most pertinent
discussion regarding the Bhils (ppg 79-94) focus
on their "sacred groves" - which Jain divides into
"two kinds": those "based on the indigenous Bhil
beliefs and folklores" and those that "also
included the active participation of outside
agencies and the government" (pg 93). Crucially,
Jain situates the Bhils "in the larger Hindu
culture of India" - as their protection of "their
trees based on their faith in the deities
surrounding them" is contiguous with the Hindus'
reverence for certain plants (pg 94).
Conclusion On a comparative
note, failing to find among the Bhils and the
Swadhyayis an "evolution of religious ethos into
ecological ethos" that the Bishnois have come to
experience, Jain wryly makes the following
comment: "Unlike Bishnos, Bhils and Swadhyayies
are not seen protecting the ecological resources
outside their sacred sites" (pg 94).
In
that comment also lies the challenge for the
environmentally conscious in how to approach and
best utilize "dharmic ecology" - beyond developing
a more tolerant and progressive view toward
spiritual traditionalism and religious
experimentalism. Jain's painstaking research and
thoughtful analysis - even though presented in
sometimes repetitive, often cumbrous, writing -
successfully brings us to that challenge.
Meanwhile, even though Jain perforce
leaves out from his purview Muslims and Christians
- the religious minorities of India - that do not
fit into the broad Hindu fold, those he focuses on
are also, in fact, not majorities. Wherefore, what
his analysis ultimately demonstrates is "dharmic
ecology" as the progressive promise of
environmental care for rural, traditionalistic
believers-from dominant religious groups - within
the Indian cultural landscape generally. The
Swadhyayis evoke teachings from many religions and
ideologies, Bishnois were "in the 1891 Census of
Marwar…classified with Muslims," and the Bhils
retain some autonomy from mainstream Hindus (pg
55).
For all that, and a lot else, I will
have to recommend the reader to toil through
Jain's arduous account!
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
Curious about what else to call
and how else to explain and characterize these
conservational attempts, Jain digs up their
historical and field-based empirical details and
offers for (and through) them a theoretically
innovative framework of explanation and
intervention. 
