The exploration of identity is a complex, multifaceted journey. The complexity multiplies when this exploration ventures into the realm of religion and belief systems. Among the most intriguing aspects of this exploration is the notion of identity for Nastikas and Nirisvaravadis. Unlike their Abrahamic counterparts, these individuals often maintain a solid connection to their dharmic roots despite their disbelief in the divine. This intriguing coexistence of disbelief and cultural belonging offers a unique perspective on the relationship between religion and personal identity. This perspective challenges the common understanding of atheism and agnosticism in the Western context.
The term ‘atheism’ usually conjures images of a complete negation of religious beliefs and practices. In Abrahamic traditions, this often entails a conscious decision to entirely abandon one’s religious identity. However, the Eastern counterparts of these atheists—the Nastikas and Nirisvaravadis—navigate a different path. Even as they reject certain doctrinal aspects of the religious tradition they were born into, they often maintain a connection to their cultural and philosophical roots. This seeming paradox can be understood only by delving deeper into the dharmic tradition’s unique nature and multifaceted identity.
In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says, A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told he/she is a ‘child of Muslim parents’ will immediately realise that religion is something for her to choose—or reject—when he/she becomes old enough to do so.
I agree with Professor Dawkins when it comes to this specific aspect. I was born as the child of Hindu parents. My Hindu identity was not a conscious decision but something that was given to me as a result of how our society works. The government and society force our identities upon us. We are born into this running train that is life, with its fixed yet moving parts. It is only when we develop some level of cognitive freedom at a later stage that we truly understand who we are.
But that applies to every single identity set that we have. We did not actively choose to be born Indians, or Americans, for that matter. One can replace the religious identities mentioned in the Dawkins quote with a national or regional identity, and the rest of the point remains the same. To make it sound like there is something unique regarding religious identity is a bit of a misnomer.
So, what does it mean to be a Hindu? The term ‘Hindu’, often used as a label for the religious and cultural traditions that emerged in the Indian subcontinent, has significantly changed its meaning and scope throughout history. It encompasses diverse beliefs, practices, and philosophical systems, making it different from the identity labels associated with Christianity and Islam. Christian and Muslim identities are rooted in specific religious doctrines, texts and a belief in a single God or deity. In contrast, Hinduism is an umbrella term encompassing many diverse religious and philosophical systems, many of which do not adhere to a singular doctrine or deity.
Plurality and heterodoxy have been integral to the development of the dharmic tradition. This is where the Nastikas and Nirisvaravadis find their place. Nastikas, those who reject the authority of the Vedas and other fundamental tenets of the Astika darsanas, and Nirisvaravadis, those who deny the existence of a personal creator deity (Isvara), are still considered part of the larger Hindu/dharmic family. Their disbelief does not necessitate a complete separation from their cultural roots. Instead, a distinctive fusion of continued affinities for some aspects of the tradition and disbelief in others shapes their identities.
This is a marked contrast to the identity of atheists from Abrahamic backgrounds. The Abrahamic traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—are monotheistic, worshipping a single, all-powerful God. As such, disbelief in God within these traditions is often seen as a total rejection of the faith.
However, with its inherent diversity and fluidity, the dharmic tradition allows for a more nuanced interplay between belief and disbelief. It provides a space where one can reject the existence of God or the authority of certain texts and still identify with the tradition’s philosophical, ethical, and cultural aspects. Nastikas and Nirisvaravadis exemplify this unique interplay. Their disbelief does not set them outside the dharmic tradition; instead, it places them within a broad spectrum of thought and practice that has evolved over millennia. The exploration of the notion of identity for Nastikas and Nirisvaravadis is not just an academic exercise. It is an essential endeavour for anyone seeking to understand the rich diversity of human belief systems and the ways in which individuals relate to the divine, the cosmos, and each other. It underscores the importance of context in shaping our understanding of religion and identity.
Extracted with permission from Nastik: Why I Am Not An Atheist by Kushal Mehra, published by BluOne Ink
