Download 2. CONSTRUCTING HINDUISM: MYTH OR REALITY

2. CONSTRUCTING HINDUISM:
MYTH OR REALITY
The
debate
on
the
antiquity
of
the
tenn
"Hindu",
construction/invention of the category "Hinduism", the idea of Hindu
religion and its conception has often engaged the attention of the scholars.
The debate is of immense importance as it seeks to locate itself within the
questions of legitimacy attributed to "Hinduism" as a religion and
description of "self'. It poses the question as to whether Indians had any
idea of "self' which could have made them to identify themselves as a
collective whole, a nation or a religion. It is claimed that absence of any
such idea of "self', falsifies the claim of "collectivity and oneness". The
argument that the notion of "Hinduism", nationalism and even the idea of
India as a nation or "Hinduism" as a religion has been the outcome of a
most recent modem phenomenon has been strongly emphasized by certain
scholars.
There have been attempts by many scholars to claim that
"Hinduism" was constructed, invented, or imagined by British scholars,
missionaries and colonial administrators in the nineteenth century and did
not exist, in any meaningful sense, before this date. Robert Frykenberg,
Christopher Fuller, John Hawley, Gerald Larson, Brian Smith, Heinrich
von Stietencron and Geoffrey A. Oddieare among the scholars who argue
this line. W. C. Smith is sometimes identified, quite correctly, as a
noteworthy precursor of these scholars. "In his seminal work entitled The
Meaning and End of Religions, first published in 1962, Wilfred Cantwell
Smith developed the view that the idea of 'religion' itself was a European
and Western construct. It was, he wrote, a concept derived from the
28
Romans, and further developed and influenced by Christianity and ideas of
European Enlightenment. ,,33
The claim of Hinduism being a modem construct attributed to the
British scholars and missionaries implies lack of the idea of "self' among
the adherents of Hindu traditions. It is like pleading that a valid category
was constructed to incorporate and represent something that never existed.
"What contemporary scholars generally mean by construction or invention
of Hinduism, is however not simply coining the name Hinduism. What
they claim is that the Europeans, and more specifically the British,
imposed a single conceptual category on a heterogeneous collection of
sects, doctrines and customs that the Hindus themselves did not recognize
as having anything essential in common. In this view, it was only after the
concept of Hinduism was constructed by these Europeans that the Hindus
themselves adopted the idea that they belong to a single religious
community.,,34 In a way it is argued that the process of construction of a
category like Hinduism was inherently ingrained in a process of identity
formation making possible the acceptance and legitimization of a new
religion.
MISSIONARY CONSTRUCTION OF HINDUISM
The Europeans were aware of four religions
VIZ.
Christianity,
Islam, Judaism and Paganism. "During the Enlightenment, religion came
to be thought of even more strongly as an objective reality, rather like
natural objects which could be explored through scientific enquiry. It was
a 'system', with its theologians, philosophers and priests, its institutions
33 Oddie Geoffrey A.; Imagined Hinduism; Introduction; P. 13; Sage publications, New Delhi;2006
34Lorenzen, David N.; Who Invented Hinduism?; Chapter I; p. 04; Yoda press, new Delhi; 2006
29
and people.,,35 How such Enlightenment thought about religion affected
the Christianity itself? It is a question which scholars sometime tend to
leave unanswered. The unfolding of a historical process in which validity
of the dominant religion i.e. Christianity was questioned through scientific
enquiry sometime remains ignored while studying the missionaries in nonEuropean societies. The Church had to contend with the era of
Enlightenment which saw the rationalization and secularization of the
European society. There were attempts at reconciliation wherein religion
and science were sought to be adjusted by theorizing and interpreting in
the manner which sought to portray Christianity as scientific and rational.
As a result Christianity had to retreat from various sphere of life and redefine its role and mission in accordance with the changing reality. Bryan
Wilson rightly observes:
"Religion in diverse forms will doubtless find continuing
expression, and its ceremonial and legitimizing role ( for public events,
national celebrations, and solemn occasion of state) will not or will not
quickly disappear, but he conception of Christian community, under the
diverse pressure of mass media, new technologies, increased social and
geographical
mobility,
the
privatization
of
beliefs,
and
deinstitutionalization of moral codes is destined to further change and
perhaps more rapid change than has been evident even in the very recent
past.,,36
Till the geographical discoveries of 16-17'h centuries, it was
believed that the Christianity had able to take the entire humanity within
its fold. The geographical discoveries of 16-17'h centuries brought the
missionaries in contact of the new societies. The earlier accounts of the
missionaries and European travelers describe Indians as idolatrous,
Oddie, Geoffrey A; Imagined Hinduism; Sage Publications;2006; P .14
Wilson, Bryan; New Images of Christian Community; in John McManners edited Oxford Histoy
ofChristanity; OUP; 2002; P. 617
35
36
30
worshipping natural objects and practicing barbarous customs and
traditions. "The notion that India had unified religious system was there in
travel, Jesuit and Tranqebar accounts. Furthermore, the idea that this
system was. invented by brahmans who continued to control and
manipulate religious belief and practice even among the common people
was a view frequently expressed in travel literature as well as by Jesuits.,,37
Later writert; also tried to portray "Hinduism" as a Brahmin centric
religion which was full of absurdities, inhuman and immoral practices and
superstitious beliefs.
In the second half of the eighteenth century some British scholars
started to explore Indian culture, customs, traditions, religious beliefs and
practices etc. "English writers in the second half of the eighteenth century
were the heirs to over two hundred years of attempts by Europeans to
interpret Hinduism. Interpretations had generally followed the same lines:
comparatively soon Europeans had begun to make the distinction which
was to have so long a life, between what they regarded as 'popular'
Hinduism and 'philosophical' Hinduism. Popular cults were described to
be condemned or ridiculed, but most writers were also prepared to admit
the existence of metaphysical assumptions and ethical doctrines in
Hinduism of which they could approve because they seemed to be similar
to western concepts, although the similarities which they found now seem
to depend largely on the inability of Europeans to describe a religious
system except in Christian terms.,,38
In 1767, John Zephaniah Holwell, published his work, "The
Religious Tenets of the Gentoos", describing the customs, manners,
languages, religion and philosophy of the Hindus. He tried to outline the
fundamental doctrines of the Hindus under five sections viz. God and his
Oddie, Geoffrey A; Imagined Hinduism; Sage Pub1ications;2006; P.65
MarshaIl,Pl; The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century; Introduction; P. 20;
Cambridge University Press; 1970
37
38
31
attributes, the creation of angelic beings, the lapse of the part of those
beings, their punishment and the mitigation of that punishment and their
final sentence. Alexander Dow, in his work, "A Dissertation concerning
the Hindoos", tried to distinguish between the 'philosophical' and
'popular' aspects of of the Hindu traditions. He writes, "We find that the
Brahmins, contray to the ideas formed of them in west, invariably believe
in the unity, eternity, omniscience and omnipotence of God: that the
polytheism of which they have been accused, is no more than a symbolical
worship of the divine attributes, which they divide into three principle
classes.,,39 Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, supervised over the compilation and
translation of the work, "A Code of Gentoo Laws" which was published in
1776. A Code of Gentoo Law was prepared at the instruction of the then
Governor General Warren Hastings who wanted to a law manual to be
made available to British judges for their reference while presiding over
the disputes related to Hindus. The book was said to be compiled by
Pandits which was then translated into Persian and then from Persian to
English. Halhed who was instrumental in its compil.ation and translation
felt that the Hindus had universal laws and customs but it got disrupted
and localized in the wake of Muslim interventions. He writes:
"And whereas, this kingdom was the long residence of Hindoos,
and was governed by many powerful Roys and Rajahs, the Gentoo religion
became catholick and universal here; but when it was afterwards ravaged,
in several parts, by the armies of Mahomedanism, a change of religion
took place, and a contrariety of custom arose, and all affairs were
transacted, according to the principles of faith in the conquering party,
upon which perpetual oppositions were engendered, and continual
differences in the decrees of justice; so that in every place the immediate
39
Ibid; P.138
32
magistrate decided all causes according to his own religion; and the laws
of Mahomed were the standard of judgement for Hindoos.,,4o
Halhed urges Warren Hastings in the same vain to take the needful
measures so that the laws and customs of the Hindus are rescued from the
clutches of the Muslims. Charles Wilkins who translated and published
Bhagvat Geeta in 1785 after learning Sanskrit felt that the message of
Krishna in the Geeta was to unite the prevailing modes of worship and to
establish the system as given in Veda. He writes:
"It seems as if the principle design of these dialogues was to unite
all the prevailing modes of worship of those days; and, by setting up the
doctrine of the unity of the godhead, in opposition to idolatrous sacrifices,
and the worship of images, to undermine the tenets inculcated by the
Vedas ... The most learned Brahmins of the present times are Unitarian
according to the doctrines of Kreeshna but, an universal spirit, they so far
comply with the prejudices of the vulgar, as outwardly to perform all the
ceremonies inculcated by the Vedas, such as sacrifices, ablutions,
&c ... .indeed, this ignorance, and these ceremonies, are as much the bread
of the Brahmans, as the superstition of the vulgar is the support of the
priesthood in many other countries.,,41
William Jones, is best known for making and propagating the
observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and
Latin. In The Sanscrit Language (1786) he suggested that all three
languages had a common root, and that indeed they may all be further
related, in tum, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to Persian. In
his account "On the Gods of Greece, Italy and India" the similarities
40
41
Ibid; P.183
Ibid; Charles Wilkins, The Translator's Preface from the Bhagwad Geeta; Pp. 193-194
33
between the gods of pagan culture and India were traced.
42
Jones also tried
to point out at the common origin of Indo-Europeans as given in the story
of Genesis and the golden past of the Hindus.
The British scholars like Holwell, Halhed, Wilkins and Jones also
termed asOrientalists are said to have assumed "Hinduism as an all India
unified phenomenon, based on Sanskrit and still controlled, policed and
enforced by brahmans.,,43The intellectual output of these scholars helped
shape the understanding of the missionaries who in tum chose to represent
"Hinduism" in the idiom having mush similarity with the orientalists.
The construction of the term "Hinduism" is mainly attributed to the
missionaries who relied themselves upon conceptualizing the entire Hindu
traditions within their own understanding of the term "religion". The missionaries
conceptualized religion as something 'true' and 'one' and even 'universal'. For
them, any system was devoid of its claim of being a religion if it fails to fit into
certain testing categories. According to the missionaries, the true religion must be:
1.
One and undivided in itself because truth is
2.
Encouraging
3.
Pure in its morals
4.
Un corrupt in its teaching
5.
The true Religion must have a firm historical
6.
The true religion must be universa1.
one
basis
44
42 Marshall,PJ; The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century; Introduction;
Cambridge University Press; 1970 Pp. 196-245
43 Oddie, Geoffrey A; Imagined Hinduism; Sage Publications;2006; P.lOO
44 The Universal Religion; Part I; P.04; St. Joseph's College Press, Trichinopoly; Undated
Pamphlet; Vidyajyoti Library, Rajniwas Marg, New Delhi
34
The missionaries seeking to comprehend the entire Hindu traditions within
their own understanding of religion tried to decipher its 'fundamental principles'
sometime showing that it failed the test of a religion and at other time
conceptualizing it as a religion. Marshall writes" ... they did not try to understand
what Hinduism meant to millions of Indians. They invariably made a distinction
between 'popular' Hinduism, which they did not deem worthy of study, and
'philosophical Hinduism, which they tried to define as a set of hard and fast
doctrinal propositions and to place in current theories about the nature and history
of religion. All ofthem wrote with contemporary European controversies and with
their own religious preoccupations very much in Mind. As Europeans have always
tended to do, they created Hinduism in their own image.,,45
The missionaries' endeavour to comprehend the Indian socio-cultural
reality began with attempts to fit the entire systems within the framework of the
religion, which was called "Hinduism". "Hinduism" was seen as a traditional
conglomeration of religious belief, - "so profound, so puerile; so vast, so
contracted; so abstruse, so absurd".46 "Hinduism" for the missionaries appeared
embodying diverse streams of thoughts even contradicting each other and
representing a system without following any single principles, which goes into the
making of a theological system. Rev. Dennis Osborne rightly emphasizes such
peculiarities associated
with
Hindu traditions while
saying,
"Macaulay
pronounces it 'of all superstitions the most irrational, the most inelegant and the
most immoral', Ballyntine characterizes it as 'a calm, clear, collected expositions
of principles'. Who is right, Macaulay or Ballyntine? Neither; both.,,47
The missionaries were apparently not unaware of the fact that Indian
notion of religion was quite distinct from Christian conception of religion. For the
45 Marshall, PJ; The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century; Introduction; P. 43;
Cambridge University Press; 1970
46 Osborne, Rev. Dennis; India and Its Millions; Ganga Mai or Practical Hinduism; Chapteriii;P.75; Grant & Faires, Philadelphia; Pub. 1884
47 Ibid; P.76
35
Indians, "the idea of religion (Dhanna) was eternal, changeless and one for the
entire human race. ,,48 They even attempted to replace the tenn Hindu, as it was
absent in the ancient scriptures with that of Sanatan Dhanna. Sanatana Dhanna,
for the Indians signified that "religion is sempitemal, and what it is now that it
was in the beginning and will be in the end and what it is for the Hindoo that it is
for the Christian and the Turk.,,49 Such conceptualisation attributed universal and
all encompassing character to the tenn" religion" making even the illiterate
Indians to counter missionaries who preached in tenns of "your religion" and "our
religion" with the argument that the religion is one only and not two. 50
Hindu traditions, for the miSSIOnaries presented a confusing web of
systems intertwined with diverse customs and traditions.
Father Wallace
considered it ":a religion without a name - (and) its strength as a religion is that it
bears no definition.,,51 The missionaries tried to categorise Hinduism within
different sections like high aristocratic Vedic religion and lowly Tantra religion.
Their conceptions too were not bereft of contradictions as they called the Vedic
religion an aristocratic one owing to its emphasis on sacrifice but quickly concede
that the earlier Vedic religion was not sacrifice oriented. 52 Their representation of
Tantra and Vedic religions in relation to Christianity offers some interesting
readings like the one, which follows: -
And these feasts of prostitution and incest are declared in the
tantras of the sects, to be the surest means of obtaining Nirvana! So low
has proud Hinduism fallen! In sooth from the time of the Rig Veda where
wejind side-by-side Varuna the Great Moral King and the drunkard Indra
(and worst) it has always been a mixture of high and low. It raised itself
48 Wallace, Fr. William, SJ.; Sanatan Dharma: The Hope and Despair of it in the Indian Heart;
Typed; Academy Records 1913; p. OJ.
49 I bid;P.02.
50 Ibid.
51 Dandoy, G, SJ; An outline of the Development of Hinduism; Academy Records; 1912; p. 82.
52 Ibid, pp 56-57.
36
to religious heights which no other religion except Christianity has been
able to reach, but it has also fallen lower than the lowest. 53
HINDUISM: IMAGINED OR REAL
Though the first use of the tenn "Hinduism" is now increasingly credited
to Raja Ram Mohan Roy54, those arguing for "Hinduism" being a constructed and
imagined category tend to emphasize as Oddie has tried to argue that, "Briefly
stated, the argument is that Hindu religion in the fonn of the one all -embracing
unified brahman controlled system is not clearly apparent in the pre-modem
period.,,55 By arguing that the tenn "Hinduism" is a modem construct, it is nor
merely sought to assert that a new nomenclature was constructed but to it is
argued that in the process an idea of "self' was given when nothing like that
existed. In the words of Lorenzen:
"What contemporary scholars generally mean by construction or invention
of Hinduism, however,is not simply coining the name Hinduism. What they claim
is that the Europeans, and more specifically the British, imposed a single
conceptual category on a heterogeneous collection of sects, doctrines and customs
.that the Hindus themselves did not recognize as having anything essential in
common. In this view, it was only after the concept of Hinduism was constructed
by these Europeans that the Hindus themselves adopted the idea that they belong
to a single religious community.,,56
Ibid; pp 81-82.
In 1816 made his critical comment: 'The chief part of theory and practice of Hindooism, I am
sorry to say is made to consist in the adoption of a peculiar mode of diet.' In 1817, on the other
hand, he claimed that the doctrines of the unity of God are real Hinduism, as that religion was
practiced by our ancestors, and as it is well known at the present day to many learned Brahmins'.cited by Lorenzen, David N. in Who Invented Hinduism? (Yoda press, New Delhi; 2006); P.03-04
quoting Killingley
55 Odd ie, Geoffrey A; Imagined Hinduism; Sage Publications;2006; P.347
56 Lorenzen, David N.; Who Invented Hinduism?; Yoda press, New Delhi; 2006; P.04
53
54
37
Saying that the process of realization of "self" in religious sense by Hindus
began with the comparison with the Isalmic intruders and got an impetus by the
activities of the Protestant missionaries, Oddie further argues:
"A tendency to lump all Hindus of different persuasion together and to
assume that they all belonged to the one system was, not infrequently,
accompanied by generalized attacks on the views of Hindu people as a whole.
This approach, including the use of abusive language, tended to unite different
Hindus in common opposition to what they perceived as missionary insults. But
even more important in creating a sense of unity especially among the higher and
more educated classes was the threat of conversion."
Oddie while attributing extraneous factors to the construction of Hinduism,
himself talks about "Hindu people" conceding though implicitly existence of a
collective whole. His argument that 'all-embracing unified brahman controlled
system' was not in existence in pre modern era again appears to be erroneous as
such claims cannot not be made even for modern period. It appears to be an
oversimplification to say that Hinduism today is a unified all- embracing system
i
with the 'Brahmans controlling it and such simplification may not even be
attributed to religions like Christianity and Islam also. At the same time, it may be
said that the 'threat of conversion' of which Oddie talks needs further elaboration
and substantiation. Pannikker says that "The fact is that Hindu leaders in the
twentieth century, strange as it may sound, were firmly convinced of the
superiority and catholicity of their own beliefs and felt only a tolerant and mildly
benevolent interest in Christian teachings .. .in fact, during the last thirty years,
Hinduism, knowing its position to be unassailable, extended a tolerant and
sympathetic understanding towards Christian teachings."s7
57 Pannikker, KM; Asia and the Western Dominance; Christian Missions; Part VII; The Decline of
Missionary Efforts in India; John Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1953; P. 447
38
The attempt to locate Hindu traditions within the category of "religion" as
"Hinduism" and also questioning its validity as religion at the same time appears
to be an exercise in gross absurdities. Frykenberg dismissing the terms "Hindu"
and "Hinduism" writes:
"Unless by 'Hindu' one means nothing more, nor less, than 'Indian'
(something native to, pertaining to, or found within the continent of India), there
has never been any such thing as a single 'Hinduism' or any single 'Hindu'
community for all of India. Nor, for that matter, can one find any such thing as a
single 'Hinduism' or 'Hindu community' even for anyone socio-cultural region
of the continent. Furthermore, there has never been anyone religion-nor even as
one system of religions-to which the term 'Hindu' can accurately be applied. No
one so-called religion, moreover, can lay exclusive claim to or be defined by the
term 'Hinduism,.58
It appears that the missionaries and even some scholars have tried to define
religion in term of a monolithic and homogeneous reality. Religion for the
missionaries represents something true, universal, historical, moral, uncorrupted,
one and undivided. Religion is sought to be conceptualized as something definable
in absolute and concrete terms. Plurality and diversity was portrayed as
weaknesses against the western rigid framework of religion. Perhaps, the flaw lies
in trying to conceptualise Hindu traditions as religion in isolation, sometime even
ignoring the larger historical processes that have even gone into the making of the
religions like Christianity and Islam.
The manner in which the missionaries have suggested that a true religion
needs to be necessarily historical, similarly, many scholars have tried to question
the historical basis of the term "Hindu" as an idea of "self' by the Indians. The
idea of "self' may be traced to earliest scriptures which was expressed in
civilizational and geographical sense in various forms. "There are many proofs to
58
Lorenzen, David N.; Who Invented Hinduism?; Yoda press, New Delhi; 2006; P.06
39
show that the great founders of Indian religion, culture and civilization were
themselves fully conscious of the geographical unity of their vast mother country
and sought in various ways to impress it on the popular consciousness. The first
expression they appear to have given to this sense of unity was their description of
the entire country by the single name of Bharatvarsha which is the old indigenous
classic name by which India was known to the Hindus."s9 The term Hindu too
may be traced to ancient times which was
•
The Hamdan, Persepolis and Naqsh-I-Rustam inscriptions
of Persian monarch Darius mention a people 'Hidu' as included into his
empire. These inscriptions are dated between 520-485 B.C.
•
It is even claimed that Asokan inscription (3 rd century
B.c.), repeatedly use expressions like 'Hida' for 'India' and 'Hida loka'
for 'Indian nation' (Junagadh, separate rock edict II).
•
In Persepolis Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II (310 A.D.),
the King has the title, "Shakanshah Hind Shakastan u Tuxaristan Dabiran
Dabir", i.e.; "King of Shakastan, minister of ministers of Hind Shakastan
and Tukharistan".
•
In the Avesta (dated between 5,000-1,000 B.c.), Hapta
Hindu is used for Sanskrit "Sapta Sindhu".
•
The term 'Indoi' was used in Greek literature by Hekataeus
th
(late 6 century B.c.) and Herodotus (early 5th century B.C.).
•
The Hebrew Bible uses 'Hodu' for India, which is a Judaic
form of 'Hindu'. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is dated earlier than
300 B.C. Even today Hebrew spoken in Israel uses Hodu for India.
•
The Chinese used the term 'Hien-tu' for 'Hindu' at about
00 B.C. while describing the movement of Sai-Wang. Later Chinese
travelers Fa-Hien (5 th century A.D.) and Huen-Tsang (7th century A.D.)
Mookerjee, Radhakumud; The Fundamental Unity of India; Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan; Bombay;
1970; P.24
59
40
used a slightly modified tenn 'Yint' but affinity to the tenn 'Hindu' was
still retained.
•
Sair-ul-Okull (available in Turkish Library Makhtab-e-
Sultania in Istambul), an anthology of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry contains a
poetry written by Omar-bin-e-Hassham praising Mahdeva and referring
India as 'Hind' and Indians as 'Hindu'.
•
Another poem in the same anthology by Labi-bin-e-
Akhtab-bin-e- Turfa dated around 1700 RC. also refers India as 'Hind'
and Indians as 'Hindu' mentioning four Vedas. The poem is also inscribed
on columns of Lakshamin Narayan Mandir (also known as Birla Mandir)
in New Delhi.
•
Sanskrit works like Meru Tantra and Brihaspati Agam (4 th
to 6th century A.D.) mentions the tenn 'Hindu' .60
It may be said that the tenn "Hinduism" originated indisputably in the
colonial times. It is more so evident in the fact that the "ism" used in the tenn
"Hinduism" makes it an English word. But at the same time even when the "ism"
is English, the tenn "Hindu" was borrowed from the prevalent idea of identity
about India. It appears that denying that the tenn "Hindu" was very much in
vogue to denote the people of India is to ignore a reality. Perhaps, it was because
that the tenn "Hindu" was used to denote the people of India that the scholars and
missionaries borrowed it to coin the tenn "Hinduism" in the early nineteenth
century. "The fact that virtually all European accounts, whatever the language or
period in which they were written, and whether or not they are likely to have
mutually influenced each other, follow this same general outline suggests that the
European writers were in fact 'constructing' Hinduism directly on the basis of
what they observed and what they were told by their native infonnants, who were
in tum simply summarizing a Hinduism construct that already existed in their own
60 Pahoja, MH; Antiquity and Origin of the tenn 'Hindu'; The Hindu Renaissance; Vo. 5, No.2;
Apri12007; Pp 18-19
41
collective consciousness.,,6I It may be therefore said that even the process of
'constructing' "Hinduism" as claimed by certain scholars was not exclusively the
work of the missionaries and the European scholars but the native Indians had
played a prominent role in informing and even educating them about India.
CONCLUSION
It is often debated as to what exactly the term "Hinduism" stands for.
Oddie has even tried to distinguish between the manner in which the missionaries
and the British scholars represented Hinduism. He writes:
"Indeed, what secular British and European scholars were attempting to do
by way of spreading knowledge of Brahmanical religion, was paralled by what the
British missionaries were attempting to do by disseminating further knowledge of
popular Hindu beliefs and practice.,,62
The attempt of separating 'philosophical' and 'popular' aspects of Hindu
traditions or to or understand it from 'Brahmanical' and 'non-Brhmanical'
perspectives or by dividing it into Vedic and Puranic religions have rarely yielded
the desired results. Discussing the diverse Hindu traditions and their inherent
unity, Father P. Shanti writes:
"Perhaps the greatest obstacle against Xy (Christianity) is Hinduism itself.
The Hindu religious system is a mighty system. As in the caste system every caste
and subcaste finds its natural place, so in the Hindu religion many religious sects
and sub sects find their place. In it there is room for the theist and atheist,
polytheist and monotheist, pantheist and deist and nihilist. A Hindu may find his
61
62
Lorenzen, David N.; Who Invented Hinduism?; Yoda press, New Delhi; 2006; P.24
Oddie, Geoffrey A; Imagined Hinduism; Sage Publications;2006; P.349
42
"mukti" by the "karmamarga" opr the "Jananamarga" or the "bhaktimarga". In the
karmamarga he has the various sacrificial and purificatory rites, of which he may
choose what suits him, ifhe wants to follow the Jnanamarga he is welcome to take
up the studies and percepts of the Vedas, the darshanas or the Yogas. If he wants
to walk along the bhaktimarga he is free for his "ishtadeva" any god or goddesses
of the Hindu Pantheon and be a Shivite or Vishnuite, a Ramite or Krishnite, a
"dadaupanthi" or "kabirpanthi". Thus though they be almost anything, and differ
from each otherin their religious practices totally, yet they are bound togetherby
one instinct namely that they are all good Hindus.,,63
While arguments are made that Hindu traditions represent plethora of
rituals, customs and practices, castes, sects, gods and goddesses and philosophical
schools which are even in contravention to each other, certain scholars tend to
ignore the inherent inter-connectedness and choose to over emphasize the
apparent disjunctions. Perhaps, the diversity along with the drive for
accommodation
and
adjustment
inherent
III
Hindu
traditions
appears
incomprehensible in seeking to locate it within rigidly defined parameters of
religion. Trying to outline the broader meaning of the term "Hindu", Elst writes:
"The term Hindu was used for all Indians who were unbelievers or idol
worshippers, including Buddhists, Jains , "animists" and later the Sikhs, but in
contradistinction to Indian Christians (ahl-I Nasara or Isai), Jews (ahl-i-Yahud or
banu israil), Mazdeans (ahl-I Mazus or atish parasht) and of course Muslims
themselves. This way at least by the time of Albiruni (early 11 th century), the word
Hindu had· a distinct religio-geographical meaning: a Hindu is an Indian who is
not a Muslim, Jew, Christian or Zoroastrian.,,64
63 Shanti, P, SJ; The Problem of Conversion Among the Hindus in North India; Academy Records;
Typed; 1932;P.529
64 Elst, Koenraad; Who is a Hindu?; Voice ofIndia, New Delhi; 2002; P.34
43
In considering Hindu traditions a religion, it is attempted to fit it into a
definable framework which is often portrayed as static, rigid and transcending
spatiotemporal realities. Such an approach probably refuses to acknowledge the
historical processes which relates to change and continuity. "If Hinduism is a
construction or invention, then, it is not a colonial one, nor a European one, nor
even an exclusively Indian one. It is a construct or invention only in the vague and
commonsensical way that any large institution is, be it Christianity, Buddhism,
Islam, communism, or parliamentary democracy. In other words, it is an
institution created out of a long historical interaction between a set of basic ideas
and an infinitely complex and variegated socio religious beliefs and practices that
compose and structure the everyday life of individuals and small, local groups.,,65
************************
65
Lorenzen, David N.; Who Invented Hinduism?; Chapter I; p. 36; Yoda press, new Delhi; 2006
44