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 non-

European 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 re-

define 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,

35 Oddie, Geoffrey A; Imagined Hinduism; Sage Publications;2006; P .14 36 Wilson, Bryan; New Images of Christian Community; in John McManners edited Oxford Histoy ofChristanity; OUP; 2002; P. 617

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

37 Oddie, Geoffrey A; Imagined Hinduism; Sage Pub1ications;2006; P.65 38 MarshaIl,Pl; The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century; Introduction; P. 20; Cambridge University Press; 1970

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 Ibid; P.183 41 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

one

2.

3. 4.

Encouraging

Pure in its morals

Un corrupt in its teaching

5. The true Religion must have a firm historical

basis

6. The true religion must be universa1.44

42Marshall,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; Chapter-iii;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 Ibid;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

53 Ibid; pp 81-82. 54 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

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

(late 6th 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 (5th century A.D.) and Huen-Tsang (7th century A.D.)

59 Mookerjee, Radhakumud; The Fundamental Unity of India; Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan; Bombay; 1970; P.24

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 (4th

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 Lorenzen, David N.; Who Invented Hinduism?; Yoda press, New Delhi; 2006; P.24 62 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 Y ogas. 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