Monday, May 25, 2020

Is Pakistan the real India?

Is Pakistan The Real India?

When we refer to India today, are we also referring to the historic concept of India that ancient historians and explorers wrote about? Turns out it’s not. The India of today is not the historic India…ironically Pakistan is the real India. Confused? You should be! Unfortunately European colonialism played a big role in how the term “India” was misused and mislabeled.

Let’s discuss this more in detail by first defining some basic terms to avoid confusion: When ‘Republic of India’ is mentioned, we are referring to modern-day India (1947 to present). When ‘India’ is mentioned, we are referring to the historic definition of India (the Indus Valley) as cited by Vedic, Persian, Greek, Macedonian, Arab, Chinese and Roman sources.

~ Jinnah vs Mountbatten ~
Following independence in 1947, many maps printed in the Republic of India referred to the newly formed country as Bharat – in fact the constitution of India officially names the country as Bharat. The word Bharat derives from Bharatavarsha (the land of the Bharatas), with these Bharatas being one of the early Vedic clans who migrated from the Indus Valley to the Ganges plain sometime between 1200 BCE to 800 BCE. By adopting this name, the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered Arya heritage that was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies yet doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism.

Bharat would seem preferable since the term India was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. In the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature, nowhere is the term India ever mentioned. Nor does the term India appear in Buddhist or Jain texts and nor was it used in any of the Republic of India’s numerous languages.

Worse still, if etymologically the term India belonged anywhere, it was not to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan. Partition would have a way of dividing the subcontinent's spoils with scant reference to history. No tussle over the word India is reported because Jinnah preferred the newly coined and Islamic-sounding acronym Pakistan. Additionally, he was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the colonial term "India." He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state be named the "Republic of India." Jinnah, according to Mountbatten, “was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress Party) were going to call themselves India."

The use of the word implied a sub-continental primacy that Pakistan would never accept. It also flew in the face of history, since India originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the Indus River (with which the word is cognate) and its tributaries. Hence India was largely outside the Republic of India and largely within Pakistan.

~ European usage of the word India ~
Reservations about the word India, which convinced Jinnah no nation would use it, stemmed from its historical usage among European colonialists. India or Indies (its more generalized derivative) had come, as if by definition, to denote an acquisition rather than a specific territory. India was yet conceptually concrete to Europeans: it was somewhere to be coveted as an intellectual curiosity, a military pushover and an economic bonanza. While the historic term of India exclusively referred to the Indus Valley (today known as Pakistan), the European definition of India was used to describe acquired territories across the world. Let’s go over some of them:

*British East India Company – present-day Bangladesh, Republic of India (Ganges plain & Deccan)

*British West Indies – The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Antigua, Virgin Islands, Dominica, Montserrat, Grenada, Cayman Islands, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago

*Dutch East India Company – present-day Bangladesh, Republic of India (Ganges plain & Deccan)

*Dutch East Indies – present day Indonesia, Brunei & Malaysia

*Dutch West Indies – present-day Suriname & Netherlands Antilles

*French East India Company – present-day Puducherry

*French West India Company – present-day Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe & Haiti

*Portuguese East India Company – present-day Goa 

*Portuguese East Indies – present-day Malacca (Malaysia) and Macau (China)  

*Casa da India – managed all overseas territories including Brazil & Angola

*Spanish West Indies – present-day Puerto Rico, Cuba, Venezuela & Dominican Republic

*Spanish East Indies – present-day Philippines, Guam, and Papua New Guinea  

*Danish East India Company – present-day Bangladesh, Republic of India (Bengal & Tamil Nadu)

*Danish West Indies – present-day US Virgin Islands

*Swedish East India Company – present-day Bangladesh & Bengal (but never lasted long).

You get the picture...India was geographically imprecise among the Europeans. This is in stark contrast to terms like Africa, Arabia, Britain, Scandinavia or America, where the territory was well defined. The term India on the other hand was indeed moveable if one took account of all the “Native Indians” in the Americas, and all the overseas Indies. Tulane University professor Rosanne Adderly says the phrase "West Indies" distinguished the territories encountered by Columbus or claimed by Spain from discovery claims by other powers in [Asia's] "East Indies". The term "Indies" was eventually used by all European nations to describe their own acquired territories in the world.

~ Historic India ~
Now that we have a clear picture of how the word India was misused by Europeans, let’s delve deeper into where the term India comes from and what it actually defines. The first occurrence of the word sets the trend. It's an inscription found at Persepolis, capital of the Achaemenid Empire of Darius I in Persia dated from 518 BCE, where it lists his numerous domains including that of “Hi(n)du”. Where does the word Hindu comes from? Let’s investigate.

The word for the Indus river in Sanskrit is “Sindhu” and hence “Sapta Sindhu” meant the land of the seven rivers, which is what the Vedic clans of the Indus Valley called Punjab. Six of these rivers were all tributaries to the Indus river and hence the Indus was viewed as the “Sindhu par excellence”.
 In the ancient Persian language, a relative of Sanskrit, the initial 'S' of a Sanskrit word was invariably rendered as 'H' and thus Sindhu became Hindhu in Persian. 
When the word found its way into Greek, the initial ‘H’ was dropped, and it began to appear as the root “Ind”. In this form, it reached Latin and most other European languages, giving rise to “Ind + ia” or India
In Arabic, Persian and Turkish, the “H” was retained and the term “Hindhu” would eventually give rise to Hind and Hindhustan, by which Arabs, Turks, Persians and Mughals would know India. The word Hindhu also reached Europe much later and was used to define the country's indigenous people – the Vedic clans of the Indus Valley (ie. Sindhu, Kasmiras, Kambojas, Gandhara etc).

On the strength of a slightly earlier Persian inscription, which makes no mention of Hindhu, it is assumed that the Indus Valley was added to Darius' Achaemenid Empire much earlier than 520 BCE. This earlier inscription mentions “Gadara” (or Gandhara), a Buddhist state located in an arc reaching the western Punjab through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa towards Kabul and perhaps into southern Afghanistan (where it is believed Kandahar got its name from). 
According to Xenophon and Herodotus, Cyrus The Great had conquered Gandhara, which means the first Achaemenid invasion may have taken place as early as the mid-sixth century BCE (~550 BCE) rather than 518 BCE. This invasion seems likely from a reference to Cyrus dying of a wound inflicted by the enemy. The enemies were the “Derbikes” who enjoyed the support of the "Sindhu" people and were supplied by war-elephants.
In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of "Sindhu" with war elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus River. To Alexander of Macedon, following in the Achaemanids' footsteps two centuries later, the river would be a geographical curiosity, but the elephants were a military obsession.

If Gandhara was already under Achaemenid rule, Darius' Sindhu territory must have been beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Persian records refer to Sindhu giving rise to the word Sind, today Pakistan's southern most province. It seems unlikely though that the present-day Sindh borders were that of Sindhu in the late sixth century BCE, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore Sindhu. Flowing through the middle of the Indus River would surely have been familiar to any naval explorer of the region. More probably then the territory of Sindhu lay east of Gandhara and in all likelihood would be the region between eastern Punjab and Thar Desert. Sindhu territory thus occupied what is today Cholistan and Thar (southern Punjab and northern Sindh provinces). Both Gandhara and Sindhu would later on become provinces or "satrapy" of the Persian Empire.

Under Xerxes (Darius' successor), troops from the satrapy of Gandhara and Sindhu were reportedly serving in the Achaemenid Army. These people were mostly archers, although cavalry and chariots are also mentioned. They fought as far as eastern Europe and some were present at the Persians' victory over Leonidas and his Spartans at Thermopylae, and then at the decisive defeat by the Greeks at Plataea. Through these and other less fraught contacts between Greeks and Persians, Greek writers like Herodotus gleaned some idea of India

Compared to the intervening lands of Anatolia and the Iranian plateau (a geographic region and not a country), it appeared a veritable paradise of exotic plenty. Herodotus told of an immense population and the richest soil imaginable from which kindly ants, smaller than dogs but bigger than foxes, threw up hillocks of pure gold dust. The ants may have intrigued entomologists, but the gold was registered in political circles. With several rivers to rival the Nile and behemoths from which to give battle (war-elephants), it was clearly a land of fantasy as well as wealth. Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus Valley and that too by hearsay. Hence, he did not report that the land beyond the sensational extent of the Thar Desert. Hence, the Indus Valley was considered “terra firma” or the end of the world to Greeks and Europeans.

In abbreviated form, Herodotus' history circulated widely throughout ancient Greece and Europe - and a hundred years after his death, people would still be reading his writings, including an avid teenager named Alexander of Macedon, who knew it well enough to quote its stories. It wouldn’t be until Alexander’s arrival in the Indus Valley (~330 BCE), that people would discover a land beyond the Indus Valley (the Gangetic plain and Deccan...or what is today the Republic of India). Up until this point, the Indus Valley was considered “one end” of the ends of the world. The rest as they say is history.

~ Moving Forward ~
If Pak Studies had been written properly, today we would not be having this discussion. It’s very easy to blame European colonialists for disparaging the word India, but why haven’t we claimed this name? What are we sitting around for twiddling our thumbs for? Pakistan should have done to the Republic of India as Greece did to the Republic of Macedonia.

The Macedonia naming dispute is a political dispute regarding the use of the name Macedonia between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, formerly a federal unit of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991, the former Socialist Republic of Macedonia gained independence in 1991, naming itself Macedonia. Citing historical and territorial concerns resulting from the ambiguity between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia and the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon which falls mostly within Greek Macedonia, Greece opposed the use of the name "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia without a geographical qualifier such as "Northern Macedonia" for use by all and for all purposes. 
As millions of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians, unrelated to the Slavic people who are associated with the Republic of Macedonia, Greece further objects to the use of the term "Macedonian" for the neighboring country's largest ethnic group and its language. The Republic of Macedonia is accused of appropriating symbols and figures that are historically considered part of Greek culture such as the Vergina Sun and Alexander the Great, and of promoting the irredentist concept of a United Macedonia, which involves territorial claims on Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and Serbia. The dispute has escalated to the highest level of international mediation, involving numerous attempts to achieve a resolution. In 1995, the two countries formalized bilateral relations and committed to start negotiations on the naming issue, under the auspices of the United Nations.
 Until a solution is found, the provisional reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (sometimes unofficially abbreviated as FYROM) is used by international organizations and states that do not recognize translations of the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. UN members, and the UN as a whole, have agreed to accept any final agreement on a new name resulting from negotiations between the two countries.

Similarly, Pakistan should have done the same to the Republic of India, which has no valid claim on the term India – neither geographically (Indus Valley vs Ganges plain), neither religiously (Vedic beliefs vs Brahminism) and neither culturally. The only reason the Republic of India is named India is purely due to European colonialist ignorance and greed. It remains to be seen if Pakistan would ever legally question the usage of the term India, however, it is our responsibility as a nation to educate not only our own people, but also the world. The Indus Valley is the true India…always has been and always will be.

Feel free to tag and share this post with everyone you know.

Saturday, September 22, 2018

The British invention of "Hinduism"

By Hadwa Dom

Hinduism did not exist before 1830. It was created by the English colonialists in the 1830s. This remarkable circumstance is evidenced by the fact that none of the travelers who visited South Asia before English rule used the word `Hindu' or `Sanatana'. This is amply borne out by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states :
" The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 by British writers. "
-- [ EB 20 `Hinduism ' 519 ]
In other words, the founding father of `Hinduism' is an Englishman ! Nowhere in the Vedas, Puranas or any other religious text prior to 1830 AD are the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana Dharma' used. Not a single inscription contains the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana' prior to the Muslim era. The myth that Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma existed prior to this has been discarded in many theological circles, and the fantasy that Santana Dharma is `One Religion' has been abandoned -
" The term "Hindusthan" was first used by a 12th century AD dynasty of Muhammad Ghori who dubbed his new subjects "Hindus". Prior to this era, no one in any region of South Asia had ever used these terms to define themselves."
There is no mention of either of these terms in "ancient Brahmanical books (the oldest of which do not predate the 11th century; also the oldest "Brahmanical" temples are all post Buddhist, after 8-9th century A.D.). Ironically, two of the three core concepts of the Poorbia Brahmanist imperialistic program of "Hindu and Hindusthan" are borrowed from post-12th century Muslim (Afghan and Mogul) regimes."
- [ Khals ]
In recent years has arisen the movement for a revival of Dravidian religion. Two of the main proponents of this movement have exploded the fallacy of the `Sanatana Dharma' concept invented by a European-Smarta-Brahmin conspiracy as follows -
" We are cognizant of the fact that the term 'Hindu religion' can not be found before the arrival of the Europeans in India. We are also aware of the fact that it was the Europeans who coined the term 'Hindu religion' to denote the Indian religions that were originated in India and followed by the Indians. Since the term 'Hindu religion' denotes all the religions of India together, it cannot refer to any particular religion. And since the term 'Hindu religion' consists of many religions which have different doctrines and are contrary to each other, there will be leaders for each religion and there cannot be a common leader for all the religions since they are controversial to each other.
For instance, how can there be a common leader for both Buddhism and Saivism, which are contrary to each other. Hence the belief that there is a common leader for Hindu religion is superstitious and displays ignorance. Hence, the statement that 'The Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion' exhibits ignorance and deceptive. "
[ Deva ]
 Indeed, the Aryan race of Brahmins were never the leaders of any of the religions of Dravidian religion, Kolarian religion, Buddhism or Jainism. They were only the leaders of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, which includes Vedism and Vaishnavism -
" History reveals that the Europeans coined the term Hindu religion and saw nothing wrong in doing so. "
-- [ Dev ]
Hinduism is hence an invention of the Europeans, nothing more and nothing less. It should more properly be subdivided into the religions of Brahmanism and Shaivism, Shaktism, Tantrism and Saurism.

5.2 Greeks and South Asian Religions

The Aryans referred to the region now known as `Punjab' (Persian `Land of 5 Rivers'), as `Sapta Sindhu'. In Old Achaemenid Persian this became `Hapta Hindwa', and `Hindwa' then meant `Inhabitant of the Indus', completely without religious significance. In Greek `Hindwa' became `Indoi' (Indian), whence the Latin `Indus' river and `India'. The Greeks expanded the meaning of India to include the entire subcontinent. It was never used to denote any religion in Greek or Latin. The Greeks never used the word `Hindu', nor did the Romans.
 5.3 Arabs and 42 South Asian Religions
In Old Persian `Hindwa' denoted only the `Region around the Indus River' and not the whole of India. In Pahlavi or Middle Persian this developed into `Hindustan' (The Land of the Indus) but still denoted only the region around the Indus river. It was later Sanskritised to `Hindusthan'. This meaning was later distorted to denote `Land of Hindus'. The term `Mughalstan' by contrast refers to the Indus-Ganges basin which contains a Muslim majority. In fact, one-third of all Muslims in the world inhabit this `Mughalstan', and a considerable Islamist separatist movement has garnered around this banner. In recent years the terms `Dravida Nadu' or `Dravidistan' and `Dalitstan' have been coined to denote the regions where Dravidoids and Dalits respectively are a majority. `Sudra Nadu' or `Sudrastan' has developed as an umbrella term for Dravidistan and Dalitstan. A full one-third of all Negroes in the world inhabit this Sudrastan, and Pan-Negroism has played a considerable role in the spread of this movement.

5.3 Arabs and 42 South Asian Religions

In Old Persian `Hindwa' denoted only the `Region around the Indus River' and not the whole of what is today known as India. In Pahlavi or Middle Persian this developed into `Hindustan' (The Land of the Indus) but still denoted only the region around the Indus river. It was later Sanskritised to `Hindusthan'. This meaning was later distorted to denote `Land of Hindus'. The term `Mughalstan' by contrast refers to the Indus-Ganges basin which contains a Muslim majority. In fact, one-third of all Muslims in the world inhabit this `Mughalstan', and a considerable Islamist separatist movement has garnered around this banner. In recent years the terms `Dravida Nadu' or `Dravidistan' and `Dalitstan' have been coined to denote the regions where Dravidoids and Dalits respectively are a majority. `Sudra Nadu' or `Sudrastan' has developed as an umbrella term for Dravidistan and Dalitstan. A full one-third of all Negroes in the world inhabit this Sudrastan, and Pan-Negroism has played a considerable role in the spread of this movement.

The Arabs adopted the Old Persian `Hindwa' as `Hind' (India) and `Hindwi' (Indian). Neither of these words were used as applying to any religion; they were purely geographical and national terms. None of the medieval Arab travellers was aware of one single monolithic faith being practiced. In fact, all the Arab travelers referred to the 'Indians' as practicing 42 different religions :
" Ibn Khurdaba has described that in India there are 42 religions. Al Idrisi also observes that `Among the principal nations of India there are 42 sects. Some recognize the existence of a creator, but not of prophets, while others deny the existence of both. Some acknowledge the intercesory powers of graven stones, and others worship holy stones, on which butter and oil is poured. Some pay adoration to fire, and cast themselves into the flame. Others adore the sun and consider it the creator and director of the world. Some worship trees; others pay adoration to serpents, which they keep in stables, and feed as well as they can. deeming this to be a meritous work. Lastly, there are some who give themselves no trouble about any kind of devotion, and deny everything." '
-- [ Arab.p.57 ].

Al Idrisi's description of South Asian religions given above presents a clear description of the many different faiths practiced in the Indian subcontinent. He has accurately described the existence of Sun-worshippers (Rajput Sauras) and Atheists (Carvakas) as separate religions. None of the Arab travellers was aware of there being only one religion in the subcontinent. This proves that `Sanatana Dharma' did not exist at that time.
Some of the Arab travellers even increased the number of Indian religions to 48:
" The Jamiu-l Hikayat increases the number of religions in India to 48 "
-- [ Arab.57.n1 ]
An exhaustive treatment of the Indian religions is given later on. To summarize, in the words of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, " The word [ Hindu ] was never used in Indian literature or scriptures before the advent of Muslims to India " [ ERE.6.699 ], cf. also [ Tirtha.p.vii ]. If at all it was used in a racial sense, " the Muslim rulers used the term 'Hindu' [ correctly `Hindooi' ] to mean Indian non-Muslims only." [ Basic ]  

The traveller Qazwini has also described the various different religions prevalent in the subcontinent during ancient times, clearly mentioning Brahmanism as a separate religion :
" Qazwini (1203 AD - 1280 AD) says that there are various sects among the people of Hind. Some believe in the creator, but not the propher. They are the Brahmans. There are some who believe in neither. There are some who worship idols, some the moon and some other, fire."
-- [ Nain.230 ]

Asokan inscriptions also contain the term `brahmana va sramana', indicating a fundamental distinction between the Brahminists, followers of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, and the Sramanas or `nastika' heretics. Qazwini correctly describes Brahmanism as accepting a creator - God, something which the Sramanas do not do. Qazwini's "there are some who believe in neither" almost definitely refers to these nastiks (Jains, Buddhists, Atheists). Yet another traveller Abul Faaj (988 AD) mentioned the sects of India, and was completely unaware of the existance of `One Religion':

" al-Dinikitiya - These are worshippers of the Sun. They have an idol placed upon a cart supported by 4 horses. They believe that the Sun is the king of the angels deserving worship and adoration. They prosrate themselves before this idol, walk round it with incense, playing the lute and other musical instruments .. " [ Nain.228 ] < This refers to the Rajput (Indo-Scythic) Saura religion, which consists of a mixture of Zoroastrian and Iranic (Scythic) fire cults >.

" al-Jandrihkriya " [ Chandra + kranti ] " They are worshippers of the moon. They say that the moon is one of the angels deserving honour and adoration. Their custom is to set up an idol, to represent it, on a carrt drawn by 4 ducks. In the head of this idol is a gem called jandarkit" [ Nain.229 ] [ jandarkit is moonstone, "said to emit moisture when placed in the moonlight, and believed by some to be a congelation of the moon's rays." Nain.229.n3 ]

 " Anshaniyya " [ Sans. Anasana - fasting ] " those who abstain from food and drink " [ Nain.230 ] < The term is derived from sanniyasi. Abul Faaj refers here to one of the Buddhist, Jain or Vedic ascetic orders. >

" Bakrantiniya are those who fetter their bodies with iron. Their practice is to shave off hair and beard and not to cover the body except for the private parts. It is not their custom to teach or speak with anyone apart from those of their religion." [ Nain.230 ]

" Kangayatra [ Gangayatra ] " scattered throughout Hind. Their belief is that, if a man commits a grave sin, he must travel to the Ganges [ and ] ... wash [ in it ] " [ Nain.230 ]

" Rahmarniyya [ Raja + Tam. manam = honour, self-respect; rajapimani = supporters of the king ] They say, "God, exalted be He, made them kings. If we are slain in the service of kings, we reach paradise." [ Nain.230 ]
" There is another sect whose practice is to grow long hair." do not drink wine, ... temple on hill called hawran [ Nain.230 ]

Hence, there existed at the time of the Arabs several distinct religions. This is simply because `Hinduism' or `Sanatana Dharma' had not yet been invented by the Europeans. Like many aspects of early Indology (or the study of the Indian subcontinent), the concept of `Hinduism' was overly simplistic and utterly baseless.

According to Jawaharlal Nehru, the earliest reference to the word 'Hindu' can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eighth century C.E., where the word means a people [of the Indus], and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word 'Hindu' in connection with a particular religion is of a very late occurrence [ Nehru, p.74-75 ].

5.4 Portuguese and Gentoos

The Portuguese never even used the word 'Hindu' or `Santana' or any of the variants to denote any South Asian religion, proving that Hinduism, did not exist as a concept at the time of the Portuguese. Instead, they referred to the `Hindus' as `Gentoos'. Portuguese dictionaries give the following definition of `Gentoo':

Gentio (Hindu, gentile, a heathen, pagan)
+ applied by the Portuguese to the Hindus in contradistinction to the Mouros, or Moors ie. Mohammedans. [ Asia, p.167-168 ]
+ Anglo-Ind. `gentoo', Konk. jintu
Gentilico (`the language of the Hindus')
+ `em gentilico' in the Hindu or vernacular langauge
+ still applied to the Telugu language
The word `Gentoo' still survives in usage, and is applied to the Telugus:
" The word `gentoo' is used at the present time only in Madras of the Telugu-speaking 'Hindus' and their language."
[ Asia, p.168 ]

Duarte Barbosa
As an illustration of the fact that Sanatana Dharma did not exist at the time of the Portuguese, a few quotations from Duarte Barbosa, a Portuguese traveller who visited the subcontinent, are given. The 'Indians' are always referred to as `Gentoos':

  • " And before this kingdom of Guzerate fell into the hands of the Moors, a certain race of Gentios whom the Moors called Resbutos dwelt therein."
    [ Duarte Barbosa, ed. Dames, Vol. I, p.109 cited in Asia, p.167.n3 ]
  • " And in this kingdom there is another sort of Gentio whom they call Baneanes."
    [ Duarte Barbosa, ed. Dames Vol. I, p.109 in Asia, p.167.n4 ]

Contemporary Documents
Documents from the early modern period also do not mention `Sanatanis'; they only mention `Gentoos':
" The Originall of this Petition (to Charles II) ... is signed by 225 of the principalest inhabitants of this Island, viz.
123: Christians and
84: Gentuis
18: Moores "
-- [ `Anglo-Portuguese Negotiations relating to Bombay 1660-1677' (OUP) by S.A.Khan, p.453 ]
 Another term used by Europeans as applying to the followers of Indigenous South Asian was `Banian'. " The early European travellers applied the term [ Banian ] to the followers of the Hindu religion generally " [Asia, p.38 ] The term in fact denotes a Jain trader (from vaniyan Sansk. vanij, trader).

5.5 Creation of Hinduism after 1830 by the English Colonialists

The Brahmins of present-day India actively collaborated with the English colonialists in their conquest of the subcontinent. As a result, the English rewarded them by inventing the designation `Leaders of Hinduism' for their loyal servants, their Aryan Brahmin cousins. 

 Gentoos & Anglo-Indians
The English came to the [Indian] subcontinent after the Portuguese, and due to the immense cultural influence of the latter, the English also adopted the word Gentoo as applying to any follower of an South Asian religion:
" The first digest of Indian legislation, which was complied under orders of Warren Hastings and published in 1773, has the title `A Code of Gentoo Law'."
-- [ Asia,p.168 ]
 Yule is led to believe that the English form Gentoo did not come into general use till late in the 17th century. [ Asia.168 ]

Nor did the early English travellers use the words `Hindu' or `Sanatani', instead they used the Portuguese word `Gentoo':

  • " The late scarcity of provisions necessitating us to take some cows from the Jentue inhabitants to supply the fleet... "
    -- [ Forrest, Selections, Home Series, Vol. II, p.31 cited in Asia,p.167.n1 ]
  • " The Gentues , the Portugal Idiom for Gentiles, are the Aborigines, who enjoyed their freedom till the Moors or Scythian Tartars .. undermining them, took advantage of their Civil Commotions."
    -- [ Fryer, East India, Hak. Soc. Vol. I, p.81 in Asia, p.167.n1 ]

Thus the concept of `Hindu' or `Sanatani' as applying to a religion did not exist, nor were any of these terms used by the early English colonialists. Hence, even by the time of the early English colonialists `Hinduism' did not exist.

Invention of Hinduism by English Census-Compilers
The English census-compilers were assigned the daunting task of conducting the Indian head-count by the British government. These people were not theologians, and coined the term `Hindu' as a blanket term to encompass several religions. Thus a `Hindu' was defined in the Census as anybody who was not Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Jain. It was thus an exclusivist term: Hinduism was defined by what it was not, and not by what it was. It is hence entirely unsuitable as a definition. Later the term Sanatana Dharma was invented to deliberately submerge the English creation of Hinduism. In the words of the Babri Masjid archive [ Basic ] :
" Finding it difficult to get the names of the religions of these communities, the British writers gave them the word "Hinduism" to be used as a common name for all of their religions in about 1830."
-- [ Basic citing EB 20:581]

Indeed, the concept of "Hinduism" was invented by the English with the ulterior motive of making their loyal servants, the Aryan Brahmins, the rulers of what is present-day India.

Ulterior Motives in Creation of Hinduism
The creation of Hinduism, the subsequent formation of Sanatana Dharma and the propagation of these concepts is mainly due to vested interests with the following ulterior motives.

  • Reward of Brahmin Collaborators - As shown above, the main motive in the English invention of 'Hinduism' was to reward their Aryan Brahmin collaborators with an imagined leadership of all of 'Hinduism' and by extension, all of the subcontinent. Such were the services rendered to the British crown that not only were the Brahmins made leaders of present-day India at that time, but the whole of history was completely falsified to portray them as the `eternal rulers of all Hindus'.                                                                                                                                                                  
  • Dravidianism Suppressed - India obtained Independance from Anglo-Brahmin and Brahmin-Portuguese rule in 1947. However, the new state that arose was merely a neo-Brahminist casteocracy. One of the main `threats' to the integrity of the new Aryan Brahmin-ruled republic was the spectre of Dravidian Nationalism. The Sudroids (Dravidoids and Kolarians) represent the original inhabitants of the Indian peninsula, who were later subjugated by the Aryan invaders. They form the overwhelming majority in Southern India, and strong demands existed for a separate Dravidian nation. Ambedkar and many others fought for recognition of the Dravidian Religion as separate from the Hindu religion, but M.K.Gandhi foiled these attempts, and succeeded in temporarily subverting the Dravidians in Hinduism. The British were reluctant to recognise the Dravidian religion, since it would have antagonised their Brahmin collaborators. This is one of the prime motives behind the invention of 'Hinduism'. 

  • Vaishnavite Ambitions - Since the majority of `Hindus' were Brahminist Vaishnavites in any case, it was hoped that Vaishnavism would thus become a synonym for 'Hinduism', thereby subverting Shavism (Dravidian Religion), Smartism, etc. in one go. 

  • Christian Missionaries - The creation of ' Hinduism' suited the missionaries who did not have to deal with any South Asian theological system. Christianity historically made the greatest inroads in `pagan' (ie. religions lacking a developed sustem of theology) regions, while failing in areas where `devoloped' religions like Islam, Confucianism, etc. By creating 'Hinduism' and submerging thereby Vaishnavism, Jainism, Buddhism, Saurism, etc. into `One Great Pagan Religion' they had to deal with `merely another pagan cult'. Hence, `Hinduism' served the interests of the Christian missionaries. 

  • English Imperialism - The creation of  ' Hinduism' entailed inclusion of the Negroid-Australoid Aboriginal Races of India as `Hindu'. Thus, English dominion in India was justified by claiming that it represented a pious mission to `civilize the pagan natives'. 

  • Aryanism Suppressed - English colonial rule was justified by the rule of `Whites' over `non-Whites'. Accepting the existence of `Aryans' in the subcontinent would have meant a nullification of this justification, since a sizeable fraction of India's population would be `white' and would not require `white' Anglo-Saxon rule. The submergence of Indo-Aryans as `Hindus' served to suppress this menace to British rule. The early Arya Samajists realised this attempt to subvert the identitiy of Aryans. and staunchly opposed the use of the word `Hindu'; a move equally opposed by the British. By denying `white' status to Indo-Aryans (a fact since proven by genetics). the English justified rule over `non-whites'. 

  • Rajputism Suppressed - The Rajputs are descendants of the Scythians, Greeks, and other immigrants who entered India just prior to the rise of the Indo-Islamic Caliphate of Delhi. Throughout their history they followed their Solar religions (`saura' cults), independant of any Aryan Vaishnavite Brahmans. Yet the invention of Hinduism served to subvert Saura religion as well. 

  • Smarta Subversion - The creation of 'Hinduism' suited the Smartas (Advaitins) most of all, since their religion was defined in terms of giving equal worship to 5 major gods of the Indian peninsula, as well as a whole host of others. It remained a very minor religion in India, having been propagated only by Sankaracharya and being localised mainly in Kerala. The overwhelming majority of 'Hindus' were (and still are) Vaishnavites (more than 75 %). However, the definition of `Hinduism' was essentially Smarta, and by propagating `Hinduism' the Smartas hoped to submerge their old rivals the Vaishnavites.

Noted Sikh author G.S.Khalsa has amply pointed out the manner in which Hinduism was invented :

 " The Brahmanists came to power on the Congress elephant by deviously converting the pre-independence political debate and struggle into a communal ' Hindu'-Muslim religious struggle. This was made possible by the master stroke of Mahatama Gandhi - the 'Hindu' nationalist cum holy sadhu who made "Hindus" a 55% majority on paper in the 1920s upon getting the Dalits or "untouchables" (20%) dubbed as "Hindus" by the British. This coup moved the "Hindus" from 35% to a 55% majority in British India. In pre-independence India, Muslims were 25%, Sikhs/Christians/Buddhists/tribals/etc. formed the remaining 20%. This action, along with recognition of Congress as the sole political representative of all Indians in national matters, was a payoff by the British colonial authorities to the Brahmanist lead Congress and Gandhi for loyal services rendered to Queen and empire in supporting their WWI war effort; recruiting the "martial" communities (e.g. Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs, Gujars of Saka-origin) of the northwest and Muslims to go fight for the British Empire in Europe/middle east; subduing, opposing, infiltrating and sabotaging other non-Congress/non-Brahmanist lead political parties and independence movements organized at home (who saw British weakness during the war as an ideal opportunity). The 55% fraudulent "Hindu pile" was little more than a political game of Brahmanist politicians and political parties in Delhi while caste 'Hindus' would not eat/touch/marry/socialize or even worship with their "polluted" Dalits (20% untouchables) in the 1920s. After this "victory on paper", Brahmanist politicians, political parties, and organizations totally communalized pre-independence politics along "Hindu/Muslim" religious lines of "nationhood" to get on the road to empire and Delhi. "

-- [ Khals ]

5.6 Invention of Sanatana Dharma by Smartas

Subsequent to the invention of 'Hinduism' the followers of the different  religions realized that the word `Hindu' and `The Religion of Hinduism' were English inventions. This caused much embarrassment, and many Vaishnavites, Shavites etc, declared that they were followers of different religions, which they actually are. Had this process reached its full development, there would have been no problem. However, some Smartas and other vested interests attempted to preserve the superficial unity which the English creation of 'Hinduism' had given. Hence, the English concept of `Hinduism' was renamed as `Sanatana Dharma' in order to fabricate a Sanskritic name for the concept. The word `Sanatana' was created in sometime in the 19th century as an attempt to replace the foreign word `Hindu'. The non-Muslim people of the South Asian subcontinent called Hindu had no precise word for their religions [ Land ]. They were, as they are, divided into thousands of communities and tribes, each having its own religious beliefs, rituals, modes of worship, etc.

The Smarta religion arose "by the 7th century, when the Smartas inistituted their worship of 5 deities, omitting Brahma, he had lost all claims as a superior diety. " [ EB 2.460 ]
" The people called Hindu have nothing common in their religious affairs. 'Hinduism', therefore, cannot give any precise idea as to what it means. Attempts were made to define the term but could not succeed. "
-- [ Basic ]

To summarize, revealing that "Hinduism" was in fact an English invention; this circumstance becoming widely known and the cause of much satire on `Hinduism' and its English invention, the Brahmin Vaishnavas invented the term `Sanatana Dharma' in order to counter these difficulties :
" Faced with this dilemma, 'Hindu' scholars sometime use the word Sanatan Dharma (eternal religion) and sometime Vedic Dharma (religion of the Veda), etc. for their "religion". But as names of their religion, these words are also untenable as they do not imply anything precise for all the people called 'Hindu'."

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

The Evolution of "Hinduism"

While religious communities of thought and practice have flourished on the Indian subcontinent for at least three millennia, the concept of “Hinduism”—as a world religion, as a unitary, coherent package of beliefs and rituals akin to “Christianity,” “Islam,” or “Buddhism”—emerged only in the nineteenth-century colonial context via processes much-debated in scholarship over the past three decades.

Derived from a Persian word indicating those who live “beyond the Indus River,” over the centuries “Hindu” has been associated with a variety of regional, cultural, and religious identifications.  It was in the context of British colonialism of the Indian subcontinent, however, that the meaning and significance of “Hindu” among European officials, missionaries and scholars grew increasingly complex.  For example, in the late eighteenth century British Christian missionaries took aim at the “idolatry” and “savagery” of “Hindoo” practices as they failed to understand the significance of divine images or rituals of animal sacrifice.  In contrast, early Orientalist scholars such as William Jones (1746-1794) countered such contemporary visions of “excess” with accounts of sophisticated philosophical wisdom from ancient Sanskrit texts.   In a third example, British Indian scholar Rammohan Roy (1772-1833) who was heavily influenced by both Islam and British Unitarianism, embraced the Vedas and the monotheism of the Upaniṣadic Brahman.  Roy was a social reformer and the first to use the term “Hinduism” in 1816 to refer to a coherent, pan-South Asian set of religious ideals and practices (e.g. Brahmanism).

Throughout the nineteenth century—and particularly following the transfer of power over much of the Indian subcontinent from the East India Company to the British crown in 1857—“Hindu” and “Hinduism” grew increasingly identified with Indian aspirations for independence and full nationhood.  While a diverse range of political and religious figures from Vivekananda (1863-1902) to Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948) envisioned a religiously plural India where "Hindu" and Muslim, Sikh and Jain might live peaceably side-by-side, activists such as Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883) sought to define India as a more exclusively "Hindu" nation, its social and cultural forms to be rooted in Sanskrit education, the teachings of the Vedas, and adherence to caste.  From Saraswati’s conservative focus on Veda, Sanskrit, and caste would emerge the twentieth-century Hindu nationalist movements, beginning with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s (1883-1966) influential 1923 pamphlet that introduced the notion of Hindutva or “Hindu-ness” into Indian public discourse, “Hindutva:  Who is a Hindu?”  There, Savarkar argues for Brahman nationalists as a unifying cultural and political force that unites the people of India and forms the basis for authentic nationhood.  Savarkar’s use of Hindutva to encompass all of Indian cultures, religion, and politics is championed today on a global scale by a closely allied set of political and cultural organizations known as the Sangh Parivar.

Critique of “Hinduism” as defined during the colonial period and underlying the Hindutva rhetoric of the Sangh Parivar has grown increasingly loud in the wake of inter-religious violence at Ayodhyā and in Gujarat in the 1990s and early 2000s.  Many historians have argued, for example, that the “Hinduism” understood by Rammohan Roy and increasingly taken up by the British colonial administration primarily reflected the elite traditions of the relative few, ignoring entirely the beliefs and practices of the vast majority of "Hindus".  In the mid-nineteenth-century census-taking exercises of British India, for example, questions of religious identity often proved confusing for respondents, with significant numbers checking both “Hindu” and “Mohammedan” in early versions of the census.  Most working definitions of “Hinduism”—like the Sanskrit-, Veda-, and caste-based rhetoric of the Sangh Parivar—focus on upper-caste, elite, male views and downplay or denigrate the everyday religious lives of women, low-caste communities, and non-"Hindus".  On the other hand, in the contemporary global diaspora, streamlined presentations of "Hinduism" that target second-generation "Hindus" living in the US or Europe—such as Viswanathan’s widely circulated primer, Daddy, am I a Hindu?—owe much to the more liberal, inclusivist views of colonial reformers such as Vivekananda and Mohandas Gandhi.  These examples represent 1) diversity within the tradition, 2) how religions evolve and change, and 3) the ways that religious influences permeate social, political, and cultural life. 

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

The 10-year-old victim of Pakistan's 'forgotten war'

Gruesome and cowardly crime. Unforgivable act committed by unknown personals, most likely those who have positions in Pakistan's shadowy intelligence agencies and committing atrocities against the people of Pakistan.