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.
No comments:
Post a Comment