Who is a Hindu?
--
A conceptualization for 21st century
From Al-Biruni (973–1048) to the 20th-century stalwarts like Ambedkar, Savarkar, and Gandhi, all have struggled to answer the question: who is a Hindu. The problem arises because there is no creed that sets Hindus apart as have the Abrahamic religions. The conceptualization made by India’s national leaders may have been appropriate for their time, but times have changed and so have the Hindus. The caste system, for example, is gradually disappearing despite concerted attempts by political parties to fuel caste conflicts for political gains. Caste discrimination carries severe punishment under Indian law. Various castes intermingle in the 21st century compared to the social distancing of say 18th or 19th century. Thanks to the efforts made by Hindu saints and social reformers like Ambedkar (Singh 2014), Gandhi (Kolge 2017), and Savarkar that even the current President of India — nominated by the BJP (often dubbed as a Hindu nationalist party) — is a Dalit. Given these changes, a new conceptualization is necessary.
I begin by briefly considering the origin of the term Hindu.
The origin
According to Jackson (cited by Sharma 2002:2) the earliest reference to the term ‘’Hindu’’ is found in Zend Avesta- a Parsi holy book. Ahura Mazda created 16 regions of which the 15th region was Hapta Hindu, probably identical with Sapta Sindhavas or seven rivers as identified in the Rigveda. Radhakrishnan (1927) and Klostermaier (2007) note that people on the Indian side of the river Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persians and Western invaders. Similarly, Rawlinson (cited by Sharma 2002:2) indicates the inscriptions of Darius I, circa 518 -515 BCE adds Hidu (Hindu) to the list of subject countries of his empire. But the word Hindu did not have a religious significance and referred to Indians. To distinguish themselves from Turkish Muslims, for example, Muslims in India were called Hindu Muslims. After the invasion of Sindh by Muhammad ibn Qasim in 712 CE, the term Hindu started getting a religious connotation. It enabled conversion to Islam. The idol-breaking spree of Mahmud of Ghazni (1025) solidified it further. O’Connell (cited by Sharma 2002:13) notes that Hindus started identifying themselves as Hindus only in the 16th century. In the 17th century, we find Shivaji using the word Hindavi Swaraj (Hindu self-rule?).
Leaving aside ancient history, let us see how India’s national leaders conceptualized the term Hindu.
Ambedkar’s conceptualization
Ambedkar (as cited in Moon 2014: p.13–15) describes the difficulty of defining a Hindu. He notes ‘’Hinduism has no definite creed. The beliefs of persons who are by all admitted to be Hindus often differ more widely from each other than do those of Christians and Muhammadans’’ (p.14). He adds ‘’it shelters within its portals monotheists, polytheists, and pantheists; worshippers of the great Gods Shiva and Vishnu or of their female counterparts, as well as worshippers of the divine mothers or the spirits of trees, rocks, and streams, and the tutelary village deities’’. Furthermore,” if he said that he is a Hindu because he believes in the caste system his answer cannot be accepted as satisfactory’’ (p.15). Ambedkar concludes ‘’Is it not a question for every Hindu to consider why in the matter of his own religion his position is so embarrassing and so puzzling? (p.15).
Ambedkar is right that Hinduism has no definite creed. Webster’s dictionary defines a ‘’creed’’ as ‘’a brief authoritative formula of religious belief or a set of fundamental beliefs’’. Similarly, ‘’ism’’ refers to ‘’a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory’’. Consequently, Hinduism is neither a ‘’ism’’, nor a ‘’creed’’. It is not a religion at all. It seems the word ‘’Hinduism’’ is a gift of the missionaries. Incidentally, Sharma (2002) notes that Ram Mohan Roy was the first among the Hindus to use the word Hinduism. It is widely known that Roy ‘’supported the British rule over India’’ (Sharma 2017:92). As the Christians and Muslims are tied to a particular belief system, an appropriate description of their faith would be ‘’Christianism’’ and ‘’Islamism’’ but they use ‘’ism’’ for the Jews (Judaism) and the Hindus (Hinduism). While the Jews do have a set of fundamental beliefs, the Hindus have none as Ambedkar rightly notes. The caste system may be considered oppressive but Ambedkar clarifies many Hindus dismiss it.
But why would Ambedkar consider the difficulty in defining a Hindu as embarrassing or puzzling? Hindus have refused to be regimented and serve under a religious dictatorship. The proselytizing religions had the backing of the rulers (Constantine and Ottoman) who used religion to spread their empire. Consequently, they became ‘’regimented religions’’ under a common command doctrine. As the political empire expanded so did the religious empire using political power for conversion purposes. Rulers used religion to control the masses and in turn, the religious heads controlled the rulers. Heretics invited punishment just as desertion would under the Army Act.
Hindu Kings never used religion to expand their empires but encouraged the relentless quest for the Ultimate Truth. Typically, Hindus ‘’understand God by asking what God is not. Through negation, we get closer to the answer. Essentially, a Hindu Guru would take our idea of what we believe God to be and chip away until we have an experience of nothingness. This is because the exact nature of God alludes to thought, language, and symbolism. God is understood in palpable terms by being divided into personalities: Cognition (Brahman), Emotion (Vishnu), and Will (Siva)’’. The Hindus kept exploring the Ultimate Truth giving rise to diverse worship practices and philosophies, so beautifully captured by Sri Ramakrishna ‘’as many faiths, so many paths’. It is like one house with many doors one can enter or exist as one wishes.
Ambedkar notes the diversity among the Hindus — each with one’s own distinctive theory. Consequently, it is not possible to put Hindus in religious or ideological prison. The ability to think critically is not pledged to a faith or ideology by the Hindus who continued to freely question their own theories and beliefs — thanks to our forefathers. Consequently, the framework of religion would not be appropriate to assess the Hindus.
Savarkar’s conceptualization
Savarkar (1969 cited by Joshi p. ii) notes that the confusion in defining a Hindu arises ‘’because of the error of identifying the word almost entirely with-its religious aspect alone’’. He defines a Hindu as ‘’ a person who regards this land of Bharatvarsha [an ancient name for India] from the Indus to the seas as his father-land as well as holy-land that is the cradle land of his religion’’ (Savarkar 1969, title page). Savarkar identifies a Hindu with a region while Ambedkar with a religion.
Savarkar’s definition also creates difficulties. For example, Julia Roberts, the Hollywood actress converted to Hinduism. She may consider India to be a holy land but her fatherland would be the USA. Similarly, celebrated author V. S. Naipaul was settled overseas for generations. What would be his fatherland? How many generations do we go back to decide?
Gandhi’s conceptualization
Mahatma Gandhi, a devout Vaishnava, provides a traditional definition. ‘’He is a Hindu who believes in God, the immortality of the soul, transmigration, the law of karma and moksha and who tries to practice truth and ahimsa in daily life, and therefore practices cow protection in its widest sense and understands, and tries to act according to the law of varnashrama’’ (Radharani, 2006:27). But Yakub Masih (2017) notes that the doctrine of Karma-Samsara-Jnana and Mukti is first seen among the Ajivikism, Jainism, and Buddhism. It has not been clearly spelled in the Rigveda or the oldest of the Upanishads -Chhandogya and Brihadaranyaka. Gandhi’s conceptualization was also religion-based.
Conceptualization in Hindu Law
As per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act), Hindus include (a) those who by religion or birth are Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, or Buddhist (b) those who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsi or Jews by religion or by birth © to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. The Act clarifies that becoming an atheist or non-practicing religion does not mean the person ceases to be a Hindu. Practitioners of Virashaiva, Lingayat, Brahmo, Prarthana, or Arya Samaj are Hindus. The Act considers Hindu in religious terms but subsequent Supreme Court verdict notes that Hindu is a way of life and not a religion.
Accordingly, in the 21st century, we need to have different criteria to identify who is a Hindu.
Why not a new conceptualization?
How do we transcend the criterion of region or religion and focus on the distinguishing characteristics of a Hindu in the 21st century? Interestingly, Christianism, Islamism, and Marxism help us solve the problem. All have a creed. Christianism, for example, has 15 officially recognized creeds. The Shahada is the creed of Islamism. In Marxism, the Manifesto would be the creed. Can there be a Christian/ Muslim/Marxist who rejects the respective creed? In Hindus, there is no single doctrine that keeps them bound together (Ketkar 1947).
The Vedas could be considered as the creed, but some Hindus may not follow them, for example, the Lingayat, the Ajivikas (Masih 2017), or an atheist. Similarly, ‘’the Vaishnavas, Shaivas, and Shaktas have their different sacred literature called the Agamas which are ………treated as the real Vedas’’ (Sharma, 2016:335). Some of the Hindu philosophical systems are flatly atheistic… and in others, God is only an ‘impersonal cosmic principle’ (Cooper, 2003:14). The Act includes Buddhists, and Jains within the Hindu fold though they all reject the Vedas.
What then is or are the common factor/s that would be found in a villager worshiping Bhairoba or a US-based robotics engineer, both of whom identify themselves as Hindu? Based on the commonality, I propose the following definition and invite discussion and debate.
A Hindu is a person, wherever residing, who neither imposes religious (worship-related) or ideological world-view on others nor accepts others forcing their worldview. Basically, a person who supports complete freedom and liberty in such matters.
Embedded in this grand definition are several key features as below:
Harmony not proselytization: A Hindu has a pluralistic outlook and is not interested in converting others to his worldview. The defining creed of Christianity and Islam is proselytization and imposing their worldview on others which they consider as superior. The Pan Islamic or Pan Christian (Bacigalupo 1941) movements work to further that objective. True adherents of these religions engage in violence to suppress alternative worldviews (Armstrong 2014) and so also present-day, Pakistan, Saudi, Malaysia, or Slovenia for example. Proselytization itself is ‘’emotional violence’’. As Hindus did not have any political objective of proselytization and empire building, they considered — oblivious of the political agenda that underpins proselytizing faiths — as just alternative ways of exploring divinity. Hindus reject sectarian attitudes and consider humanism to be the highest virtue. The Hindu tradition is open to new ideas and scientific thought and Hinduism is akin to humanism. If such a healthy attitude is adopted by the proselytizing faiths and dictatorial ideologies, world peace could become a reality.
Freedom of choice or spiritual democracy: A Hindu has no issues with whatever beliefs and worship practices others follow. The only expectation of a Hindu is that others reciprocate likewise and not impose their worldview. Inside the Hindu fold too, diverse practices and belief systems co-exist. It is not unusual that in a Hindu family, members may worship different deities or some could be atheists. Hindus refuse to be held hostage to an ideology or religious belief. In some faiths, entry is open but exit could involve the death penalty as already noted earlier. A Hindu can walk in or out of the Hindu- fold without any adverse consequences. H. G. Wells, the famous historian notes, how Hindu Kings welcomed the Christian missionaries and others. If only such openness to embrace alternative thoughts is provided there will be world peace. Hindus may go out of the way to ensure that other religious practices survive.
Respect for the environment: A Hindu would invariably be environment-friendly. The tradition has emphasized for generations to respect/worship nature. For a Hindu, rivers, mountains, trees, animals, and for that matter the entire ecology is sacred. Consequently, a Hindu strives to live in harmony with it and not damage it. A Hindu is ecologically conscious (Nelson, 2000) or follows environmental ethics (Framarin, 2012). The daily practices of many Hindus include the worship of the sun (Surya namaskar or sun salutation yoga postures, for example), the moon, the mother earth, the rivers, the sea, the trees, the mountains, and the animals (including a snake on a special day called Naga Panchami!).
Non-judgemental: A Hindu is non-judgemental about other faiths and goes by the popular usage ‘’I am ok you are ok’ as compared to some faiths who hold the view that ‘’I am ok but you are not ok’’ and sow the seeds of conflict. A Hindu is not interested in affronting other faiths as the proselytizers are.
Need to break the religious/ideological prisons
A relentless quest for Truth is what a Hindu has been striving for all along. Voltaire says “Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it” and so do Socrates, Albert Einstein, Apostle Paul, and others. Using the criteria provided by Gide, one finds that Hindus are more advanced in critical thinking as Hindu philosophical systems developed out of discussion and debates. Wisdom lies in continuous exploration. Progress stops when you claim you have all the answers. The Church took 350 years to admit that Galileo and Copernicus were right. Charavak, Buddha, and Mahavira could freely disagree way back in 500 BCE, and Sushruta (7th century BCE), and Charaka (300 BCE) could explore without any fear.
Under the Hindu umbrella, everyone can live peacefully and follow the traditions that interest them. Theists, atheists, and agnostics all can find a strand of philosophy or two in Hindu Thought that purports to support their way. The open architecture of the Hindus contrasts with other closed systems(Malhotra (2011).
A Hindu is free to explore. It is freedom, liberty, and emancipation in the true sense of these words which characterizes a Hindu. Theo-centric religions inherently divide, while the non-theo-centric thought of the Hindus unites. World peace and interreligious harmony cannot be achieved unless people free themselves from religious or ideological prisons.
The notions of ‘’us’’ vs ‘’them’’ are a result of narrow-minded thinking, for a noble-minded the entire world is one big family (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam) as Hitopadesha as well as the Mahanarayan Upanishad proclaims.
References
Armstrong, K. 2014. Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, Alfred Knoff, New York.
Bacigalupo, L. 1941. The Pan-Christian Movement, The Catholic Historical Review, 27(3): 316–331.
Cooper, D. 2003. World Philosophies: An historical introduction, Blackwell Publishing, USA.
Framarin, C. 2012. Hinduism and Environmental Ethics: An Analysis and Defence of a Basic Assumption, Asian Philosophy, 22 (1): 75–91.
Ketkar, S. 1947. Hinduism and It's Future in the New World Society, Hind Printing Works, Mumbai.
Klostermaier, K. 2007. A survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press, New York.
Kolge, N. 2017. Was Gandhi a ‘Champion of the Caste System’? Reflections on his Practices, Economic and Political Weekly, March 2017.
Malhotra, R. and Nīlakantan̲, A., 2011. Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines. New Delhi: Amaryllis.
Masih, Y. 2017. A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi.
Moon, V. 2014. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches vol. 4. Ambedkar Foundation, New Delhi.
Nelson, L. 2000. ‘Reading the Bhagavat Gita from an ecological perspective’, in Christopher K Chappel and Mary E. Tucker (Ed) Hinduism and Ecology, Harvard University Press.
Radhakrishnan, S. 1927. The Hindu Way of Life. George, Allen and Unwin, New York.
Radharani, P. 2006. Hinduism and Gandhiji, Prabuddha Bharat, Advaita Ashrama, Kolkata.
Sharma, A. 2002. Hindu, Hinduism, and Hindutva. Numen, 49 (1): 1–36.
Sharma, A. 2017. The Ruler’s Gaze, HarperCollins, New Delhi.
Sharma, C. 2016. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Singh, A. 2014. Gandhi and Ambedkar: Irreconcilable Differences? International Journal of Hindu Studies, Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
Vedanta Society. 1907. The Gospel of Ramakrishna. Vedanta Society of New York. New York.
