Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This book critically assesses recent debates about the colonial construction
of Hinduism. Increasingly scholars have come to realise that the dominant
understanding of Indian culture and its traditions is unsatisfactory. Accord-
ing to the classical paradigm, Hindu traditions are conceptualized as features
of a religion with distinct beliefs, doctrines, sacred laws and holy texts.
Today, however, many academics consider this conception to be a colonial
‘construction’. This book focuses on the different versions, arguments and
counter-arguments of the thesis that the Hindu religion is a construct of
colonialism. Bringing together the different positions in the debate, it pro-
vides necessary historical data, arguments and conceptual tools to examine
the argument.
Organized in two parts, the first half of the book provides new analyses of
historical and empirical data; the second presents some of the theoretical
questions that have emerged from the debate on the construction of Hinduism.
Where some of the contributors argue that Hinduism was created as a result
of a western Christian notion of religion and the imperatives of British colo-
nialism, others show that this religion already existed in pre-colonial India;
and as an alternative to these standpoints, other writers argue that Hinduism
only exists in the European experience and does not correspond to any empir-
ical reality in India. This volume offers new insights into the nature of the
construction of religion in India and will be of interest to scholars of the
History of Religion, Asian Religion, Postcolonial and South Asian Studies.
Acknowledgements ix
Notes on the contributors xi
Preface xiii
PART I
Historical and empirical arguments 23
vii
CONTENTS
PART II
Theoretical reflections 93
Index 185
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The editors and the publisher would like to thank the following for permis-
sion to reprint the following material in Rethinking Religion in India:
ix
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
x
CONTRIBUTORS
xi
C O N T R I BU T O R S
xii
PREFACE
A major inspiration behind this book was the first edition of the Rethinking
Religion in India conference cluster, which took place in New Delhi in January
2008. This five-year cluster was organized by three partners: the Research
Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap, Ghent University, in Belgium, and
the Centre for the Study of Local Cultures, Kuvempu University, and
the Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities in India. Rethinking
Religion in India aims at re-conceptualizing the study of the Indian culture
and its traditions and at developing an alternative approach to the dominant
framework of religious studies. While the present volume is an independent
collection of essays, it shares the aim of making the reader aware of the
importance and urgency of the task of re-conceptualizing ‘religion’ in India.
It is becoming increasingly clear today that the term ‘religion’ and its cog-
nates like ‘worship’, ‘secularism’ or ‘religious freedom’ fail to make sense
to Indian minds. Naturally, we have centuries of scholarship talking about
religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Both our school
textbooks and scholarly treatises in history, politics and sociology insist on
the existence of such religions in India. To a large extent, the required
vocabulary has been translated into Indian languages and is now available to
the average Indian. For example, ‘religion’ is translated as ‘dharma’ and we
are taught in school about how Hindu dharma and Bauddha dharma exist in
India along with Islam dharma and Christian dharma. Our educational and
bureaucratic systems impress on Indian citizens that they belong to one
religion or the other. However, in spite of all such efforts, many Indians seem
to be unable to understand this conceptual vocabulary.
Let me illustrate this point with an anecdote from my own experience as
an Indian. Whenever I used to read in newspapers about ‘religion’, ‘secular-
ism’, ‘religious tolerance’ or the call for ‘Hindu unity’, I felt as though
I understood the meaning of these terms. When I pursued higher studies and
research in this field, I thought that I had a perfect understanding of the
debates on secularism or the theories on Hinduism and the caste system,
because the entire vocabulary was translated into sets of native terms famil-
iar to me. In my everyday life, I had heard words like ‘dharma’, ‘mata’, ‘jati’
xiii
P R E FA C E
and was familiar with the things these words referred to. Hence, I also
thought I had made proper sense of terms like ‘Hindu dharma’ or ‘Hinduism’
and ‘the caste system’. I considered them to be descriptions and explanations
at a meta-level, which we Indians are not aware of. During my research, I was
also introduced to the unresolved debate on the inadequacy of such transla-
tions of words and applications of concepts, especially after the postcolonial
studies started to percolate into the native languages. However, these argu-
ments complicated my understanding and left a feeling of discontent in me.
At this juncture, I was exposed to S.N. Balagangadhara’s work in this
field. I gradually started to realize that I could neither fully understand nor
participate in the debates and theory building on ‘religion’ and ‘secularism’,
because they were completely unrelated to my lived experience. I had never
seen a phenomenon like Hinduism, the religion to which I was supposed to
belong. No one in my family or the traditional society in which I grew up
had instructed me about any such thing called ‘Hindu dharma’ and its char-
acteristic features. It was only through my school education that I learned
about this ‘Hinduism’, which is supposed to consist of religious scriptures
called the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita, beliefs about reincarnation, social
divisions called the four varnas and things like ashramas.
Sharing my experience with friends, colleagues and acquaintances, I dis-
covered that they too, without exception, had similar experiences. At the
Centre for the Study of Local Cultures at Kuvempu University, we con-
ducted a field study, which confirmed that even the college-educated in
Karnataka fail to figure out what this Hindu dharma is, once they forget their
textbook lessons in the process of living in the actual Indian society. Though
they know the term ‘dharma’, they never use it in the sense of religion.
Dharma is something like duty, good deeds and meritorious acts of human
beings, to which gods are largely irrelevant. They find the term ‘Hindu’ very
peculiar. Those who happen to remember this term do not know its precise
meaning or implications. They say that they learned about things like Hindu
dharma, the four varnas, the four Vedas etc. in school. They still remember
these terms, they add, because of seeing them repeated in newspapers and
hearing them used by politicians and social activists.
Fascinatingly, these facts are not at all startling to social scientists brought
up in this society. Some of them even asked us what the point was of con-
ducting field research only to come to know such trivial and obvious facts.
These social scientists gave us a variety of explanations for this state of
affairs. They said one cannot rely upon the answers of the ignorant to prove
that ‘Hindu dharma’ does not exist. They added that this only reflected the
pathetic status of Hinduism today and that this ignorance had been caused
by the Brahmanical priesthood, who had kept lay people ignorant about
their own religion. How could a society ever exist without religion, they
asked, and what would explain ‘Hindu fundamentalism’, ‘communal strife’
and the attacks on churches and mosques in India, if it were not for Hindu
xiv
P R E FA C E
religion? The fact that many of the supposed Hindus did not have a clue about
this ‘Hindu religion’ was explained away, instead of being taken seriously as
a fundamental aspect of Indian experience.
This anecdote raises certain basic questions: If the common experience
of Indians does not know of any such thing as Hinduism, what are these
‘religions’ that we have been trying to investigate for all these years? Why is it
that social science research brushes aside this experience, as though it is
without value or importance? Why is it that these peculiar concepts and
vocabulary are being forced upon us as truths about our society that we all
have to accept? What is the nature of this ‘religion’ that we see and judge in
the name of secularism or Hindu nationalism? In other words, the situation
calls for a fundamental reformulation of the questions and reorientation of
the research programme of religious studies, if this field of study is to have
any future in India.
By bringing together several major contributors to the debate on the con-
struction of Hinduism and some new theoretical and historical reflections,
this collection will introduce the reader to the basic problems of discussing
‘religion’ in contemporary India. Even though the book is but an initial
step towards rethinking religion in India, its purpose will be served if the
reader begins to appreciate the true dimension of this task. With more
projects such as this one, the study of religion and culture should take off
at Indian universities in a much more serious fashion than has so far been
the case.
Rajaram Hegde
Shankaraghatta, India, June 2009
xv
INTRODUCTION
Rethinking religion in India
1
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
2
I N T RO D U C T I O N
Orientalism
Predating Edward Said’s seminal work Orientalism (1978 [1995]), scholars
like Raymond Schwab, David Kopf, Bernard Cohn and P.J. Marshall had
already begun providing historical overviews of the orientalist and mission-
ary descriptions of India, situating these within the European debates, needs
and questions of their time. For instance, Marshall shows in The British
Discovery of Hinduism (1970) that orientalist writings on Hinduism were
not so much about India, but rather about issues and controversies within
Christian theology, such as the question of the truth of mosaic chronology,
or whether Hinduism contained traces of the original true monotheism given
by the Biblical God. These European religious controversies, Marshall argues,
circumscribed the limits of orientalist scholarship, which entailed that they
‘did not try to understand what Hinduism meant to millions of Indians’
(Marshall 1970: 44). Another emerging trend in the scholarship on oriental-
ism was to look at the relation between the orientalist descriptions and the
needs of colonialism. A scholar who became very influential in this regard
3
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
was Bernard Cohn. Since the 1960s, Cohn had been arguing that the colonial
study of India had shaped a predictable India that could be classified and
hence dominated and controlled (Cohn 1987 [1998], 1997).
In Said’s Orientalism, both arguments were brought together in a compel-
ling way. His work sparked off a whole new school of thought, viz. the
postcolonial studies. It is one of Orientalism’s central theses that specifically
western concepts and assumptions limited the orientalist descriptions of the
East (e.g. Said (1978 [1995]: 42). The other central point of Orientalism is
that the orientalist descriptions were intrinsically related to the colonial pro-
ject and the process of acquiring power and dominance over the East. By
capturing the Orientals in unchanging essences, by classifying and system-
atizing them, Said argues, they could be controlled and dominated.
The postcolonial studies have picked up mainly one thread of Said’s thesis.
They have focused more on how orientalist descriptions were used to domin-
ate and to ‘essentialize’ other cultures and on the motives behind the colonial
constructions and less on Said’s question of how the conceptual limitations of
orientalism reflect a European cultural experience of the Orient. As a result,
the emphasis of postcolonial studies has come to lie on attempting to develop
a non-colonial and non-essentialist way of studying different cultures.
Hinduism as a construction
The critiques of the concept of religion and that of orientalism have some-
thing in common. Both point to certain distorting aspects of the conceptual
framework that the West has used to study other cultures. Moreover, both
plead for the development of alternative concepts that do justice to the real-
ity they are meant to describe.
Together, these two threads form one of the central theses in the account
about the construction of Hinduism. According to this thesis, the colonizer
represented the variegated Indian reality in an ‘essentialist’ manner in order
to classify and control the colonized. Thus, the postulation of one religion,
Hinduism, unified the diversity of doctrines, texts, practices and gods that
existed on the subcontinent. Along with the colonial needs of domination, a
western Christian concept of religion is said to have inspired the description
of Indian religions in terms of a pan-Indian Hinduism with a specific set of
core characteristics or essences. In other words, the constructionist thesis
tells us that orientalist descriptions made certain features of Indian reality,
such as the Sanskrit texts or Brahmanism, into the essence of Indian reli-
gion, thereby distorting Indian realities (by taking a part for the whole).
4
I N T RO D U C T I O N
1 The Europeans could not have brought a religion into being that had
not existed before without the help of the Indians. Hinduism could
not have been constructed out of thin air by the colonizer and sub-
sequently imposed upon a passive Indian population. Instead, it is
argued, Hinduism was the result of a dialectical collaborative enterprise,
with the colonials and Indians mutually contributing to the construction
of this edifice (see Frykenberg 1993: 534–35; Haan 2005; King 1999a;
Lorenzen 1999, 2006; Pauwels 2002: 151; Pennington 2005; van der Veer
1993: 23). Ignoring the colonized would be ‘to erase the colonial subject
from history and perpetuate the myth of the passive Oriental’ (King
5
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
Both elements are necessary to make the different versions of the con-
structionist thesis coherent. As King (2006: 709) has already pointed out,
none of the constructionists have left out the contribution of the Indians in
the construction of Hinduism, even though some have emphasized it more
than others. On the contrary, most of the discussions in the debate about the
construction of Hinduism have revolved around the question which of the
two has contributed the most. Those who see ‘Hinduism’ as a constructed
concept focus more on the European and colonial agency; others for whom
Hinduism is a reality see the construction of Hinduism more as a historical
evolution of elements that were already present in India.
6
I N T RO D U C T I O N
Muslim rule. Thus, the term ‘Hindu’ did not ascribe religious unity to these
communities and was inclusive of Indian Muslims and Christians. Europeans
only adopted the term ‘Hinduism’ as a name for the religion of India
towards the end of the eighteenth century. Before that, European travellers
and missionaries had regarded the Indian traditions as instances of heathen-
dom. Heathendom or paganism, according to medieval Christianity, was one
of the four religions of the world, next to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
The Indian form of paganism later acquired the name of ‘gentooism’, fol-
lowed by the ‘religion of the Hindus’ to be finally replaced by ‘Hindooism’,
and then ‘Hinduism’ by the end of the eighteenth century (see King 1999a:
162–66 and 1999b; Oddie 2003: 156–59 and 2006; B.K. Smith 1987: 34–35;
von Stietencron 1989 [2001]: 33–35 and 1995: 70–77).
The constructionist thesis has it that, in this process, different religious
phenomena wrongly came to be seen as parts of one religion of all Hindus.
The form attributed to this religion was based on a Christian understanding
of what religion is. Europeans, so the argument goes, focused only on those
aspects which they considered to be properties of religion, viz. sacred texts,
doctrines and priests, while neglecting the myriad of other aspects of Indian
religion. As a result they mistook Brahmanism – with its texts and priests –
for the religion of all Hindus (see Hardy 1995: 48; Hawley 1991; King 1999b:
103; Oddie 2006: 100). This idea of a unified and clear-cut Hindu religion
was then used by the British to rule India (Hawley 1991; King 1999a: 159–60,
172; Pandey 1990 [1999]; Sugirtharajah 2003). Several colonial administra-
tive measures, based on the idea of one Hindu religion, helped in creating
this religion: the census and legislation of aspects related to religion (Dalmia
2007: 14–15; Frykenberg 1989 [2001], 1993; Haan 2005; Ludden 1996 [2005]:
9–10; Oddie 2003, 2006; Zavos 2000, 2001). To summarize, three elements are
identified as central to the role played by the Europeans in the construction
of Hinduism: a western Christian concept of religion, the idea that the
Indian religions formed one pan-Indian religion and the needs of the colonial
enterprise.
7
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
formed the priestly elite of India’s textual religion, which they represented to
the British as if it were the religion of the whole of India (see Frykenberg
1989 [2001], 1993; King 1999b: 103; Oddie 2006: 99, 265–67; Thapar 1989:
213; van der Veer 1993: 26–27). On the other hand, some authors argue, the
awareness of a common Hindu identity, opposed to the Muslims, also
existed in pre-colonial India (see Bayly 1985; Dalmia 1995, 2007; Lorenzen
1999, 2006; Oddie 2003, this volume; Talbot 1995; Viswanathan 2003).2 The
constructionists argue that Indian elites combined the orientalist assump-
tions about Hinduism and the colonial policies with these pre-colonial foun-
dations in order to create a Hinduism that served their purposes and motives,
viz. to gain prominence and power over other groups in India, to form a
nation, to resist colonialism etc.
In this regard, a lot of work has been done on the role of the Hindu
Reform Movements. It is argued that, in response to missionary criticisms of
their religion, Indians tried to give a positive portrayal by presenting it as a
religion that had the same properties as Christianity (Laine 1983: 165; King
1999a: 173; Oddie 2003: 158–59, 181 and this volume; Pennington 2005;
Thapar 1985: 18 and 1989: 218; Viswanathan 2003: 27, 35–36). The reform-
ers are said to have tried to ‘rid religion of the features most attacked by
Christian missionaries, [and] driven by a similar will to monotheism in their
attempts to make the Hindu religion correspond more rigorously to the
Judeo-Christian conceptions of a single, all-powerful deity’ (Viswanathan
2003: 27). Other authors describe the ‘native complicity’ more as an attempt
to form a unitary group or organized religion, so that the Hindus could form
a religious majority in India and stand strong against Muslim and Christian
proselytism and missionary and colonial attacks on their traditions (King
1999a; Oddie 2003: 166–73; Pennington 2001, 2005; Zavos 2000, 2001).
These reform movements – consisting mostly of elites, intellectuals and
brahmans – are thought to have played an important role in transforming the
Indian traditions into a unified and textualized religion mainly based on the
Vedāntic religion of the brahmans. They are also held to be the precursors of
the Hindutva movement of today (see Frykenberg 1993: 548; Thapar 1989:
218; White 2000: 105).
Some authors emphasize that Indians used the idea of religious unity in
order to form a Hindu nation or for political mobilization (see Dalmia 2007:
15–19; Dalmia and von Stietencron 1995: 19; Duara 1991; Frykenberg 1993:
526, 538–39; Hardy 1995: 47; Hawley 1991; King 1999a: 151, 160, 176–77;
Pennington 2005: 169; Thapar 1989: 210, 228–30; van der Veer 1992: 96 and
1993: 39–43; von Stietencron 1995: 71, 79); others say that it was a means to
get access to state resources distributed according to religion (see Frykenberg
1989 [2001], 1993). Some also see it as part of an agenda of the brahmans
to promote their own religion, the Sanskritic Brahmanism as a world religion
(see King 1999a: 170–71). It is said that because Europeans relied almost
entirely on brahmans as their informants, the latter could make use of this
8
I N T RO D U C T I O N
to present their religion as that of all Indians, to the detriment of other local
or smaller religions. Additionally, the religion of the brahmans also
resembled what Europeans were looking for: a religion with doctrines and
sacred texts. Thus, Brahmin collaboration and Hindu nationalist and Reform
Movements are said to have led to the Sanskritization, textualization, unifi-
cation, and essentialization of Hindu traditions (see Doniger 2009; Hardy
1995: 35–37; King 1999a, 1999b; B.K. Smith 1996: 368; van der Veer 1999:
430; Viswanathan 2003).
Contra construction
Most criticism of the constructionist thesis has been directed against the
claim that it is not legitimate to speak of Hinduism as one homogeneous
religion and the idea that before colonialism there was no Hindu identity
based on this religion. Instead, these critics argue, a Hindu identity did exist
in India prior to colonialism. For David Lorenzen (1999, 2006; see also his
chapter in this volume), for instance, the fact that poets like Kabir and
Gorakh had spoken about ‘Hindus and Muslims’ shows that a notion of
‘Hindu religion’ must have already existed in pre-colonial India. Wendy
Doniger (1991) argues that Hindus have always had a sense of a common
identity based on markers such as being native to India, having a shared
social structure, etc. These critics of the constructionist thesis, however,
focus more on showing that non-Muslim Indians already shared a com-
mon identity, than on explaining what exactly makes this identity into a
religious one (see also Mahmood 1993; Oddie 2003: 159–61, this volume;
Talbot 1995).
Moreover, critics say, the constructionist thesis once again denies agency
to the natives, and it is Eurocentric ‘to assume that when we [westerners]
made the name we made the game’ (Doniger 1991: 36). Even if the con-
structionist historiographies did restore agency to elite native informants,
they again leave other Indians – lower-caste, women, illiterates etc. – without
agency or without a voice in India’s history. Therefore, many scholars take
this debate as an occasion to advocate recognition of the agency of minor
religions, folk religions, oral traditions, the lower castes, women etc. by giving
them a place in their historiographies (see Chakravarti 2006; Doniger 1991,
2009: 1–3; Mahmood 1993).
Some critics say that the constructionists fail to recognize the existence of
Hinduism or of a common Hindu identity, because the latter are themselves
guilty of using a western (or Judeo-Christian) concept of religion (Sweetman
2003; Viswanathan 2003). These critics suggest that ‘Hinduism’ is a different
kind of religion. It is not a religious system with a core of common charac-
teristics, but one with separate instances that share family resemblances.
Hinduism is polythetic in nature and should be studied accordingly. As such,
to capture the nature of Hinduism we need something like a Venn diagram
9
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
A different story
Two authors have been left out of the story so far: Frits Staal and S.N.
Balagangadhara. Even though both have often been located among the con-
structionists, their claims differ from the latter in significant ways. Both
speak about the creation of ‘Hinduism’, but only in the sense of the creation
of a concept. To them, Hinduism is a conceptual unit, which exists only in
western universities and minds. Neither today nor in the past did the concept
of Hinduism correspond to any reality in India. These two authors do not
claim, as the postcolonials do, that Hinduism is in fact a collection of differ-
ent religions, nor that one aspect of Indian religions has been presented as
the religion of all Hindus. Instead they argue the following: if Christianity,
Islam and Judaism are religions, then Hindu, Buddhist and other traditions
cannot be religion. Moreover, ‘Brahmanism’, with its sacred texts and
Brahmin priesthood, as well as the many ‘local religions’, are as much ficti-
tious entities as ‘Hinduism’ is.3 Thus, they deny the validity of two central
elements of the constructionist thesis – namely that Brahmanism came to
represent the religion for all Indians, and the existence of a multitude of local
religions that were thus dominated and ignored.
More particularly, Frits Staal questions the applicability of the western
concept of religion to non-western traditions. This concept, he says, is
incoherent and has either to be abandoned or confined to the western tradi-
tions (Staal 1989: 415). Staal shows that the Indian traditions do not have
any of the characteristics that make Christianity, Islam and Judaism into
religions. Thus, the construction of Hinduism, according to Staal, is not that
of a homogenization of the different religions into one religion, but rather a
conceptual creation of something that does not exist in India. According to
him, different unconnected elements were taken together and transformed
into a religion. Moreover, contrary to most of the participants in the con-
structionist debate, the focus of Staal is not on showing who constructed
Hinduism and why (see above), but on developing a new understanding
of the Indian traditions and on showing in what way they differ from the
religions of the West. To put it in Staal’s own words:
10
I N T RO D U C T I O N
Balagangadhara (1994 [2005]; see also this volume) makes this point even
more strongly. He not only argues that Hinduism is neither a religion, nor
a collection of religions, but also explains why Europeans were compelled
to look for and see religion in India, regardless of their motives or attitudes
towards India. Different elements from the Indian culture, he points out, have
been taken together and presented as a religion. ‘Hinduism’ (also Buddhism,
Sikhism, Jainism etc.), then, is an entity that exists only in the western
experience of India and in the writings of scholars.4
In this way, one could say, Balagangadhara picks up a thread of Said that
has been largely ignored by the postcolonials, namely that the orientalist
descriptions tell us more about the West than about the Orient. He shows
that Europeans have seen religion in India, not because they used a western
concept of religion, but because Christian theology compelled them to look
for and recognize religion in some aspects of the Indian culture. As such, the
conceptual construction of Hinduism has little to do with the exigencies or
demands of colonialism or with the goals and motives of Indians.5
Even though he argues that it is wrong to look at the Indian traditions
as though they were religions, Balagangadhara differs with critics of the
concept of religion (e.g. Fitzgerald this volume; King 1999b, this volume;
McCutcheon 1997). He does not claim that the concept of religion is inade-
quate to study human phenomena. On the contrary, developing a theory of
religion allows him to distinguish between what constitutes religion among
the human phenomena and what does not. This distinction allows him to
show that India does not have, and never had, indigenous religions, and to
start conceptualizing the Indian traditions differently.6 Moreover, he also
claims that the construction of the experiential entity ‘Hinduism’ is not
caused by using a western concept of religion. Instead, it has to do with the
nature of Christianity as a religion that has compelled Europeans to see
religion in India.
Balagangadhara’s thesis generates important questions: if it was not reli-
gion, what did the Europeans see which they mistook for religion? What kind
of traditions exist in India, if the texts and practices do not form religions?
11
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
Raising questions
The importance of the constructionist arguments lies in the fact that they
point to a mismatch between the descriptions of ‘Hinduism’ and the realities
of Indian culture. However, the different positions in the debate are still
deeply contested. We would like to introduce a number of questions that need
to be answered, in order to take the debate on the construction of Hinduism
further and to allow for the development of an alternative conceptual frame-
work for the study of Indian traditions.
1. The constructionist theses are characterized by an ambiguity about the
nature of the process of construction. It is unclear what is constructed: a
concept, an idea or an object in the world. Did the Europeans and their
informants invent a new concept to describe and classify the religious and
social phenomena of India? If so, what are the implications of using such a
new term (concept)? Or did they actually produce a new religion, which is
now a real entity in Indian society? Or did they do both? Or does ‘Hinduism’
merely describe a pattern in the western cultural experience of India? Even
though most authors try to defend one of these positions, they continue to
struggle with these very different and incompatible options (see the chapter
by De Roover and Claerhout in this volume).
2. While they disagree as to whether Hinduism is really one religion or
covers multiple religions, both the constructionists and their critics share
the assumption that the phenomena described as Hinduism are manifest-
ations of religion. Some say that Hinduism is a ‘religion of a different kind’
than Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Others say that we need to look for
the common elements or family resemblances that characterize this collec-
tion of religious phenomena. However, such suggestions do not suffice.
One needs to show what makes this collection of phenomena into religion
(differentiating it from, say, social, ethnic, political, etc. phenomena). The
same problem applies to the claims that a Hindu identity already existed
in pre-colonial India. One needs to demonstrate what makes this identity
into a religious identity and not a geographical, ethnic, social or other
identity.
3. Another problem in the constructionist account is that it is not clear
what is problematic about the fact that Europeans used a western-Christian
concept of religion. Merely saying that this concept is influenced by Christian
theology does not reveal any fundamental problem. To draw an analogy,
12
I N T RO D U C T I O N
13
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
On the contrary, even today, we have many indications that Indians still
practice their ancestral traditions rather than any common pan-Indian
Hinduism.7 Nevertheless, if this is true, we have to explain why generations
of Indians have spoken as though they possessed a religion ‘Hinduism’ and
why a Hindutva movement could come into being that appeals to Hinduism
as one of the world religions.
6. Another problem in the constructionist writings is that most explan-
ations take the form of identifying the motives and purposes of the different
actors. That is, instead of giving explanations of how Hinduism could be
constructed, scholars dispute who was responsible for the construction and
which reasons and motives inspired them to do so. However, there is no
direct relation between the motives one has for doing something and what is
done. Someone’s motives for opening the door, for instance, cannot be read
from them opening the door; nor does their opening the door tell you any-
thing about their motivations for doing so. In the case of the colonial con-
struction of Hinduism, would it be possible to say that all colonials shared
the same motives, namely to colonize, control, and rule? And even if this is
possible, why should this lead to the creation of a new religion? For instance,
with the same motive of colonizing India, the British created Hinduism and
the Muslims did not. If colonial needs led the British to construct Hinduism,
then why did the Muslims not do the same?
Moreover, long before colonialism with its particular needs and motiv-
ations, Jesuit missionaries and European travellers had already described the
existence of a pan-Indian religion, even though they named the pattern dif-
ferently (paganism, heathenism, idolatry) (Oddie 2006, Sweetman 2001). In
fact, the British colonial descriptions of the Indian traditions were very
much coloured by what their continental European predecessors wrote
(Gelders 2009). Thus, the needs of the colonial government cannot become
the explanation for the European descriptions of the phenomenon that was
later called Hinduism. Likewise, in the constructionist account, the know-
ledge that allowed the British to colonize and control the Indians was also
the knowledge that allowed the Indians to fight and resist colonialism. These
motives are diametrically opposed – to dominate and to resist domination.
In other words, there exists no clear relationship between the motives for the
construction and the fact of the construction of Hinduism.
14
I N T RO D U C T I O N
The volume opens with one of the most important challenges to the idea
of a British construction of Hinduism – a challenge that has come from
David Lorenzen. In his Hindus and Others, Lorenzen argues that Hinduism
existed as a religion in India prior to the emergence of British colonialism.
His historical evidence lies in the fact that the medieval Indian poetry of
Kabir and Gorakh already referred to distinctions between ‘Hindu’ and
‘Turk’ or ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’. According to Lorenzen, this indicates a pre-
colonial consciousness of Hindus as a religious group and Hinduism as a
religious institution.
Geoffrey Oddie puts forward one of the main historical arguments against
the idea that Hinduism already existed prior to British colonization. In his
Hindu Religious Identity with Special Reference to the Origin and Significance
of the Term ‘Hinduism’, c. 1787–1947, Oddie discusses the gradual emergence
and spread of a sense of an all-India Hindu religious identity and explores
the origin and significance of the term ‘Hinduism’ in further developing this
awareness. Oddie points out that the term, first coined by the Europeans, was
readily adopted in India, especially by western educated Hindus. He argues
that it was used as a method of mobilization and self-defence for Indians
in the struggle against missionaries and colonials, especially during the later
stages of British rule. In conclusion, he relates these findings to the ongoing
debates about the definition of ‘Hinduism’.
John Zavos, in his Representing Religion in Colonial India, puts the ques-
tion of the construction of Hinduism in a broader context. He discusses the
opportunities of ‘rethinking religion in India’ with regard to the debates on
the colonial construction of Hinduism, the rise of the nationalist movement
and the impact of colonialism on religious identity formation in India. He
argues that we need to think beyond traditional orientalist representations
and normative western models of ‘religion’. Yet, he adds, even though ideas
of religion may be based on European structures of knowledge, these have
been dynamically developed through the colonial encounter. Therefore, we
should not just recognize the pre-colonial genealogy of this concept, but also
its continuing development in the context of colonialism, and more broadly
in the modern world.
Sharada Sugirtharajah is another voice, which argues that Hinduism is a
colonial construction. In her Colonialism and Religion, she points out that,
besides territorial expansion, colonialism also involved intellectual and cul-
tural expansion. The colonized were thought to be lacking in maturity and
colonialism was seen as a civilizing activity. She explores how these motives
of intellectual and cultural expansion informed the orientalist and missionary
understanding of ‘Hinduism’ and the Indian culture in general. Moreover,
she emphasizes that colonialism did not begin or end in the colonial era but
cuts across time and space and still determines our current understanding
of Hinduism.
In her Women, the Freedom Movement, and Sanskrit: Notes on Religion
15
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
16
I N T RO D U C T I O N
Notes
1 Even though this answer regained prominence in the twentieth-century academic
study of religion, this claim was already widespread in the nineteenth century
and before European colonialism. See for instance Monier-Williams [1875] 1974;
Farquhar 1912; Bouglé 1908; Wilson 1877; O’Malley 1934: 67–68; Ladd 1901. This
point has also been made by Oddie 2007 and Sweetman 2001.
2 This argument is often used as a critique on the colonial constructionist thesis,
saying that the role of the colonials could at the most have been one of selection,
not one of invention (see Lorenzen 1999, 2006).
3 This is of course not to say that none of the elements that went into the construc-
tion of Hinduism exists in India. The claim is not that there are no distinct tradi-
tions or texts in the Indian culture but that the way we understand them today as
different religions with sacred texts, specific doctrines and practices, makes us blind
for many of their characteristics and at the same time makes us see phenomena that
are not there. For instance, research at Kuvempu University has shown that, even
though generations of scholars have written about it, no single ‘Brahmin’ caste
exists that is universally accepted as superior, nor do many of the people – not even
the so-called priests – know the contents of the so-called sacred texts that constitute
the religion (Hegde 2008).
4 This point is picked up and elaborated by his students (see De Roover and
Claerhout, this volume).
5 This point has been elaborated by Raf Gelders (2009). Gelders shows that the
same structure of a Hindu religion was already present in pre-colonial European
sources.
6 See Balagangadhara (2005) for a possible way of describing the Indian traditions in
a different way.
17
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
7 Fieldwork at Kuvempu University that has looked at the different jatis in villages
in Karnataka shows that each group has its own tradition (Hegde 2008).
Bibliography
Balagangadhara, S.N. (1994; 2nd edn 2005) ‘The Heathen in his Blindness . . .’: Asia,
the West, and the dynamic of religion, New Delhi: Manohar.
—— (2005) ‘How to speak for the Indian traditions: an agenda for the future’, Journal
of the American Academy of Religion, 73: 987–1013.
Balagangadhara, S.N. and Claerhout, S. (2008) ‘Are dialogues antidotes to violence?
Two recent examples from Hinduism studies’, Journal for the Study of Religions
and Ideologies, 7: 118–43.
Balagangadhara, S.N. and De Roover, J. (2007) ‘The secular state and religious
conflict: liberal neutrality and the Indian case of pluralism’, Journal of Political
Philosophy, 15: 67–92.
Balagangadhara, S.N. and Keppens, M. (2009) ‘Reconceptualizing the postcolonial
project: beyond the strictures and structures of Orientalism’, Interventions, 11:
50–68.
Balagangadhara, S.N., Bloch, E. and De Roover, J. (2008) ‘Rethinking colonialism
and colonial consciousness: the case of modern India’, in S. Raval (ed.) Rethinking
Forms of Knowledge in India, Delhi: Pencraft International.
Bayly, C. (1985) ‘The pre-history of “communalism”? Religious conflict in India,
1700–1860’, Modern Asian Studies, 19: 177–203.
Bouglé, C. (1908) Essays on the Caste System, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Brockington, J. (1981) The Sacred Thread in its Continuity and Diversity, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Chakravarti, U. (2006) Everyday Lives, Everyday Histories: beyond the kings and
brahmanas of ‘ancient’ India, New Delhi: Tulika Books.
Chatterjee, P. (1992) ‘History and the nationalization of Hinduism’, Social Research,
59: 111–49.
Claerhout, S. and De Roover, J. (2005) ‘The question of conversion in India’,
Economic and Political Weekly, 40: 3084–3055.
Cohn, B.S. (1987; 5th edn 1998) An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other
Essays, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
—— (1997) Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: the British in India, Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Dalmia, V. (1995) ‘ “The only real religion of the Hindus.” Vaisnava self-representation
in the late nineteenth century’, in V. Dalmia and H. von Stietencron (eds) Repre-
senting Hinduism: the construction of religious traditions and national identity,
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
—— (2007) ‘Introduction’, in V. Dalmia and H. von Stietencron (eds) The Oxford
India Hinduism Reader, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Dalmia, V. and von Stietencron, H. (eds) (1995) Representing Hinduism: the construc-
tion of religious traditions and national identity, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Doniger, W. (1991) ‘Hinduism by any other name’, Wilson Quarterly, 15: 35–41.
—— (2009) The Hindus: an alternative history, New York: Penguin Press.
18
I N T RO D U C T I O N
Duara, P. (1991) ‘The new politics of Hinduism’, Wilson Quarterly, 15: 42–50.
Farquhar, J.N. (1912) A Primer of Hinduism, 2nd edn, London: Oxford University
Press.
Ferro-Luzzi, G.E. (1989; 5th and revised edn 2001) ‘The polythetic-prototype
approach to Hinduism’, in G.-D. Sontheimer and H. Kulke (eds) Hinduism
Reconsidered, New Delhi: Manohar.
Flood, G.D. (2003) ‘Introduction: establishing the boundaries’, The Blackwell Com-
panion to Hinduism, Blackwell Companions to Religion, Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
—— (ed.) (2003) The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Blackwell Companions to
Religion, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Frykenberg, R.E. (1989; 5th and revised edn 2001) ‘The emergence of modern
“Hinduism” as a concept and as an institution. A reappraisal with special reference
to South India’, in G.-D. Sontheimer and H. Kulke (eds) Hinduism Reconsidered,
New Delhi: Manohar.
—— (1993) ‘Constructions of Hinduism at the nexus of history and religion’, Journal
of Interdisciplinary History, 23: 523–50.
Gelders, R. (2009) ‘Genealogy of colonial discourse: Hindu traditions and the limits
of European representation’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 51:
563–89.
Gelders, R. and Derde, W. (2003) ‘Mantras of anti-Brahmanism: colonial experience
of Indian intellectuals’, Economic and Political Weekly, 38: 4611–17.
Haan, M. (2005) ‘Numbers in nirvana: how the 1872–1921 Indian censuses helped
operationalise “Hinduism” ’, Religion, 35: 13–30.
Hardy, F. (1995) ‘A radical reassessment of the Vedic heritage – the Ācāryahrdayam
and its wider implications’, in V. Dalmia and H. von Stietencron (eds) Representing
Hinduism: the construction of religious traditions and national identity, New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
Hawley, J.S. (1991) ‘Naming Hinduism’, Wilson Quarterly, 15: 20–34.
Hegde, R. ‘Fictitious connections: caste system and Hinduism’, paper presented at the
conference Rethinking Religion in India I, New Delhi, 21–24 January 2008.
Hiltebeitel, A. (1991) ‘Of camphor and coconuts’, Wilson Quarterly, 15: 26–28.
Inden, R. (1986) ‘Orientalist constructions of India’, Modern Asian Studies, 20:
401–46.
—— (1990) Imagining India, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
King, R. (1999a) ‘Orientalism and the modern myth of “Hinduism” ’, Numen, 46:
146–85.
—— (1999b) Orientalism and Religion: post-colonial theory, India and ‘the mystic
East’, London: Routledge.
—— (2006) ‘Book review of Pennington, Brian K. “Was Hinduism Invented? Britons,
Indians, and the Colonial Construction of Religion” ’, Journal of Religion, 86:
709–10.
Klostermaier, K.K. (1989) A Survey of Hinduism, Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Kopf, D. (1969) British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: the dynamics of
Indian modernization, 1773–1835, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ladd, G.T. (1901) ‘Present religious tendencies in India’, The American Journal of
Theology, 5: 217–39.
19
MARIANNE KEPPENS AND ESTHER BLOCH
Laine, J. (1983) ‘The notion of “scripture” in modern Indian thought’, Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 64: 165–79.
Larson, G. (1995) India’s Agony over Religion, Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Lipner, J. (1994) Hindus: their religious beliefs and practices, London and New York:
Routledge.
Lorenzen, D.N. (1999) ‘Who invented Hinduism?’, Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 41: 630–59.
—— (2006) Who invented Hinduism: essays on religion in history, New Perspectives
on Indian Pasts, New Delhi: Yoda Press.
Ludden, D.E. (1996; 2nd edn 2005) Making India Hindu: religion, community, and the
politics of democracy in India, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Mahmood, C.K. (1993) ‘Rethinking Indian communalism: culture and counter-
culture’, Asian Survey, 33: 722–37.
Marshall, P.J. (1970) The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McCutcheon, R.T. (1997) Manufacturing Religion: the discourse on sui generis religion
and the politics of nostalgia, New York: Oxford University Press.
Monier-Williams, M. (1875; reprinted edn 1974) Indian wisdom: or, examples of the
religious, philosophical, and ethical doctrines of the Hindus, Delhi: Indian Reprint
Publishing.
Oddie, G.A. (2003) ‘Constructing “Hinduism”: the impact of the protestant mission-
ary movement on Hindu self-understanding’, in R.E. Frykenberg (ed.) Christians
and Missionaries in India: cross cultural communication since 1500, Grand Rapids,
Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
—— (2006) Imagined Hinduism: British protestant missionary constructions of
Hinduism, 1793–1900, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Olson, C. (2007) The Many Colors of Hinduism: a thematic-historical introduction,
New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
O’Malley, L.S.S. (1934) India’s Social Heritage, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pandey, G. (1990; 6th edn 1999) Construction of Communalism in Colonial North
India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Pauwels, H. (2002) ‘Book review of Dalmia, V. and von Stietencron, H. “Representing
Hinduism: the construction of religious traditions and national identity” ’, Journal
of the American Oriental Society, 122: 151–53.
Pennington, B.K. (2001) ‘Constructing colonial dharma: a chronicle of emergent
Hinduism, 1830–31’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 69:
577–603.
—— (2005) Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the colonial construction of
religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quigley, D. (1993) The Interpretation of Caste, Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural
Anthropology, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Said, E.W. (1978; reprinted with new afterword 1995) Orientalism: western conceptions
of the Orient, London: Penguin.
Schwab, R. (1984) Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s rediscovery of India and the East,
1680–1880, New York: Columbia University Press.
Smith, B.K. (1987) ‘Exorcising the transcendent: strategies for defining Hinduism and
religion’, History of Religions, 27: 32–55.
20
I N T RO D U C T I O N
—— (1996) ‘After Said, after Ayodhya: new challenges for the study of Indian
religions’, Religion, 26: 365–72.
Smith, W.C. (1962; reprinted edn 1991) The Meaning and End of Religion, Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
Sontheimer, G.-D. and Kulke, H. (1989; 5th and revised edn 2001) Hinduism
Reconsidered, South Asian Studies, no. 24, New Delhi: Manohar Publications.
Staal, F. (1989) Rules Without Meaning: ritual, mantras, and the human sciences, New
York: Peter Lang Verlag.
Sugirtharajah, S. (2003) Imagining Hinduism: a postcolonial perspective, London:
Routledge.
Sweetman, W. (2001) ‘Unity and plurality: Hinduism and the religions of India in
early European scholarship’, Religion, 31: 209–24.
—— (2003) ‘Hinduism and the history of “religion”: Protestant presuppositions in
the critique of the concept Hinduism’, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion,
15: 329–53.
Talbot, C. (1995) ‘Inscribing the Other, inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim identities in
pre-colonial India’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 37: 692–722.
Thapar, R. (1985) ‘Syndicated Moksha?’, Seminar, September: 14–22.
—— (1989) ‘Imagined religious communities? Ancient history and the modern search
for a Hindu identity’, Modern Asian Studies, 23: 209–31.
van der Veer, P. (1992) ‘Ayodhya and Somnath: eternal shrines, contested histories’,
Social Research, 59: 85–110.
—— (1993) ‘The foreign hand, Orientalist discourse in sociology and communalism’,
in C.A. Breckenridge and P. van der Veer (eds) Orientalism and the Postcolonial
Predicament: perspectives on South Asia, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
—— (1999) ‘Hindus: a superior race’, Nations and Nationalism, 5: 419–30.
Viswanathan, G. (2003) ‘Colonialism and the construction of Hinduism’, in G.D.
Flood (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Blackwell Companions to
Religion, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
von Stietencron, H. (1989; 5th and revised edn 2001) ‘On the proper use of a deceptive
term’, in G.-D. Sontheimer and H. Kulke (eds) Hinduism Reconsidered, New Delhi:
Manohar.
—— (1995) ‘Religious configurations in pre-Muslim India and the modern concept
of Hinduism’, in V. Dalmia and H. von Stietencron (eds) Representing Hinduism:
the construction of religious traditions and national identity, New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
White, D.G. (2000) ‘Digging wells while houses burn? Writing histories of Hinduism
in a time of identity politics’, History and Theory, 45: 104–31.
Wilson, J. (1877) Indian Caste, Delhi: K.K. Book Distributors.
Zavos, J. (2000) Emergence of Hindu Nationalism in India, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
—— (2001) ‘Defending Hindu tradition: Sanatana dharma as a symbol of orthodoxy
in colonial India’, Religion, 31: 109–23.
21
Part I
HISTORICAL AND
EMPIRICAL ARGUMENTS
1
HINDUS AND OTHERS
David N. Lorenzen
How can we best study religious movements? What makes a religious move-
ment religious? How can religious institutions be distinguished from secular
institutions? Is Hindu religion or Hinduism a coherent concept? Can Hindu
religion be accommodated within the general category of the so-called world
religions like Islam, Buddhism and Christianity? Is Hindu religion more a
‘way of life’ or a culture than a religion per se? How do Hindus themselves
define and negotiate their Hindu identity? Any scholar who studies religious
movements in India and their migration abroad inevitably has to adopt at
least implicit presuppositions and hypotheses about these questions.
A further set of questions relates to how a scholar’s own life experience
may condition his or her views about specific religions and religious move-
ments. Can a scholar who was raised outside of India and Indian culture have
an authentic understanding of what it means to be a Hindu? Can a Christian,
a Buddhist, a Muslim, or an atheist, even if raised in India, have such an
understanding? What is the impact of colonialism and neocolonialism on the
points of view of both Indian scholars and European and American scholars
on these questions? Is it possible for scholars of different national and cul-
tural backgrounds to establish a meaningful dialogue about these questions?
Can they arrive at something resembling an international consensus about
the possible answers? If not, what is the point of attempting the dialogue in
the first place?
Obviously, this chapter cannot attempt to seriously engage with all these
questions. Much research is done without any explicit considerations of
them at all. Nonetheless it is sometimes useful to try to make what is
normally implicit more explicit. Here I want to briefly discuss three of these
related foundational issues. First is a look at how religion is being studied in
modern universities, particularly in the United States, and the influence of
Mircea Eliade on this study. Second is a discussion of the historical construc-
tion of the concept of Hindu religion or Hinduism. Third is an examination
of how three medieval Indian religious poets – Gorakh, Kabir, and Guru
Arjan – negotiated their own religious identities in a way at least partly
independent of both Hindu religion and Islam.
25
D AV I D N . L O R E N Z E N
26
HINDUS AND OTHERS
In terms of its consequences, the idea that Otto and Eliade promoted has
proved to be a powerful idea. By concentrating his research on the effects
of religious experience and not on its cause, Eliade offered a way to create an
allegedly ‘scientific’ mode of studying religion, and this possibility in turn
helped to legitimate the creation of new or expanded departments of religion
in most American universities. Since Otto’s and Eliade’s idea also posited
a common origin for all religions, these same religious departments were
also now free to expand into studies not only of Christianity, Judaism and
maybe Islam, but also other so-called ‘world religions’: Buddhism, Hinduism,
Confucianism, Shinto and the like.
The idea and study of ‘world religions’ did, of course, exist in Europe
and America well before Eliade and Otto. The field known as ‘compara-
tive religion’ was a direct precursor. Tomoko Masuzawa (2005) has written
an excellent account of the history of the idea of ‘world religions’ among
European and American scholars in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Most of the earlier discussions of these world religions arranged
them in hierarchical subcategories such as universal and national, historical
and ahistorical, ethical and ritualistic, monotheistic and polytheistic. In these
arrangements Christianity always came out on top. These unequal evalu-
ations were eventually dropped by most scholars, although traces of pre-
ference for Christianity or for other religions sometimes survive in implicit
form. The scholar who did most to eliminate such bias was Max Weber
who defined ‘world religions’ simply as those with the largest number of
adherents.
Eliade’s approach made possible a new and expanded effort to study world
religions, an effort that at least partly freed the study of these religions
both from a narrow-minded Christian or Jewish ideological focus and from
the reductive methodologies of the secular historians, anthropologists, philo-
sophers and psychologists. A new academic enterprise was born, one that
had clear affinity with the general need of the new post-war American
empire for more information about the cultures of the Asian and African
countries where the political and economic involvement of this empire was
growing rapidly.
This does not mean, however, that the young scholars, myself included,
who worked on Hinduism and other Asian religions during the 1960s and
1970s, were simply the dupes and stooges of Eliade and the new American
Empire. We were simply following our own hearts and our own curiosity, but
the fact that the American universities were now willing to hire persons who
worked in such fields certainly made things much easier. Nonetheless, my
own enchantment with Eliade’s history of religions approach did not last
long. I began to support the view that the chief function of religions was to
ideologically express the economic, social, political and psychological needs
of their adherents, needs that were often distorted by the priestly elites that
usually managed and controlled the religions. This, of course, is an idea quite
27
D AV I D N . L O R E N Z E N
at odds with the view of Eliade that such material and psychological needs
are purely incidental to the uniquely religious or spiritual foundation of all
religions in the experience of the sacred.
More recently, however, I have come back to a position partly akin
to that taken by Eliade, namely that religions are associated with a par-
ticular emotion or emotional experience that corresponds to Otto’s mysterium
tremendum et fascinans. I would argue, however, that Otto probably over-
emphasized the ‘terror’ and ‘awe’ aspects of this experience. Religions other
than Christianity, Judaism and Islam usually describe what must be roughly
the same experience without the same degree of terror and awe. We must
assume, after all, that this is a human experience and that different religi-
ous cultures can have only a limited role in shaping how it is perceived.
Sigmund Freud (1958: 1–12), in his Civilization and Its Discontents, called the
experience an ‘oceanic feeling’ and this description may be closer to what is
common to it in all religious cultures.
In any case, it is the association with this experience that makes religious
institutions religious. Furthermore, it is this association that imbues religious
institutions and their leaders with an aura of authority that helps them to
legitimate and prescribe the rules of the social, moral and political order
among their followers. Against Eliade’s view, however, it also seems to
me to be more useful to seek the source of this experience in human genetic
predispositions and not in an ineffable, empirically unverifiable encounter
with a supernatural ‘sacred’ identified as a god, a spirit, or some absolute
reality. Several recent books by prominent geneticists, most notably Dean
Hamer and Marc Hauser, point in precisely this biological direction.
The problem with Eliade’s approach to the study of world religions and of
religion as a general category was not just its affinity to the practical needs of
the American empire in the second half of the twentieth century. Another
difficulty was that Eliade was never able to fully divorce his history of reli-
gions methodology from the theistic and ultimately Christian biases that
were built into his and Otto’s intellectual visions. In practice, the writings
and teaching of many historians of religion in American universities have
tended to offer too much religion, often surreptitiously Judeo-Christian
religion, and too little history.
In India, both the political and religious problems of the history of reli-
gions approach were illustrated, making allowances for obvious differences,
during the recent period of national rule in India by the Hindu nationalist
BJP political party. Although Indian universities, unlike American ones,
have no tradition of religion departments, efforts were made under the BJP
to promote the creation of centres for Vedic ritual and astrological studies
within Indian universities. Studies of such topics can, of course, be under-
taken for strictly academic purposes, but in this case the main purposes seem
to have been religious and political, namely the promotion of Hindu nation-
alism, and not academic. Certainly religion should be more and better
28
HINDUS AND OTHERS
studied in Indian universities, but a strong case can be made that this study is
best left where it is: namely, dispersed among history, social science, literature
and philosophy departments.
Inventing Hinduism
In an essay entitled ‘Who invented Hinduism?’ (Lorenzen 2006), I attempted
to trace back the history of the terms ‘Hindu’, ‘Hindu religion’, and
‘Hinduism’ and their near equivalents in a variety of earlier texts written by
both Indians and Europeans (and also the Central Asian scholar al-Biruni).
The main motive for writing the essay was to contradict the view of several
recent scholars who had claimed that Hinduism was in some sense first
invented, imagined, constructed or fabricated by European scholars, princi-
pally those associated with the academic current known as orientalism.
As far as the specific English word ‘Hinduism’ is concerned, the earliest
published uses of the term that I had found were written by the early
nineteenth-century Hindu reformer, Ram Mohan Roy (see Killingley 1993:
62–63). The Australian scholar, Geoffrey Oddie (2006: 68–72), has since
noted that ‘Hinduism’ was earlier used by the evangelical writer, Charles
Grant, in a text said to have been written in 1792 that was first published in
1797, as well as in some still earlier private letters by Grant. Although this
fact overrules my suggestion that Roy might have been the first to coin the
term ‘Hinduism’, I had also argued that the terms ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindu
religion’ were basically synonyms and that ‘Hindu religion’ was used much
earlier than ‘Hinduism’. It is worth noting, for example, that the essay
by Charles Grant that Oddie cites as the earliest published text to use the
word ‘Hinduism’ also uses the term ‘Hindu religion’ and uses it much more
frequently and in exactly the same sense.
When it comes to early sources written in Indian languages (and also
Persian and Arabic), the word ‘Hindu’ is used in a clearly religious sense in a
great number of texts at least as early as the sixteenth century. The earliest
important references seem to be the discussion of Indian religion by al-Biruni
in the early eleventh century, and a text by the Vaishnava author Vidyapati
written about 1400 (al-Biruni 1964; Simha 1988: 269–70). Although al-
Biruni’s original Arabic text only uses a term equivalent to ‘the religion of the
people of India’, his description of Hindu religion is in fact remarkably simi-
lar to those of nineteenth-century European orientalists. For his part,
Vidyapati, in his Apabhransha text Kirtilata, makes use of the phrase ‘Hindu
and Turk dharmas’ in a clearly religious sense and highlights the local conflicts
between the two communities. In the early sixteenth-century texts attributed
to Kabir, the references to ‘Hindus’ and to ‘Turks’ or ‘Muslims’ (musalamans)
in a clearly religious context are numerous and unambiguous. The somewhat
earlier Hindustani texts attributed to Gorakhnath also contain several
unambiguous references to Hindus and Muslims in a religious context.
29
D AV I D N . L O R E N Z E N
Not only these various texts but also still earlier Sanskrit and Tamil texts
such as the Puranas, Vedantic and Mimamsa commentaries, songs of the
Nayanars and Alvars, and particularly the twelfth- or thirteenth-century
Sarva-darsana-samgraha all show clear evidence that their authors recog-
nized a close affinity and collective identity among all the religious currents
that symbolically recognized the authority of the Vedas (Lorenzen 2010;
Madhava 1964), an affinity and identity that is virtually indistinguishable
from Hindu religion even if the religion was not then given a specific name
beyond rather vague terms like ‘sanatan dharma’. Furthermore, these texts
also make it clear that this Veda based religious tradition and religious iden-
tity did not include Jainism, Buddhism, and materialism. Even less did it
include the rarely mentioned mleccha religions, Islam and Christianity.
All this is not meant to imply that Hindu religion has some unchanging
essence beyond history, nor that the colonial experience did not provoke
major changes in the ways Hindus organized their own religious beliefs and
practices. Attacks on Hindu beliefs and practises by Europeans, particularly
by Christian missionaries, certainly did foster responses by Hindu religi-
ous intellectuals that led to important changes in Hindu religion. Vasudha
Dalmia’s book, The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions (1997), contains an
exceptionally clear exposition of some of the ways in which the Christian
challenge modified Hindu religion. Similarly, since Indian Independence in
1947, the combined influence of modern media, particularly television, and
modern electoral politics have helped create what Romila Thapar (1985) has
called a new ‘syndicated moksha’, a standardized and homogenized sort of
Hindu religion that did not exist earlier.
Scholarly studies such as those by Dalmia and Thapar expand our under-
standing of the evolution of Hindu religion in important ways. When, how-
ever, scholars extrapolate from the existence of such changes and claim
that Hindu religion as a unified conceptual identity did not exist prior to
the British conquest of the sub-continent and that it was principally the
British orientalists who invented or constructed a unified Hindu religion, this
seems to me to be at best a highly misleading exaggeration, a wilful denial
of historical continuities that are an evident part of the historical record.
Outsiders like the colonial British may have been able to force or otherwise
convince some people to change their religion and adopt the religion of the
outsiders, in other words to become religious converts to Christianity, but
the idea that colonial outsiders can somehow invent, construct or otherwise
create a new religion, Hinduism, held not by themselves but only by those
with whom they have come into contact, is clearly an unlikely hypothesis.
If we can accept that a single Hindu religion is not simply an artificial
concept invented by European orientalists, we can move on to discuss how
Hindu religion differs from other world religions. As long as one discards the
idea that one or more major religions are better than others, some of the
classification schemes of early world religion scholars do indicate important
30
HINDUS AND OTHERS
ways in which religions differ. For instance, the dominant ideas of Hindu
religion about history, salvation and God sharply contrast with the domin-
ant ideas about these topics found in the so-called Abrahamic religions
(Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). Each world religion also has different
systems of internal organization, with Christianity having the most corpor-
ate structure and Hinduism probably the most fragmented. Similarly, all
Abrahamic religions demand much more doctrinal unity than is usually
demanded in Hindu religion (individual Hindu sects are often exceptions).
In my opinion, however, none of this justifies an attempt to argue that
Hindu religion is not a religion by claiming that it is rather a set of hetero-
geneous sects, rituals and creeds or that it is rather a general ‘way of life’
or cultural ethos. To a large extent, any world religion, not just the Hindu
religion, can be said to comprise a set of sects, rituals and creeds and a way
of life. The differences are those of emphasis, not of basic category.
31
D AV I D N . L O R E N Z E N
What makes this song particularly interesting is the final phrase, ‘Nobody is
Hindu, nobody Turk’ (hindu turka na koi). This phrase is remarkably similar,
in wording and sense, to the one that Guru Nanak (1469–1539) is said to
have uttered when he emerged from the river after his trance of enlighten-
ment, namely ‘Nobody is Hindu, nobody Muslim’ (na koi hindu hai na koi
musalaman). This statement, well known to all Sikhs, is found first not
among Nanak’s compositions in the Adi Granth, but rather in an early
legendary account of his life, the B40 janam-sakhi (see McLeod 1980a: 255;
1980b: 21).
A similar phrase does occur in the Adi Granth, however, in a song of the
fifth Sikh guru, Guru Arjan (1563–1606). In this song Arjan says: ‘We are [or
I am] neither Hindu nor Muslim’ (na ham hindu na musalaman). What is
particularly interesting about this song is that Guru Arjan gives it Kabir’s
signature (kahu Kabir). As Pashaura Singh has pointed out (2003: 16–17,
101–9), Guru Arjan several times quotes Kabir or uses his signature. Arjan
does this either to show that the theme of his song or verse is associated with
Kabir or to directly cite one or more verses from one of Kabir’s composi-
tions. Guru Arjan sometimes uses the occasion to suggest some criticism or
modification of Kabir’s point of view.
In the present case, the first three verses of Arjan’s song and the refrain
appear to be a direct quote from an early song of Kabir that is found only in
the Kabir-granthavali and in Gopaldas’s Sarvangi among the early collec-
tions.2 The last two verses are apparently written by Guru Arjan himself,
although the first of these two verses includes the na ham hindu na musala-
man phrase that, as we have seen, is probably an allusion to Kabir’s phrase
hindu turka na koi. Paradoxically, Arjan’s final verse that begins ‘Kabir says’
(kahu kabir) is evidently the verse that most clearly represents Guru Arjan’s
own words. Here is Guru Arjan’s song:3
32
HINDUS AND OTHERS
I don’t go on Hajj to the Kaaba nor offer puja at [Hindu] holy sites.
I serve the One [God] and no other.
I don’t do puja and don’t offer namaz.
I welcome in my heart the one Formless God (niramkar).
I am neither Hindu nor Musalman.
Body and breath belong to Allah-Ram.
Kabir says: I made this declaration.
Meeting with pir and guru, I recognized the potential in myself.
(Adi Granth, bhairau 3, in Callewaert (ed.) 1996: 1136)
The final verse in Kabir’s original song (Kabir-granthavali, no. 338) – the only
verse of the song that Guru Arjan does not quote from Kabir – reads: ‘Kabir
says: All error has fled, my mind is attached to the one Niranjan’.
These texts of Kabir, Nanak and Arjan embody two overlapping senses.
First, the key phrases can be taken to claim that all external markers of
religious identity, all particular beliefs and practices, are essentially meaning-
less in the light of direct mystical consciousness. Second, these phrases can
be taken to indicate that Kabir, Nanak and Arjan all tended to reject a
personal religious identity as either Hindus or Muslims and were moving in
the direction of building an independent religious identity, separate from
both Muslim and Hindu traditions. The change in pronominal reference
from ‘no one is’ (na koi hai) in Kabir and Nanak, to ‘we are not’ (na ham hai)
in Arjan also suggests a shift in this direction that accords well with the
course of Sikh history.
The best available collection of the early Hindustani songs and verses
attributed to Gorakh is the Gorakh-bani, edited by Pitambar Datta Barthwal
in about 1942. These texts cannot be accurately dated, but they do seem to be
earlier than the songs and verses attributed to Kabir in several collections of
the sixteenth century. As noted, both Kabir and Gorakh repeatedly refer to
both Hindus and either Turks or Musalmans in contexts that show that they
are talking about religions, not ethnic groups. What is most interesting, how-
ever, is the way in which they situate their own religious beliefs and practices
in relation to those of both the Hindus and Muslims.
The most intriguing verse from Barthwal’s Gorakh-bani (1960) relating to
the issue of religious identity is sabadi 14:
What makes this passage significant is, first, the clear recognition of three
separate religious traditions: Hindu, Yogic, and Muslim. Other Gorakh bani
33
D AV I D N . L O R E N Z E N
verses also support this division into three general categories of religious
identity. Most intriguing, however, is the clear intent of the author to simul-
taneously identify with all three traditions. He is born a Hindu, later also
becomes a Yogi, and intellectually adopts, in unfortunately unspecified fash-
ion, the stance of a Muslim. The second line of the text seems to negate
some of the implications of the first line since it implies a rejection of
Islam, but I take this to imply a rejection of Islam in terms of ritual prac-
tice and exclusiveness, not in terms of philosophical and metaphysical
speculations.
Another Gorakh-bani verse makes a somewhat different argument for
superseding religious boundaries, one that is similar to a view that is often
argued by Kabir. Here is Gorakh’s verse:
A true Dervish is one who knows [how to find the divine] gate,
Who inverts the five breaths,
Who stays conscious day and night.
That Dervish truly belongs to the caste of Allah.
(sabadi 182, in Barthwal (ed.) 1960: 61)
Here Gorakh implicitly juxtaposes the ordinary dervish who knows nothing
of Yogic meditation and breath control with the dervish who does practice
Yoga. The latter Dervish is the one who truly belongs to the caste of Allah
(alah ki jati). In other words, Gorakh here claims that one can remain a
Muslim and nonetheless reach enlightenment.
In one of Kabir’s songs in the Kabir-bijak (ramaini 49), Kabir makes a
direct comment on this same verse by Gorakh and argues, against Gorakh,
that it is not through Yoga, but through moral conduct and inner meditation
that Muslims, Yogis, Hindus, and Sants can all attain the enlightenment
of spontaneous mystical consciousness. In particular, Kabir attacks the
Muslims for their practice of killing buffaloes, goats, chickens and cows:4
34
HINDUS AND OTHERS
The following two verses, similar to many verses by Kabir, reject Hindu
and Islamic traditions in terms of the uselessness of both the Vedas and
the Koran:
Neither the Vedas nor the [Muslim] books, neither the khani-s nor
the bani-s. All these appear as a cover [of the truth].5
The [true] word is manifested in the mountain peak in the sky
[= Brahma-randhra]. There one perceives knowledge of the Ineffable.
Neither in the Vedas nor the Shastras, neither in the [Muslim]
books nor the Koran, [the goal] is not read about in books.
Only the exceptional Yogi knows that goal. All others are
absorbed in their daily tasks.
(sabadi 4 and 6, in Barthwal (ed.) 1960: 2–3)
In these verses the religion associated with Hatha Yoga, the religion of the
Nath Yogis, is clearly preferred to the religions associated with the Vedas and
the Koran, namely the Hindu religion and Islam. As in the verses of Kabir
and Arjan we have already discussed, there is a clear attempt to move in an
independent direction, to establish a religious tradition partly separate from
the two dominant traditions. Although all three of these poets clearly recog-
nized the religious boundaries and identities of the Hindus and Muslims,
each attempted to negotiate a separate religious identity for themselves,
and presumably their followers, by either rejecting both Hindu and Muslim
identities or by seeking some sort of composite identity. In colonial times,
the Sikhs eventually successfully negotiated an independent religious identity
35
D AV I D N . L O R E N Z E N
while the Naths and Kabir Panthis assumed identities as members of some-
what unorthodox Hindu sects.
Conclusion
This chapter has ranged widely: from a discussion of the influence of Mircea
Eliade on the way world religions are studied in modern universities; to an
examination of how Hindu religion has been defined by Europeans and
Indians over the past six hundred years or more; to a look at the ways in
which Gorakh, Kabir and Guru Arjan regarded their own religious iden-
tities. These different topics are connected mainly through the fact that they
depend on ideas about what religions have in common and how they are best
studied in an academic context. The topics are also part of a tacit dialogue
with two scholars who participated in the discussions of the conference
Rethinking Religion in India I, in January 2008, in New Delhi: Professors
S.N. Balagangadhara and Timothy Fitzgerald.
One of Balagangadhara’s main theses, argued at length in his book ‘The
Heathen in His Blindness . . .’ Asia, the West and the dynamic of religion
(1994), is that Hindu religion is not really a religion at all in the sense that the
Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are religions. At the
risk of oversimplifying his complex argument, I think that he generally sup-
ports the idea that Hindu ‘religion’ is more a culture or ‘way of life’ than a
religion and has too loose an organizational and doctrinal structure to be
classed as a single religion in the way that the Abrahamic religions are single
religions. As should be clear, I do not share all of Balagangadhara’s views on
this issue. In large part the disagreement has to do with our mutual ideas
about what constitutes a religion and what does not, as viewed from the points
of view of outside observers, on the one hand, and of inside participants, on
the other. Without going into a long discussion about definitions, it is worth
noting that Balagangadhara employs a narrower idea about what constitutes
a religion, or that, expressed differently, his idea of religion is more precise.
Roughly speaking, I regard almost any set of normative ideas about how
society should be organized and how its members should behave as a religion
so long as the internal variations in these rules bear at least a reasonable
family resemblance and so long as the source of authority for these norma-
tive ideas is considered to be supernatural or at least beyond reason. I have
also noted that it seems probable that the propensity of human communities
to accept such suprarational normative ideas is directly related to the pro-
pensity of human individuals to experience a particular sort of suprarational
consciousness. The value of such sets of normative ideas and the related
suprarational consciousness for human survival is, it seems to me, quite
sufficient to explain why religions exist without recourse to supernatural
explanations, although most members of religious communities will continue
to believe that a supernatural source does in fact underlie both the ideas
36
HINDUS AND OTHERS
and the consciousness. From this perspective, both Hindu religion and the
Abrahamic religions clearly belong to the same general category. In this view,
all the religions commonly classed as world religions do have enough in
common, enough of a family resemblance, to be classed together in one
general category. In these very general terms they are all religions.
Furthermore, once these religions are adopted into a given culture and
society, the place of origin of any given religion soon becomes largely irrele-
vant. When religions extend into new regions, the moral and cultural norms
that they sponsor are soon modified so that they better harmonize with the
dominant culture of the new regions. Some religions are undoubtedly more
‘national’ than others in the sense that they remain more closely associated
with a specific territory and nation. National religions in this sense include
Hindu religion, Shinto, Taoism, the Sikh Panth, Jainism, and, to some
extent, Judaism. Other religions have extended far from the regions in which
they originated to other territories and nations by migration and/or con-
version. Such more international religions include Christianity, Islam, and
Buddhism. Nonetheless Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists in India are cul-
turally and religiously different from the Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists
of other regions, while, especially in recent years, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and
Jews have spread out to many regions and have modified their religious
beliefs and practices in the process. Now more than ever, the distinction
between national and non-national religions is problematic at best.
The sense of religious identity held by the Hindus themselves is, of course,
also important. What I have argued is that Hindus did in fact share a
religious identity as Hindus at least as far back as 1400 and probably much
earlier as well. On the other hand, it is also clear that outside observers, both
Hindus and non-Hindus, may justifiably regard the members of certain het-
erodox religious groups to be Hindus although these persons themselves
may not regard themselves to be Hindus, or at least not exclusively Hindus.
The examples cited were Gorakh, Kabir and Guru Arjan. Gorakh is particu-
larly interesting since he in one passage directly suggests the possibility of
simultaneously negotiating multiple religious identities: as a Hindu, as a
Muslim, and as a Yogi. Kabir and Guru Arjan, for their part, both seem to
be moving toward a religious identity that transcends and differs from both
Hindu religion and Islam.
Another disagreement is with an argument put forward by Timothy
Fitzgerald about the relation between the secular and the religious. In his
essay entitled ‘Encompassing religion, privatized religions and the invention
of modern politics’, and also in his book, Discourse on Civility and Barbarity,
Fitzgerald has shown in detail how the concepts of the secular and the
religious are historically quite problematic (Fitzgerald 2007a and 2007b).
He notes that secular institutions have traditionally carried out a great
variety of functions that we normally think of as religious. Similarly, religious
institutions have carried out an equally great variety of functions that we
37
D AV I D N . L O R E N Z E N
Notes
1 See also Kabir-granthavali, pad 57 and Kabir 2000: no. 77.
2 This song is Callewaert’s no. 423 (Kabir 2000). The number in the Sabha edition of
the Kabir-granthavali is 338 (Kabir 1968: 347). See Pashaura Singh’s (2003: 31–33)
important discussion of Arjan’s song and its relation to this song by Kabir. The fact
that Kabir’s song is only found in the Kabir-granthavali and Gopaldas’s Sarvangi
suggests that it could conceivably have been composed by a follower of Kabir
sometime after Guru Arjan. Against this idea, Arjan does directly quote other texts
by Kabir elsewhere in the Adi Granth.
3 My interpretation of the last verse differs slightly from that offered by Pashaura
Singh (2003: 32). The song may also allude indirectly to at least one other Kabir
song. This other song appears in most early Kabir collections including the Adi
Granth (1996: 1349), the Kabir-granthavali (pad 259) and the Kabir-bijak (pad 97).
The song is no. 280 in Callewaert’s collection (Kabir 2000).
4 See also the fine translation of Hess and Singh (Kabir 1983: 87–88).
5 These two terms reappear in Gorakh-bani pad 16.5. Barthwal has an explanatory
note, but it is not clear on what his explanation is based.
Bibliography
al-Biruni (1964) Alberuni’s India, trans. E. C. Sachau, 2 vols in 1, New Delhi: S. Chand.
Balagangadhara, S.N. (1994) ‘The Heathen in His Blindness . . .’ Asia, the West and
the dynamic of religion, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.
38
HINDUS AND OTHERS
Callewaert, W.M. (ed.) (1996) Adi Granth [as Sri Guru Granth Sahib: with complete
index], 2 parts, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited.
Dalmia, V. (1997) The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions, Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Eliade, M. (1947; reprinted in 2005) The Myth of the Eternal Return: cosmos and
history, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
—— (1970) Yoga: immortality and freedom, 2nd edn, Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Fitzgerald, T. (2007a) Discourse on Civility and Barbarity, New York: Oxford
University Press.
—— (2007b) ‘Encompassing religion, privatized religions and the invention of mod-
ern politics’, in Timothy Fitzgerald (ed.) Religion and the Secular: historical and
colonial formations, London: Equinox Publishing.
Freud, S. (1958) Civilization and Its Discontents, trans. J. Riviere, New York: Anchor
Books.
Gorakhnath (1960) Gorakh-ban, edited by P. Badathval (P. D. Barthwal), 3rd edn,
Allahabad: Hindi Sahitya-sammelan.
Hamer, D. (2004) The God Gene: how faith is hardwired into our genes, New York:
Doubleday.
Hauser, M. (2006) Moral Minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and
wrong, New York: Ecco.
Kabir (1968) Kabir Granthavali, edited by Syamsundardas, 10th impression, Varanasi:
Nagaripracarini Sabha.
—— (1983) The Bijak of Kabir, trans. L. Hess and S. Singh, San Francisco: North
Point Press.
—— (1991) Kabir Bijak, in W.M. Callewaert and B. Op de Beeck (eds) Nirgun-bhakti-
sagar, vol. 1, New Delhi: Manohar.
—— (2000) The Millenium Kabir Vani, edited by W.M. Callewaert, New Delhi:
Manohar.
Killingley, D. (1993) Rammohun Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition, Newcastle
upon Tyne: Grevatt & Grevatt.
Lorenzen, D.N. (2006) ‘Who invented Hinduism?’, in D. Lorenzen (ed.) Who Invented
Hinduism? Essays on religion in history, New Delhi: Yoda Press; first published in
Comparative Studies in Society and History (1999), 41: 630–59.
—— (2010, forthcoming) ‘Hindu sects and Hindu religion: precolonial and colonial
concepts’, in a book in honour of T.R. Trautmann edited by C. Talbot, Delhi:
Yoda Press.
Madhava or Madhavacarya [attributed] (1964) Sarva-darsana-samgraha [a collection
of all doctrines], edited with a modern Hindi commentary by Umasamkarasarma
‘Rsi’, Varanasi: The Chowkhamba Vidya Bhawan.
Masuzawa, T. (2005) The Invention of World Religions, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
McCutcheon, R.T. (2003) Manufacturing Religion: the discourse on sui generis religion
and political nostalgia, New York: Oxford University Press.
McLeod (1980a) The B40 Janam-Sakhi, Amritsar: Guru Nanak Dev University.
—— (1980b) Early Sikh Tradition: a study of the janam-sakhis, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
39
D AV I D N . L O R E N Z E N
40
2
HINDU RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
THE ORIGIN AND
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM
‘HINDUISM’, c. 1787–1947
Geoffrey A. Oddie
The purpose of this chapter is (a) to discuss the gradual emergence and
spread of a Hindu sense of an all-India religious identity and (b) to explore
the origin and significance of the term ‘Hinduism’, including the part it
played in further developing this type of awareness. While the term was
important for Europeans (who appear to have coined the word in the first
place) it was readily adopted, especially by western-educated Hindus. It not
only became a reference point and focus of feeling and debate, but was used
as a method of mobilization and self-defence in the struggle against mission-
aries and colonizers especially during the later stages of British rule. In
conclusion, the chapter discusses how these findings relate to ongoing
debates centred on ideas and definitions of ‘Hinduism’.
41
GEOFFREY A. ODDIE
India as well as in the north, and became the basis of modern north Indian
languages. But apart from Sanskrit (the language of the elite) there was a
multiplicity of languages which divided ordinary people and which made
communication across the different regions extremely difficult. Alongside
this diversity is evidence of the ‘diverse and multiple religions’ which Romila
Thapar discusses in her detailed study of early India (Thapar 2003: 3).
Originally the term ‘Hindu’ had no specific religious meaning (see
especially von Stietencron 1989 [1991]: 11–12). Coined by outsiders (the
Persians and Greeks) it simply meant ‘Indian’ and, at that time in India’s
history, did not necessarily imply some form of religious cohesion or an
India-wide sense of religious identity among the people in general. Indeed,
Nainar Jagadeesan, von Stietencron and Sanjay Subrahmanyam all highlight
the extent of religious diversity, conflict and fragmentation that prevailed
among India’s people in different parts of the subcontinent prior to the
coming of Islam in the ninth century AD (Jagadeesan 1997: 230–39;
Subrahmanyam 1996: 44–80; von Stietencron 1995: 51–81). Especially well
documented is the intensity of the Vaishnavite–Saivite conflict in south
India, which, it has been argued, is best thought of as between two mutually
exclusive and distinctive ‘religions’. The lack of unity and extent of division
among the people (Hindus/Indians) has also been highlighted by André
Wink who has shown that, when Muslims first arrived in the north-west,
different Muslim factions coalesced with different groups in the local popula-
tion (Wink 1990: 196–201). This meant that rivalry was between class
or special-interest groups rather than between clearly defined religious
communities comprising the incoming invaders on the one hand and the
local people on the other.
42
HINDU RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
43
GEOFFREY A. ODDIE
Guru Arjun (1563–1606) who used the terms ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’ in a
religious sense but who denied that they belonged to either camp (Oddie
2003: 161).
This material suggests that, even before the period of British rule, some
Indians (possibly a higher proportion of those in northern and western India
than in the south) were beginning to develop their own sense of having a dis-
tinctive Hindu or home-grown religious identity. This appears to have included
the notion that as residents of India, or of their own particular region, Hindus
performed rituals, and had forms of worship and ways of contacting the sacred
which were different from those of Muslims and from people who had
migrated from outside of the sub-continent. However, a key question,
unanswered by commentators on the Mughal period, remains. This is the ques-
tion as to how far, or to what extent, a sense of a distinctive Hindu religious
identity was spreading among ordinary people, or even among the higher
castes and classes in the population. Indeed, one of our central arguments is
that the effect of different political and other developments was cumulative
and that the Hindus’ sense of religious identity spread further only gradually,
even during the period of British rule when Hindu religious customs and
practices appeared once again to be threatened through outside intervention.
44
HINDU RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
The evidence so far uncovered shows that Europeans (or rather Britons)
used the word ‘Hindooism’ at least twenty-nine years before Rammohan
Roy, the first well known modern Indian reformer to use the term in 1816
(Oddie 2003: 156–57; 2006: 70–72, 170–71). Charles Grant, an Evangelical,
and subsequently a director of the East India Company, employed the term
in a letter written from Calcutta to a friend in England in 1787. He also used
it a number of times in his well-known Observations written in 1792. Grant,
who can hardly be described as an orientalist scholar working to uncover
India’s ancient past, was not only a convert to evangelical Christianity,
but was closely allied with missionaries, including the Baptist missionaries
who settled at Serampore in 1793. Some years after Grant used the term
‘Hindooism’ in both his private and official capacity as a Company
employee, William Ward of the Baptist mission employed it in his diary in
1801. Joshua Marshman, another member of the Serampore mission also
used it (as an alternative to ‘the Hindoo system’) in his diary in August 1802
(Marshman 1802: 344). Indeed, evidence that Rammohan Roy met Yates
(another Serampore missionary) in 1815 and visited the Baptist mission
station in the following year (Potts 1967: 230), leaves open the intriguing
possibility that Rammohan Roy himself borrowed the term ‘Hindooism’
from the Baptists.2
45
GEOFFREY A. ODDIE
other religions eventually became one of the functions of the census com-
missioners at a later date. Religions were unified systems internally coherent
with parts that depended on each other; so, for example, ‘Hinduism’ was like
the workings of a clock – and a missionary, like Alexander Duff, could argue
that if you undermined or destroyed one part of the system the whole mech-
anism would cease to function.3 In all religions, according to this view, there
were elites (usually priests) who controlled everything from the top down.
There were sacred texts or writings (which priests or indigenous scholars
could interpret), and there was a belief system or ‘creed’, including some-
thing like an essence or hard core of belief (in the case of ‘Hinduism’ usually
‘pantheism’) that was its chief characteristic. But also, according to
Europeans, religions had their particular institutions and were also respon-
sible for the tone and kind of values permeating society.
One of the issues here is how revolutionary was this idea in India and what
difference did it make? There is a strong possibility that the European con-
struct of ‘Hinduism’ as described above incorporated some traditional
Indian elements associated with a religious system.4 There can be little
doubt, for example, that brahmans, who so often acted as pundits or
consultants for Europeans, approved of the European tendency to equate
‘Hinduism’ with what was called ‘Brahmanism’ – an elitist view of what was
supposed to be an India-wide system, and which stressed the importance of
priests and their role in the caste system and in the production and interpret-
ation of sacred texts.
But while the European idea of ‘Hinduism’ incorporated long held brah-
manical views of the overall system, it also introduced less familiar features
drawn from Christian experience and history. This was the emphasis on
creedal belief. Europeans in the census and other writings often used the
term ‘creed’ as a substitute for ‘religion’ and Indians themselves began to
describe ‘Hinduism’ in the same way. Hence the Bengali reformer
Debendranath Tagore published in his paper a ‘confession of faith’ and Lala
Lajpat Rai (1865–1928) who founded a new branch of the Hindu reform
association known as the Arya Samaj, included in his account of the move-
ment the ‘Ten principles to which every Arya is required to subscribe’ (Rai
1967: 79–80). ‘This’, he assured his readers, ‘is the simplest of creeds, to
which no Hindu, at any rate should have any difficulty in subscribing’ (Rai
1967: 80). Gandhi and other Hindus also used the term ‘creed’ in their
speeches and writing.
Furthermore the European emphasis on ‘a creed’ as one of the central
components of ‘religion’, began to influence indigenous terminology so that
by the end of the century, a term like ‘dharma’ had come to have almost the
same meaning as ‘religion’ or ‘religious creed’ (Young 1981: 34). How this
process came about (partly through missionary influence) has been discussed
elsewhere by Halbfass, myself and others (Halbfass 1988: Ch. 18; Oddie
2003: 163–64) and need not detain us here. It is perhaps sufficient to quote
46
HINDU RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
[T]he word dharma has been used with different meanings. Several
of the meanings have no use for us. The meaning in which you now
used the word dharma, that is simply a modern translation of the
English word Religion. It is no indigenous thing.
(in Brekke 1999: 207; italics in original)
Apart from the influence the idea of ‘Hinduism’ had on indigenous concepts
associated with religion, there was the influence of the term in identity
formation, and as an instrument in the process of religious, political and
other forms of mobilization. Indeed ‘Hinduism’ was a label that could easily
be used as a tool or slogan by both Europeans and Indians in propaganda
and in efforts to gain support and influence others.
When out preaching and in their books and pamphlets missionaries used
the term for comparative purposes, comparing Christianity with ‘Hinduism’
to the detriment of the latter (see for example Mundy 1834). In Britain and
the USA the term was also a very effective instrument in propaganda –
missionary societies for much of the nineteenth century contrasting all that
was diabolical in ‘Hinduism’ with the purity of the Christian faith. A con-
stant stream of mission society material representing ‘Hinduism’ as some-
thing like a chamber of horrors, underlined the urgent need for social reform
and evangelism that would save the poor heathen from the consequences of a
truly horrific religious system (Oddie 2006: 226). Indeed, the perceived con-
trast between ‘Hinduism’ and Christianity was one of the factors which
encouraged young men and women to participate in missionary activity.
East India Company officials, who for the most part, thought of ‘Hinduism’
as ‘Brahmanism’, could bask in the idea that they were helping to forge a
grand India-wide unity symbolized by ‘Hinduism’ through the maintenance
of Hindu temples and ceremonial and by endorsing the efforts of scholars
dedicated to uncovering and explaining Hinduism’s ancient teachings. Fur-
thermore, administrators (most notably census commissioners) embraced the
idea of ‘Hinduism’ as a neat solution to the way in which they could record
and quantify India’s primary religion. This was at least the initial idea until
census takers discovered that the term had little if any meaning among
ordinary Hindus and was almost impossible to define.5 The ultimate solution
was to enumerate those belonging to other faiths first (e.g. Christians,
Muslims, Buddhist, Jains etc.) and then to describe ‘the residue’ as Hindus or
followers of ‘Hinduism’.
But the term ‘Hinduism’ also had its uses in different types of conflict
within Indian society. The brahmans had their own reasons for welcoming a
greater use of this type of terminology. They could argue that of course they
were the custodians of India’s entire religion, namely ‘Hinduism’, and that
47
GEOFFREY A. ODDIE
they knew what its texts and tenets were and what needed to be preserved in
the Hindu tradition. Indeed, the increasing use of the term, together with the
widespread assumption that ‘Hinduism’ was in fact ‘Brahmanism’, probably
strengthened the overall control of the brahman elite who were so often the
consultants employed in legal, socio-religious and even land revenue affairs.
Furthermore, there was the increasing ease with which Hindu religious
and political leaders used the term ‘Hinduism’ in their bid for power and
support and in the elimination of rivals. Rammohan Roy, who founded the
Brahmo Samaj in 1828, drew a distinction between the ‘real Hindooism’
(which he promoted through his reform movement) and the superstitious
practices that deformed ‘the Hindoo religion’ and that had nothing to do
with ‘the pure spirit of its dictates’ (Killingley: Ch. 4). Lala Lajpat Rai, one
of the leaders of the Arya Samaj founded in 1875, was equally emphatic in
claiming to represent the true form of ‘Hinduism’, while Gandhi, who is not
always thought of as a religious reformer, also developed his own special
definition of ‘Hinduism’ (see Jordens 1998: Chs 3–4). Indeed, it was his idea
of ‘Hinduism’ as ‘moral action’ which, as Jordens has argued, distinguished
him from many other Hindus involved in the nationalist movement. The
particular and crucial moments during which his adherence to his own
model of ‘Hinduism’ furthered division rather than unity among Hindus is a
topic for further investigation.
By way of contrast with these more divisive models was the notion of an
inclusive and all-India religious system which could be used to unite people
against foreign missionary and also colonial intervention. Hence one of the
pamphlets published by the Hindu Tract Society (an organization founded in
Madras in order to defend ‘Hinduism’ against Christian missionaries in
1887) placed a great deal of emphasis on the need for unity. The writer of
the Tamil tract no. 2, asked readers if the missionaries converted Moslems
to Christianity. Replying to his own question he remarked that:
The Moslems realize that the danger to the Moslem is a danger to all
of them and thus safeguard their religion. Is it not due to this realiz-
ation and unity among them that the Moslems are not converted
to Christianity . . . Hereafter Hindus should not fight among
themselves, calling themselves Thenkalais, Vadakalais, Saivites,
Vaishnavites, Advaitins, Visishtadvaitins and Dvaitins; they should
act as one man and oppose the Christian religion.
(Tamil Tract no. 2, July 1887)
48
HINDU RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
49
GEOFFREY A. ODDIE
but more important than these verbal assaults in raising Hindu consciousness
was a real and growing fear of conversion, especially among the influential
higher-caste and western educated elites. It was this issue that did a great deal
to arouse concern, to create a sense of crisis, and to underline the need for
Hindus of different sects, cults and traditions to forget their differences and
join together in defence of what was seen increasingly as an overarching
dharma, or common religious and social heritage. As has become clearly
apparent in detailed studies, the conversion of high-caste individuals, usually
young men in mission schools, created enormous upheaval and ferment espe-
cially in the cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in the 1830s and 1840s.
Adding to the fear and bitterness reflected in these events, was Government
legislation banning the practice of sati (widow burning), the proposal to
introduce the Bible as a text in government schools and especially legislation
allowing converts to Christianity to inherit their ancestral property – all these
and other measures increased the belief that the British authorities were
siding with missionaries and were merely awaiting the right moment to abol-
ish ‘dharma’, or the Hindu religion, and introduce Christianity in its place.
The British, recognizing that fear of conversion was a factor in the Indian
mutiny and civil rebellion, adopted a more sensitive and (from a Hindu’s
point of view) a more balanced approach to Hindu religious affairs up until
independence in 1947. Even so, questions about the protection of ‘Hinduism’
and Hindu interests resurfaced, especially in the 1920s and 1930s. Indeed
the establishment of the all-India Hindu Mahasabha (in opposition to the
‘secular’ and religiously inclusive Indian National Congress) in 1915 was
very largely the result of a feeling that the Hindu community was in danger
from at least two further and worrying developments.7 One of these was the
loss of numbers of ‘Hindus’ through conversions to Islam and Christianity –
a trend clearly apparent in the census. The other was the perceived failure of
British and Indian leaders involved in constitutional negotiations over
India’s future, to pay sufficient attention to the task of preserving Hindu
rights and interests, as distinct from the rights and interests of minority
communities, such as Muslims and Christians. While seeing a need for
certain constitutional guarantees, as well as social reforms within Hinduism,
the Sabha also lamented the ‘conversion’ of Hindu hill tribes to ‘other
faiths’, and appealed to Hindus:
50
HINDU RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
losing whatever was sacred and special in their religious identity during
the period of British rule. The extent to which this awareness had actually
emerged among different classes of the population, even as late as 1921, is
still problematic.
In his introduction to the Madras Census of that year the Census
Commissioner remarked that:
Conclusion
Continuity as well as change has been an important element in India’s
religious history. Even before the advent of British rule there is evidence that
Hindus were developing a stronger sense of their own religious identity,
partly as a result of the discrimination or even the persecution they suffered,
especially during the latter stages of Mughal rule. This feeling, involving a
sense of having their own religious ideas, customs and rituals (and eventually
reflected in the adoption of the term ‘Hinduism’) was further developed dur-
ing the period of British rule – as a result of conflict with Christian mission-
aries, continuing rivalry with Muslims, a decline in the proportion of ‘Hindus’
in the Indian population, colonial government policies and other factors
which seemed to threaten the interests and welfare of the Hindu population.
51
GEOFFREY A. ODDIE
52
HINDU RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
Notes
1 Especially significant in this respect are the remarks of Fa Hsien, the Chinese
Buddhist monk who visited India in the years 405–11, who remarked that
untouchables had to sound a clapper in the streets of the town so that people were
warned of their presence; and that if an untouchable came into close range, the
upper-caste person would have to perform a ritual ablution (Thapar, op. cit.: 303).
2 On Rammohan Roy’s usage of the term ‘Hindooism’, including his reference to ‘the
real Hindooism’, see Dermot Killingly (1993: Ch. 4).
3 For Duff’s views in particular see Oddie (2006: Ch. 6).
4 On the collaboration of brahman pundits with European administrators and
missionaries during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries see especially
Rocher (1994) and Oddie (2006).
5 Referring to the term ‘Hinduism’ as used in the Census of 1891, the Chief Commis-
sioner remarked that it was ‘a clumsy name’ and one ‘justifiable only by conven-
tion’. Alluding to the official method of enumerating ‘Hindus’ for the report, he
declared that this could be done only through ‘the process of successive exclusion’
whereby ‘Hinduism’ was defined as ‘the large residuum that is not Sikh, or Jain, or
Buddhist, or professedly animistic, or included in one of the foreign religions,
such as Islam, Mazdaism, Christianity or Hebraism’ (Census of India, 1891, vol. 1,
India-Report: 158). The same problems and method of exclusion were referred to in
the Census of 1921 (Census of India, 1921, vol. 1, India-Report: 108–13).
6 Another way of explaining the emotive importance of the term, including the depth
of its symbolic meaning, is to compare it with other symbols such as the flag. Those
who are familiar with controversies over national or other flags will know that
these disputes are not merely about the material objects, but also about whatever
the flag implies. Hence the jubilation of soldiers who seize the enemy’s flag, and the
desperate bravery of others who risk their lives in attempts to get it back.
7 For the origin and meetings of the Hindu Mahasabha, see especially the Indian
Annual Register, 1924–40.
8 There is a considerable body of evidence in the Hindu newspaper and in other
sources showing that Hindus in Madras were using the term ‘Hinduism’ at least as
early as the 1880s. See especially the Hindu, 22 March 1887; 21, 27 Jan. 1887;
12 Dec. 1888; 13 April, 2 July 1889.
Bibliography
Bhardwaj, S.M. (1987) ‘Hindu pilgrimage’, in M. Eliade (ed.) Encyclopedia of
Religion, vol. 11, New York and London: Macmillan.
Brekke, T. (1999) ‘The conceptual foundation of missionary Hinduism’, Journal of
Religious History, 23: 203–14.
Gokhale, B.G. (1984) ‘Hindu responses to the Muslim presence in Maharashtra’, in Y.
Friedmann (ed.) Islam in Asia, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Halbfass, W. (1988) India and Europe: an essay in understanding, Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York Press.
India (1891) Census of India, 1891, vol. 1, Report 158.
—— (1921) Census of India, 1921, vol. XIII, part 1, Report 57. [Madras]
53
GEOFFREY A. ODDIE
54
HINDU RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
55
3
REPRESENTING RELIGION IN
COLONIAL INDIA
John Zavos
56
REPRESENTING RELIGION IN COLONIAL INDIA
57
J O H N Z AV O S
Hinduism–colonialism/religion–modernity
It is already clear that debates about the relationship between religion and
colonialism in India are strongly focused on the so-called ‘invention of
Hinduism’. This rapid transition from religion to Hinduism perhaps deflects
us from considering the conditions of possibility for such debates: conditions
which are focused on the broader issue of how the idea of religion can be
located within the social and political landscape of India, and what impact
this location had not just on Hinduism but on a whole range of positions we
might now understand as religious. It is important to step back from the
specificity of ‘the invention of Hinduism’, to think about the location of
religion, and I will return to this theme presently.
58
REPRESENTING RELIGION IN COLONIAL INDIA
59
J O H N Z AV O S
60
REPRESENTING RELIGION IN COLONIAL INDIA
61
J O H N Z AV O S
identity’ (2000: 21) structured around religion. In his later work Frykenberg
is careful to retain a degree of ambiguity in the character of this public
identity. ‘There were’, he says, ‘no illusions about the existence of anything
like a single “majority community”; and yet at the same time, many of the
newly “public” institutions which emerged were decidedly “Hindu” in their
religious manifestations’ (2000: 23). As is implied by the fight for control of
temple endowments, the atmosphere of competition encouraged the vocal-
ization of a range of approaches to the idea of a ‘corporate’ Hinduism.
Here, then, we see an exemplification of the twin processes of objectification
and fragmentation noted above as significant in the development of modern
religious identity.
The more recent work of Brian Pennington also demonstrates some very
interesting developments related to religion and emerging public space,
through his examination of the Calcutta newspaper Samchar Chandrika,
first published in 1822. Pennington explores the editorials, articles and cor-
respondence carried by this nominally traditionalist newspaper, set up to
protect religious ideas and practices from ‘the corrosive effects of a pervasive
reformism – both western and indigenous’ (2005: 140). In particular, he
demonstrates how this translated not as straightforward conservative resist-
ance or rejection of colonial modernity. On the contrary, the Chandrika was
driven by ‘an urgency to shape a modern, popular Hinduism through emer-
gent discourses promoting a centralization of authority and a common,
socially cohesive Hindu identity’ (ibid.: 149). This cohesive identity was
achieved by remaining strategically ‘silent on issues of doctrine and deity’,
whilst focusing on ‘patterning a general structure for Hindu action, social
and ritual’ (ibid.: 140).
The newspaper itself provided a critical public space for this patterning, as
well as contributing to the institutionalization of other significant public
spaces for such work. For example, Pennington describes how it provided a
forum for the discussion of issues related to caste regulation. Urbanization
and social mobility had, by the early nineteenth century, created a situation
in which established institutions regulating caste were being undermined,
challenged by new urban-based associations. The Chandrika assumed a pos-
ition in this fluid arena, providing authoritative comment on problems related
to ritual participation and relative status, as aired by correspondents. In this
way, the newspaper operates both as a space for debate over such issues and
as an authority in relation to their regulation. This, then, represents a new
way of imagining caste as a form of association and social relation, and it
is an arena in which the same literate, professionalized classes recognized
by Frykenberg can claim an authoritative position. As such, religion operates
as a way of enabling social classes capitalizing on the opportunities of
modernity to articulate their sense of authority in the public sphere.
How exactly does representation in these new public spaces change religion?
Referring back to Hefner’s twin processes of objectification and fragmentation
62
REPRESENTING RELIGION IN COLONIAL INDIA
and the argument that these processes are bound up with the idea of repre-
sentation, we can see an example of this change in the Chandrika’s response
to the prohibition of sati in 1828. The prohibition ordinance was of course
both preceded and followed by a great deal of rancorous debate over its
efficacy in the indigenous press and other public arenas. With its self-image
of traditionalism, the Chandrika was resolutely opposed to the ban, and
demonstrated what Pennington calls a ‘venomous hostility’ towards Ram-
mohun Roy and other indigenous advocates of prohibition (ibid.: 161). In
the years immediately following the ban, the Chandrika began reporting
instances of its defiance in meticulous detail. In these accounts, the heroic
stance of the bereaved wife – the true sati – was increasingly emphasized.
As authorities intervened to prevent the act of immolation, the Chandrika
reported how distraught wives would miraculously expire in order to fulfil
their dharma. This story became increasingly familiar in the pages of the news-
paper in the early 1830s, to the extent that the pattern of action began
to acquire a formulaic quality. ‘As the genre developed into stock tales’,
Pennington says, ‘the deaths became more mechanical’ (ibid.: 156). The
implication here is that the ritual processes associated with sati acquired
a new form in the context of the newspaper’s ability to recount, to make
public, to represent the idea of sati as traditional practice. It is not just that
the practice itself is changed (whilst at the same time, not changing, in the
sense, as Pennington emphasizes, that it exemplifies ‘all the moral character-
istics of the old practice’ [ibid.: 156]), but that the site of ritual shifts towards
the arena of representation. The development of a sati genre in the tales told
in the Samchar Chandrika seems to suggest that the meaning of the act as
traditional religiosity is held as much in the telling as in the act itself. Here we
can see Appadurai’s ‘new resources and new disciplines for the construction
of imagined selves and imagined worlds’ (1996: 3) in operation, producing
new conceptions of Hindu tradition in the public spaces of colonial Calcutta.
63
J O H N Z AV O S
The state certainly played a role in intensifying this trend. The Queen’s
Proclamation of 1858 constitutes a particularly significant intervention.
By declaring that ‘none be in any wise favoured, none molested and dis-
quieted, by reason of their religious faith or observances, but that all shall
enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law’, Victoria effectively
enshrined the idea of religious practice as a ‘right’ of subjecthood in colonial
India (see Zavos 2000). Organizations with an interest in religion consistently
referred to the Proclamation in claiming their right to practice in one or
another way. Here, then, was a further critical space for the representation of
religion, in which the ‘forging of new group identities within the arena of the
colonial state’ (Talbot 2000: 109) was effected. The imagining of religious
identity as a feature of public life was becoming increasingly institutionalized.
The representation of religions in relation to one another was of key signifi-
cance in this process of imagining. In general terms, the modern discourse
of religion was, towards the end of the nineteenth century, increasingly sub-
ject to a dominant organizational paradigm based loosely on Darwinian
theory about the natural world, now known as the ‘world religions’ model.
Although recent scholarly work on this development has tended to emphasize
the role of scholars and others in Europe and America (see Brekke 2002;
Masuzawa 2005), the role of the colonial world was intensely significant.
This is not just because the work of scholars such as Max Müller in developing
the so-called ‘science of religion’ was grounded largely in increasingly sophis-
ticated understandings of non-European religious ideas, but also because
the voices of the colonized were loud, persistent and influential contributors
to emerging debates. Torkel Brekke (2002), for example, has demonstrated
how figures such as Dharmapala and Vivekananda arrived at the World’s
Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893 in a combative frame of mind,
ready to outline the qualities of Buddhism and Hinduism respectively in
relation to the other religions represented in this forum. James Ketelaar
(1993) has done much the same in relation to Chinese and Japanese delegates
at the Parliament.3 It is clear that assertive ideas about the identity of reli-
gions in relation to one another was a feature of public life – not just in the
metropolis, but also in the colonial context. Indeed, the kind of organiza-
tions we have referred to above were deeply engaged in this activity, continu-
ally articulating and examining the qualities of religious systems in relation
to one another. This was as much an activity associated with so-called
orthodox organizations as it was with reformists like the Arya Samaj,
because both orthodox and reformist organizations were modern in form,
recognizable as legitimate in the public space of colonial India. This organ-
ized form gave them the authority to comment on the idea of religions and
religious communities in relation to one another.
One public arena which produced intense debate of this nature was that
opened up by the colonial state’s quantification of religious communities
through the census. This issue has been dealt with by numerous commentators
64
REPRESENTING RELIGION IN COLONIAL INDIA
so it should not detain us for long here. But it is worth emphasizing that the
census is, of course, another form of representation, through which the pro-
cesses of objectification and fragmentation are starkly evident. Several
accounts demonstrate that the attempt to map religious identity in the census
was consistently problematic. Michael Haan has examined the issue
explicitly in the context of the invention debate. Having considered the evi-
dence of census reports from the period he asks rather pointedly why, if the
colonial administration invented Hinduism, they had so much trouble identi-
fying it every ten years (2005: 18). Census superintendents were persistently
frustrated in their attempts to pin down what it meant to be a Hindu, and,
significantly, what it meant to be a member of other religious communities in
India. As Harjot Oberoi (1994) and others have pointed out, what was con-
sidered as religious practice frequently cut across the boundaries between
nominal religious traditions, calling into question the validity of categories
used in the census such as Sikh, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian, as much as
Hindu.
In effect, I think we need to recognize that this was a period in which the
idea of religious identity as a facet of social reality was becoming increas-
ingly organized, asserting itself as a dominant discursive formation in the
context of modernity. Unsurprisingly, indigenous agents – largely middle
class – were as much a part of this process as colonial administrators.
As Haan says, ‘every ten years a debate would re-emerge among Indian
intellectuals, political activists and colonial administrators over whether
Hinduism even existed, and if it did, over how it could be measured’ (2005:
15). A range of social agents, then, contested the representation of religious
identity as the categories associated with this discourse began to emerge.
Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the shifting position of the
Arya Samaj. Prior to the 1891 census, the Arya press was vocal in its
campaign to persuade its adherents to enter themselves not as ‘Hindu’ but as
‘Arya’ in response to the religion question. By the early 1920s, significant
elements of this organization were at the forefront of the so-called Malkana
shuddhi campaign, aimed at persuading communities of western UP Rajputs
with what we might now recognize as boundary crossing or syncretic prac-
tices to identify themselves as Hindus. Although the Arya Samaj had for
quite some years used shuddhi rites as a means of recruiting marginal groups
as Aryas, often in the teeth of opposition from caste conscious Sanatani
Hindu groups, they implemented the strategy in the Malkana campaign in
conjunction with these groups, as a means of ‘reclaiming’ Hindus. The key
issue was that these communities habitually identified themselves as Muslim
in census returns, and by the 1920s the issue of the numerical relationship
between Muslims and Hindus as exemplified through the census was a mat-
ter of intense concern to a whole range of middle class Hindus, Arya or
otherwise. The Malkanas became during this period the unfortunate site of
competitive campaigning by both Hindu and Muslim groups concerned with
65
J O H N Z AV O S
66
REPRESENTING RELIGION IN COLONIAL INDIA
Notes
1 The paper cited here provided the basis for Richard King’s chapter in this edited
volume.
2 The work of Nandini Gooptu demonstrates how this process was played out in the
early twentieth century not just in terms of professional classes, but also in the
developing politics of the urban poor (Gooptu 2001).
3 On this point and the issue of representation and religious identity more generally,
see Zavos 2008.
Bibliography
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large: cultural dimensions of globalization,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Asad, T. (1993) Genealogies of Religion: discipline and reasons of power in Christianity
and Islam, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Balagangadhara, S.N. ‘Embedding a genealogy into a framework’, paper presented at
the British Association of South Asian Studies Annual Conference, Leicester,
March 2008.
Ballard, R. (1996) ‘Panth, Kismet, Dharm te Qaum: four dimensions of Punjabi
religion’, in P. Singh (ed.) Punjabi Identity in a Global Context, Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Bayly, S. (1999) Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the
Modern Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brekke, T. (2002) Makers of Modern Indian Religion in the Late Nineteenth Century,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carrette, J. (2000) Foucault and Religion: spiritual corporality and political spirituality,
London: Routledge.
Fitzgerald, T. (2000) The Ideology of Religious Studies, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Frykenberg, R. (1989) ‘The emergence of modern “Hinduism” as a concept and as an
institution: a reappraisal with special reference to South India’, in G.-D. Sontheimer
and H. Kulke (eds) Hinduism Reconsidered, New Delhi: Manohar.
—— (2000) ‘The construction of Hinduism as a “public” religion: looking again
at the religious roots of company Raj in South India’, in K. Yandell and J. Paul
(eds) Religion and Public Culture: encounters and identities in modern South India,
London: Curzon.
67
J O H N Z AV O S
68
4
COLONIALISM AND RELIGION 1
Sharada Sugirtharajah
The chapter aims to address some of the issues raised in the debate on the
‘Construction of Hinduism’. My concern is not so much about whether
European scholars invented or created a new concept to describe and classify
what they encountered, but rather to look at their own hermeneutical strat-
egies in understanding India and its traditions. Instead of being stuck with
definitional ambiguities, I intend to focus on what western orientalists and
missionaries themselves have to say about their own methodology and their
own experience of what has come to be called ‘Hinduism’. Before I embark
on this task, let me clarify in what sense I am using the term colonialism.
Without minimizing the historical reality of colonialism, I wish to go
beyond chronological periodization and see colonialism as an attitude of
mind, a way of perceiving the world, that cuts across historical periods.
Although colonial ways of thinking and forms of knowledge were far more
pronounced and institutionalized in the colonial period, ‘colonialism’ did
not begin or end with the colonial era; it continues to inform and determine
current ways of thinking and producing knowledge about the Other within
and across cultures. Although this chapter has to do with British colonialism,
it is not my aim to privilege the British colonial period or treat colonialism as
a homogenizing category.
Whatever form colonialism has taken, it has not been an innocent activity.
As Aimé Césaire has said, ‘no one colonizes innocently’ (Césaire 1972: 39).
Historically speaking, colonialism began as a form of military and political
intrusion into alien lands for commercial benefits, resulting in territorial
expansion and the right to ownership of what was conquered. Colonialism
has taken diverse forms and has to do with not simply territorial expansion
but also intellectual, cultural and spiritual conquest. Such an ideology
formed an integral part of the colonizers’ thinking and was endorsed by
the colonizers themselves. Reflecting the prevailing mood of the time, the
German orientalist Max Müller, who adopted England as his country, not
only spoke in favour of territorial and political colonization of India but also
called for its cultural and intellectual colonization. He saw ‘Sanskrit scholar-
ship’ in terms of ‘discovery and conquest’ (Müller 1892: vi) and was keen
69
S H A R A D A S U G I RT H A R A J A H
that Britain should not stop with ‘the material conquest of India’; it should
not ‘leave the laurels of its intellectual conquest entirely to other countries’
(Müller 1892: viii). He pronounced that when the last two volumes of the
Veda were published, it would signal the ‘conquest of the world by means
of commerce, colonization, education, and conversion’ (Müller 1902a: 289).
Even a European philosopher such as Hegel saw ‘colonizing activity’ as a
civilized thing. The colonized was generally seen as weak, lacking in the
maturity of civilized nations, and the colonizer was seen as having a legitim-
ate right over the colonized. Hegel was of the view that ‘[t]he civilized nation
is conscious that the rights of the barbarians are unequal to its own and
treats their autonomy as only a formality’ (in Chidester 2000: 425). The
colonized were not entitled to or ready as yet to enjoy the fruits of civilized
societies, that is, political and civil liberty; colonial rule was seen as beneficial
both to the colonizer and colonized.
No one can travel in India and shut his eyes to the benefits conferred
on its inhabitants by English rule. In fact, our subjugation of the
70
COLONIALISM AND RELIGION
It is worth recalling that the Boden Professorship of Sanskrit which had been
offered to Monier-Williams, which had ‘for its object the conversion of the
natives of India to Christianity’ and the study of Sanskrit, among other
things, was meant to serve the purpose of conversion and Christianization of
India (Monier-Williams 1887: 20–21). This was the aim of the retired Colonel
Boden of the East India Company, who had ‘bequeathed the whole of his
property to the University of Oxford’ (Monier-Williams 1887: 20).
71
S H A R A D A S U G I RT H A R A J A H
The reader will perceive, that in all these religious ceremonies not a
particle is found to interest or amend the heart; no family bible . . .
no domestic worship; no pious assembly . . . No standard of morals
to repress the vicious; no moral education in which the principles of
virtue and religion may be implanted in the youthful mind. Here
72
COLONIALISM AND RELIGION
73
S H A R A D A S U G I RT H A R A J A H
Hermeneutical framework
It is important to look at the hermeneutical factors that inform the European
study of Hinduism. Let us turn to what missionary – orientalists themselves
have to say about their own theoretical and methodological framework.
Monier-Williams emphasizes the need to study non-Christian scriptures so
that one may become acquainted with them which is necessary to conquer
the enemy:
Similarly Horace Wilson states explicitly his purpose: ‘The task that has been
proposed to the members of the University is twofold. They are invited to
confute the falsities of Hinduism, and affirm to the conviction of a reason-
able Hindu the truths of Christianity’ (Wilson 1862: 41). He then goes on to
say that ‘for the effective performance’ of the task, it is important to under-
take ‘some preliminary study’ of the tradition in order to show its errors:
‘It is indispensable that we should be well acquainted with the practices and
doctrines and belief, the erroneousness of which we would demonstrate’
(Wilson 1862: 41). He also emphasizes that in order to convince Hindus that
their religion is erroneous, one ‘must satisfy them that they are in error before
you can persuade them to accept the truth. To overturn their errors we must
know what they are’ (Wilson 1862: 42). Such a methodological approach is
also taken by Farquhar. He cautions that the missionary should keep the
knowledge of Hinduism gained ‘in the background, to be utilized only when
74
COLONIALISM AND RELIGION
Religious diversity
Scholars of Religion are keen to show that although some Europeans con-
structed a unified Hinduism, they were not oblivious to the diversity of the
Indian traditions. While it is true that not all orientalists and missionaries
constructed a monolithic Hinduism, some nevertheless tended to use terms
such as ‘the Hindu system’, ‘the Hindu religion’, and so forth. While it is
true that they acknowledged religious diversity, they saw it as a sign of
weakness rather than strength. For example, Horace Wilson drew attention
to the heterogeneous character of Hinduism but remarked that most of it
was hugely unbecoming and scandalous and that the entire foundation on
which it is based should be demolished:
75
S H A R A D A S U G I RT H A R A J A H
76
COLONIALISM AND RELIGION
more than an archaic historical document shedding light on the origin and
growth of religious ideas and that any tampering with it would distort
the real significance of the Veda. In a letter to a Parsee Malabari, Müller
remarked:
I would like to emphasize that the aim of this chapter is not to be dismissive
of orientalist and missionary contributions to Indological studies, but to
draw attention to the hermeneutical presuppositions underpinning their rep-
resentations of Hinduism. This does not imply that cross-cultural perspec-
tives have no value in the study of religion, but rather that whoever speaks
for a tradition such as Hinduism, which is so diverse and complex, should
also address the question of ‘how to speak’ for a tradition. Such an exercise
requires developing alternate ways of thinking about the tradition and evolv-
ing conceptual frameworks that will facilitate a more nuanced understanding
and critical engagement with it.
Note
1 This chapter forms part of an ongoing research project.
Bibliography
Césaire, A. (1972) Discourse on Colonialism, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Chidester, D. (2000) ‘Colonialism’, in W. Braun and R.T. McCutcheon (eds) Guide to
the Study of Religion, London and New York: Cassell.
Farquhar, J.N. (1912) A Primer of Hinduism, 2nd edn, London: Oxford University
Press.
—— (1913) The Crown of Hinduism, London: Oxford University Press.
Monier-Williams, M. (1891) Brāhmanism and Hinduism; or, religious thought and life
in India, as based on the Veda and other sacred books of the Hindus, 4th edn,
London: John Murray.
—— (1887) The Holy Bible and the Sacred Books of the East, London: Shelly & Co.
—— (1879) Modern India and the Indians, 3rd edn, London: Trübner & Co.
Müller, M.F. (1892; 1st edn 1883) India: what can it teach us? A course of lectures
delivered before the University of Cambridge, London: Longmans, Green & Co.
77
S H A R A D A S U G I RT H A R A J A H
—— (1902a) The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller,
edited by G.A.M. Müller, vol. 1, London: Longmans, Green & Co.
—— (1902b) The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller,
edited by G.A.M. Müller, vol. 2, London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Sharpe, E.J. (1963) J.N. Farquhar: a memoir, Calcutta: YMCA Press; London:
Longmans, Green & Co.
Ward, W. (1817) A View of the History, Literature, and Religion of the Hindoos, vol. 1.
3rd edn, London: Black Parbury and Allen.
Wilson, H.H. (1862) Essays and Lectures Chiefly on the Religion of the Hindus, vol. 2,
London: Trübner & Co.
78
5
WOMEN, THE FREEDOM
MOVEMENT, AND SANSKRIT
Notes on religion and colonialism from
the ethnographic present
Laurie L. Patton
79
L AU R I E L . PA T T O N
And yet, to date, very few ethnographic studies have actually been con-
ducted that focus on the common-sense idea of what the English term
‘religion’ is understood to be within postcolonial environments. My own
recent ethnographic work on women and Sanskrit was not conducted with
that end in mind, but intriguingly, my interviews yield fascinating results
when mined for this particular issue. Briefly put, the generational differences
amongst women Sanskritists also yield different approaches to the status of
Sanskrit as a ‘religious’ language.
Background
Let me begin with some background, which I have also provided elsewhere
(2002, 2007). What is the situation of Sanskrit education in contemporary
India? In his recent volume on the role of the pandita, Alex Michaels (2001)
outlines the dual education system in contemporary India in which trad-
itional teachers find themselves caught: the university system, based loosely
on the English model of governments, schools, and universities, and the
pathashalas and samskrita-vidyapithas, where Sanskrit is taught according to
the traditional methods. There, the guru-shishya sambandha, or relationship
between teacher and student, is the primary model, where the teacher stands
for wisdom, memory, personal and moral guidance. Michaels mentions the
various ways in which, after the publication of the report of the Government
of India’s Sanskrit Commission (1958), various agencies have been imple-
menting its recommendations – especially the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
formed in 1970.
Despite dire predictions, Sanskrit has hung on. According to one report,
almost all of the recommendations of the Sanskrit commission have been
implemented, with 4,000 pathashalas funded by the Rashtriya Sanskrit
Sansthan, as well as many other vidyapithas and Sanskrit Colleges which are
funded independently or by local communities and temples. The study of
Sanskrit in secondary schools has also been a major priority, with more
limited success because of the other options for language study (English,
regional language, Hindi) recommended by state governments in India. The
BJP government’s support for Sanskrit study in the 1990s was higher than
previous governments, but with little improvement in the overall system of
traditional education as India increasingly competed on the global stage
in technology, science, and engineering. In the English university system,
Sanskrit has become a ‘humanities’ subject, with less qualified students, or
students with lesser need for high income, flocking to the registration desks.
While several other scholars (see in particular Bhate 1996: 383–400; van
Bijlert 1996: 347–66; Falk 1993: 103–20; Filliozat 2000; Mishra 1997;
Steinmann 1986; Van Der Burg 1996: 367–82) have recently commented on
the dual education system and its effect on the study of Sanskrit in India,
one crucial and overlooked element in this system is that of gender. Recent
80
W O M E N , T H E F R E E D O M M O V E M E N T, A N D S A N S K R I T
81
L AU R I E L . PA T T O N
A generational difference
So much, then, for the background. For the remainder of this chapter I would
like to focus on the ways in which the older women conceive of themselves as
public intellectuals who ‘came of age’ at the transition between colonial and
postcolonial realities. My data reveal that, for the older women involved
in the freedom struggle, Sanskrit was a cultural means by which freedom
could be achieved; it was a highly respected and ancient ‘vehicle’ that was part
of a Gandhian ideology which was not necessarily ‘Hindu’ or even ‘religious’
in nature. In postcolonial realities, Sanskrit has become something very
different – a mark of Hindu householdership. It can be a spiritual ‘ally’ and
‘support’ to the larger global realities of technological and scientific exchange
in the fields of medicine, biochemistry, information technology, and commerce.
This data, I believe, has important implications for how we might theorize
about the role of colonialism in the shaping of so-called ‘religious’ identities,
particularly around the question of what technology constitutes appropriate
and effective cultural exchange among equal, or potentially equal, cultural
partners. I want to suggest that what is understood as ‘effective technology’
can directly affect what is understood as ‘religion’, and that colonial and
postcolonial realities have had different ways of configuring this relationship.
82
W O M E N , T H E F R E E D O M M O V E M E N T, A N D S A N S K R I T
this day, beginning from the 1930s onwards. And translations of English
works into Sanskrit by Marathi authors include Wordsworth (C.T. Kenghe),
Longfellow (G.B. Palsule), Keats (N.P. Gune), The Sermon on the Mount
(S.N. Tadpatrikar), and Goethe’s Faust (L.V. Deshpande). In 1961, A.R.
Ratnaparakhi composed the Samvadamala, which is a series of thirteen
dialogues on daily subjects like breakfast, office, shopping and so on (1961),
which might be the precursor of the ‘Speak Sanskrit’ movement of Krishna-
shastri, called ‘Samskriti Bharati’ today.
The older women I interviewed all knew of and were influenced by these
local kinds of efforts, and spoke highly of the local Sanskritic literary (not
shastric) cultures, whether it was in Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, or
Uttar Pradesh of the time. Three of the younger women I interviewed had
parents who were quite involved in the communist movements in Bengal and
Maharashtra also during the 1940s and 1950s, and whose love of Sanskrit
came from their communist fathers who saw it as an integral part of the
vibrancy of Indian culture.
But most significantly for our purposes, they also understood Sanskrit as
Gandhian. All of the women in my study over seventy years of age who were
involved in the Freedom Movement expressed a more expansive, universalist
idea of the Sanskrit language. As one woman described her ‘bicycle ride
across India’, collecting money for the Quit India movement, ‘We chanted
shlokas all the way for Gandhi-ji. It didn’t occur to us that Sanskrit was an
elite language. It was just Indian’.
So too, a very senior woman who was involved in the Freedom Movement
in Pune spoke of her father’s friend teaching her an ashirvad – or prayer of
hope and aspiration. She told me, ‘When I first began to study Sanskrit,
before Pune University was even founded, this is how I got confidence every
day, and got confidence in my heart’. Learning an ashirvada and the found-
ing of Pune University were juxtaposed in a single sentence as part of the
same cultural continuum.
Another older woman tells of how her own teacher came to teach women in
the 1920s and 1930s, and his story is integrally bound up with the Freedom
Movement. He was a resident of Gowahati, in Assam, at the time, and was on
an undercover errand as a Freedom fighter. He fell ill by the side of the road
on his way to deliver a message, and the next he knew he was being taken care
of by women in the back of a house. When he was well enough to travel again,
the women said, ‘We know who you are and the cause you are fighting for. We
would like to give you these jewels to help support the cause’. He realized then
he was in a brothel, and since these women saved his life, he vowed in his
professional life as a Sanskrit teacher to commit to teaching women. She too
remembers her teacher holding cultural salons focusing on Sanskrit literature
as part of the vibrancy of the intellectual debate of the time.
For these women, then, the movement out of colonial identity was in part
mediated by a humanistic understanding of Sanskrit that was not particularly
83
L AU R I E L . PA T T O N
‘religious’. In a way, it could not have been, since the women who did engage
with female pundits like Pandita Ramabai were still very much ‘spectacles’
and exceptions. Female scholars, on the other hand, while understood in the
early years as ‘exceptional’, were not as problematic. Intriguingly too, the
university system was able to support much of their work, but they do not
understand themselves or their Sanskrit learning in the university as part of
a colonial legacy of education. Rather, they saw Sanskrit learning as some-
thing taking place equally in salons, courtyards, bicycle trips, streets, and
brothels.
Sukumari Bhattacarya, a senior Sankritist who wrote in the mid-twentieth
century, tells the story of coming to learn Sanskrit literature after great
resistance from the more traditional Hindu pundits. In our interview, she
spoke of the days when Sanskrit recitation was taking place, and she was
asked not to recite because people thought of her as a Christian. She recited
anyway.
Sukumari met her husband during a demonstration in Calcutta sponsored
by the Freedom Movement. He went on to become a professor of literature,
and she a lecturer in Sanskrit. Both of them understood their work to be
teaching about culture, both the positive and negative aspects of culture. As
Sukumari told me, ‘We never thought of the traditions we studied as religious.
If we did, we would not have studied them in the way we did’.
Although all of these women were very different indeed in their educational
commitments and even their larger philosophies of life, each of them under-
stood Sanskrit in a Gandhian nationalist context. The language had more to
do with the shaping of India apart from the British and less to do with the
shaping of religion per se.
84
W O M E N , T H E F R E E D O M M O V E M E N T, A N D S A N S K R I T
Another younger woman said that her connection with her grandfather and
her association with his kindness was integrally bound up with learning
Sanskrit.
Since I was five we had to recite chapters from the Gita, and the
subhashitas. It was a compulsion for us – not our wish, but we loved
our grandfather because he never punished us. He died in 1986, and
some spirit has carried on in my mind.
Second, and relatedly, for sixty-five out of the eighty women interviewed,
Sanskrit is associated with respect and honour for women as well as men in the
early family history. And this involved early understandings and negotiations
of Hindu ways of being. As one scholar, Mrs. Manik Thakar, told me:
Eminent scholars like S.D. Joshi, and so on, came to see us. They
were all a keen group. I recited a few shlokas and felt very much a
part of the group. I was respected as a child, and what is more, my
mother was interested in educating girls.
He used to teach only for boys, but by special tuition he taught girls on
Sundays. First girls’ batch he taught. The amount wasn’t much –
seven or eight rupees per month. But that was an age-old matter of
prestige, not of money for scholarship. He used to teach not only
Sanskrit, but Chemistry and French. Our headmistress said, ‘OK,
we’ll observe the rules of purity, so what harm is there in learning?’ He
had many different sides to him. Bhide taught us Panini. We became
familiar with that, and then we learned Laghukaumudi. We would
memorize certain portions, and as we recited he would explain.
85
L AU R I E L . PA T T O N
Third, and most importantly for our purposes, the women report their mem-
ories of domestic Sanskrit rituals as filled with colour, light, fascination, and
variation. More than half of those interviewed spoke of fascination for the
ritual use of Sanskrit as part of the ongoing interest in the field, and forty-
two mention morning puja (both positively and negatively). One very prom-
inent Sanskritist spoke of morning pujas as the thing that oriented her and
grounded her as a child. Saroja Bhate commented, ‘Sanskrit, one can do at
home, through morning pujas, as well as being a teacher in a college’.
One woman reminisced that she became fascinated with Sanskrit from her
weekly and holiday trips to the temple. As she put it, her trips to the family
temple continued back inside the household:
The chanting from the temple was so beautiful, and there was so
much time we would spend together with my aunts and uncles and
cousins – the whole family. We would continue the chanting from the
temple back into our living room, and even some of the tunes I would
hear from my father in the puja room the next morning too.
Several of the women spoke about negotiating with the priest in learning
how to do the pujas; for each of them, understanding Hindu practices was a
matter of trial and error, learning and perfecting. Mandakini Kinjavadekar
had very powerful memories of such learning:
None of these women actually performed the ritual in their childhood, but it
was clear that Sanskrit was a part of their negotiations in their narratives of
childhood learning about Hindu identity.
Recent anthropological work in performance studies has emphasized the
emotional impact of a fixed text, and this study very much supports this
idea. The women reported that Sanskrit recitation was experienced in differ-
ent ways in different climates. Forty-three of them mentioned that, while
reciting had no meaning for them initially, they were moved by the beauty of
Sanskrit to create a mood. As Saroja Bhate puts it, ‘I remember the Hindu
vaidikas of my childhood, where pronunciation was down to the minute
86
W O M E N , T H E F R E E D O M M O V E M E N T, A N D S A N S K R I T
details, in the exact and correct way. I was so impressed by the beauty of the
language’.
Relatedly, forty-four of them mentioned Sanskrit as part of the development
of an inner life in some way or another. As Ranjana Date put it,
I became interested in the goal of life, and how one should be happy,
and develop an internal happiness. For this, Sanskrit only is respon-
sible. I am indebted to Sanskrit for that reason. This is a road to
wealth which has been deposited for us, and it is key. By learning
Sanskrit, one can plunge into a sagar (ocean), and the more you
go deeply in, the more gems you might find. There is a subhashita
(auspicious saying): ‘When you have good learning, why there is
worry to fill your small stomach?’
There are large number of women priests now – and they want to do
service, to be of service like we do. And so whatever branch of know-
ledge they know, they perform this service for the family line. Many
women, they don’t take a degree. They teach more in the household,
and they perform service for the householders – Shrisukta and things
like that. And there are many ladies now doing this. Ladies also teach
puja-vidhi – the rules about worship.
There is much more to say about the role of Sanskrit in negotiating family
roles, but suffice it to say here that the role of Sanskrit in Hindu family life
was crucial for these women, and articulated as such.
Most significantly for our purposes, in postcolonial India, the public role
of Sanskrit was also Hindu. Sanskrit plays a role in bulwarking the cultural
scene at home while Brahmin men forsake their previous Sanskritic calling
to work in the minefields of technology. A large portion of the women
interviewed – fifty-nine out of eighty – spoke about the protection and culti-
vation of Sanskrit as stridharma – the duty of women. These women do
so because the men must compete in the global economy, and need higher
87
L AU R I E L . PA T T O N
salaries than the field of Sanskrit can provide, either in the ritual sphere or in
the university. ‘Women must take up this work’, said one woman; ‘we have
the ability now and the men do not because they are busy in other fields –
fields which are necessary if India is to become the leading country it prom-
ises to be in the world’.
This idea of protecting Sanskrit when the men cannot was a sentiment
expressed in many different ways – in stories about brothers who would have
taken up Sanskrit but could not, stories about the new ways in which women
are now taking a part of the public recitation contests, and so on. (And just
to pause briefly to correct a western stereotype: this public participation does
not mean that they are all right wing extremists; indeed, the majority of
them, when the subject came up [and it did often], were quite mild, even
critical, of the right wing in their political views.)
Such a view is a particularly but not exclusively Brahmin sentiment, as the
Brahmin men are the ones who are moving into fields of science and tech-
nology most dramatically. But this leads me to my final point. In a majority
of my interviews with women under sixty-five, technology came up at least
once as a way of thinking about the relevance of Sanskrit. The largest major-
ity (all of them with two exceptions) were women under the age of thirty-five.
Either it was understood as a language compatible to computers (the articles
on Sanskrit grammar and the Boolean system were not referred to, but rather
this connection was usually stated as a kind of general cultural fact), or,
more importantly, technology was seen as the next step in the chain of learn-
ing which began with Sanskrit. Indeed, technology is now seen as part of the
parampara, part of the heritage. As one person from Lucent technologies in
Atlanta, Georgia, USA, put it to me (slightly, but not completely, tongue
in cheek) in 2003, ‘My family is Yajurvedin, and most of the Yajurvedins
go to Lucent’.
88
W O M E N , T H E F R E E D O M M O V E M E N T, A N D S A N S K R I T
89
L AU R I E L . PA T T O N
most attentive to power relations within the globe, and less attentive to the
power relations that Sanskrit itself might perpetuate.
I don’t know how generalizable these findings are, but they suggest some-
thing important about the way in which ‘religious’ identities and linguistic
identities intersect in India. Apart from their lessons about gender (see Patton
2002, 2007), these findings have taught me that colonial and postcolonial con-
structions of religion have everything to do with linguistic formation and tech-
nological efficacy – what communicative technology ‘counts’ in resistance, and
what technology ‘counts’ for the new, and later newly liberalized, nation.
Notes
1 See personal communication, V.L. Manjul and Devi Tai, Upasani Kanya Kunari
Sthan, August 2004. Also see V.L. Manjul (1997; 2003); Damle (1997); as well as the
newspaper articles ‘Maidens mastering man’s mantra-Veda’ in the Sunday Herald
Spectrum; and ‘Starting Vedic studies’ in Hinduism Today.
2 R.N. Dandekar himself was always interested in cultural variations and local
transmutations of Sanskrit practices. In a personal conversation (1997) he told me
that he was sad that the ‘village’ Sanskritists were fewer and fewer these days,
because they provided the most interesting studies of ‘Sanskrit dialect’.
Bibliography
Anonymous (2002) ‘Starting Vedic studies’, Hinduism Today, Oct/Nov/Dec: 59.
—— (2004) ‘Maidens mastering man’s mantra-Veda’, Sunday Herald Spectrum, 11,
June 4.
Balagangadhara, S.N. (1994; 2nd edn 2005) ‘The Heathen in His Blindness . . .’: Asia,
the West and the dynamic of religion, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Bhate, S. (1996) ‘Position of Sanskrit in public education and scientific research
in modern India’, in J. Houben (ed.) Ideology and Status of Sanskrit, Leiden,
E.J. Brill.
Briggs, C. (1988) Competence in Performance: the creativity of tradition in Mexicano
verbal art, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Damle, M. (1997) ‘Women priests win hearts for dedication’, Times of India, 11/29.
Dandekar, R.N. (1972) Sanskrit in Maharashtra: a symposium, Pune: University of
Pune.
Driver, T.F. (1993) Life in Performance: reflections on ritual, religion, and social value,
Washington, DC: Society for Values in Higher Education.
Falk, H. (1993) ‘Goodies for India – literacy, orality, and Vedic culture’, in W. Raible
(ed.) Erscheinungsformen cultureller Prozesse, Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Filliozat, P.S. (2000) The Sanskrit Language: an overview, Varanasi: Indica Books.
Fitzgerald, T. (2000) The Ideology of Religious Studies, New York and London: Oxford
University Press.
—— (2007) Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: a critical history of religion, New
York and London: Oxford University Press.
Houben, J. (ed.) (1996) Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: contributions to the history of
the Sanskrit language, Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill.
90
W O M E N , T H E F R E E D O M M O V E M E N T, A N D S A N S K R I T
King, R. (1999) Orientalism and Religion: post-colonial theory, India and ‘the mystic
East’, London and New York: Routledge.
Manjul, V.L. (1997) ‘The hitherto forbidden realm. Women take to priesthood in
Maharashtra’, Manushi, 99: 38–39.
—— (2003) ‘Shirdi-sakuri don upasana kshetre’, Sri Sadguru Sairkrpa, Dassara-
Diwali Issue: 64–68.
Michaels, A. (2001) The Pandit: traditional scholarship in India, New Delhi: Manohar.
Mishra, K.K. (ed.) (1997) Sanskrit Studies in India, New Delhi: Rasthriya Sanskrit
Sansthan.
Murthy, A.K. (1978) Samskara; trans. A.K. Ramanujan, Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Patton, L. (2001) ‘The prostitute’s gold: Women and Sanskrit in one corner of India’,
in K. Pui-Lan and L. Donaldson (eds) Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Religious
Discourse, New York and London: Routledge Press.
—— (2002) Jewels of Authority: women and text in the Hindu tradition, New York:
Oxford University Press.
—— (2007) ‘The cat in the courtyard: Sanskrit and domestic worlds in postcolonial
India’, in T. Pintchman (ed.) Women’s Rituals, Women’s Lives, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Pawde, K. (1992) ‘The story of my Sanskrit’, in A. Dangle (ed.) Poisoned Bread:
translations from modern Marathi Dalit literature, Delhi: Orient Longman.
Pennington, B. (2005) Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the colonial
construction of religions, New York: Oxford University Press.
Pollock, S. (1996) ‘The Sanskrit cosmopolis, 300–1300: transculturation, vernaculari-
zation, and the question of ideology’, in J. Houben (ed.) The Ideology and Status of
Sanskrit: contributions to the history of the Sanskrit language, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
—— (2003) ‘Sanskrit literary culture from the inside out’, in S. Pollock (ed.) Literary
Cultures in History: reconstructions from South Asia, Berkeley and California:
University of California Press.
—— (2006) The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, culture, and
power in premodern India, Berkeley and California: University of California Press.
Ramanujan, A.K. (1973) Speaking of Siva, Penguin: Harmondsworth.
Ramaswamy, S. (1999) ‘Sanskrit for the nation’, Modern Asian Studies, 33: 339–81.
Smith, W.C. (1963; 1978) The Meaning and End of Religion, San Francisco: Harper
& Row.
Steinman, R.M. (1986) Guru Shishya Sambandha: Das Mesiter-Schuler-Verhaltnis im
traditionallen und modernen Indien, Wisebaden: Steinder.
Thompson, K. (2003) ‘Forms of resistance: Foucault on tactical reversal and
self-formation’, Continental Philosophy Review, 36: 113–38.
van Bijlert, V. (1996) ‘Sanskrit and Hindu national identity in nineteenth century
Bengal’, in J. Houben (ed.) Ideology and Status of Sanskrit, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Van Der Burg, C. (1996) ‘The place of Sanskrit in neo-Hindu ideologies: from
religious reform to national awakening’, in J. Houben (ed.) Ideology and Status of
Sanskrit, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
91
Part II
THEORETICAL
REFLECTIONS
6
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND
THE DISCOURSE OF RELIGION
Richard King
Introduction
In the 2008 Hollywood blockbuster movie Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of
the Crystal Skull, our hero – the dashing and brilliant professor of archae-
ology Indiana Jones – responds to an academic colleague who proudly cites
physicist Robert Oppenheimer’s famous comments upon the detonation of
the first atomic bomb, ‘I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds’, by
explaining that the words are not in fact his but are from ‘the Hindu Bible’
(by which he means of course the Bhagavad Gita – verse 11.32). This cine-
matic moment captures the central problem of the representation of Hindu
traditions in the modern world – namely the prevailing Christocentrism of
contemporary discourses of religion. This is no more clear than in the debate
about the category of ‘Hinduism’ itself.
In the following chapter I will outline my argument with regard to the
question of ‘are there native religions in India’? and ‘is “Hinduism” a colo-
nial construction?’ in the form of six paragraphs (in bold), which I will then
endeavour to unpack in greater detail in the narrative below each point.
(1) The extent to which Eurocentric epistemologies and categories impose
limits on contemporary thought is so obvious that it is either invisible or,
when pointed out, dismissed as inevitable (‘yeah, yeah, but that’s in the past,
let’s move on’). Either way, powerful ideologies, inequalities and entrenched
geopolitical structures are naturalized and rendered normative – the ‘gospel
of no alternatives’ rests on a bedrock of 500 years of European colonial rule.
By representing colonialism narrowly as a political and economic phenom-
enon its long-lasting epistemological power is occluded (that is, its ability to
transform minds and institutions long after formal colonial rule has ended).
The systematic occlusion of the epistemological power of colonialism makes
possible the claim that we now live in a post-colonial age.
95
RICHARD KING
October 11th, 1992 brings to an end the 500th year of the Old World
Order, sometimes called the Colombian era of world history, or
the Vasco da Gama era, depending on which adventurers bent on
plunder got there first . . . The major theme of this Old World Order
was a confrontation between the conquerors and the conquered on
a global scale. It has taken various forms, and been given different
names: imperialism, neocolonialism, the North-South conflict, core
versus periphery, G-7 (the seven leading state capitalist industrial
societies) and their satellites versus the rest. Or, more simply, Europe’s
conquest of the world.
(Chomsky 1993: 3)
What year is this? I ask this question not because I have a very poor memory
but rather because I want to draw attention to what has otherwise become
inherited ‘common sense’. The year is 2008, once called Anno Domini (‘in the
year of our Lord’) but now often more euphemistically referred to as CE – The
Common Era. One hardly need dwell upon the historical reasons why this has
become the common temporal narration for most people on the planet, but
sometimes it can be effective to state the obvious – that such periodization
and its naturalization reflects the ongoing hegemony of a broadly Christo-
centric account of human history. One might counter this by suggesting that
the year is actually 2551 BE (Buddhist Era), or the Islamic Year 1429 A.H.
(Latin: Anno Hegirae – in the year of Hijra) or perhaps even the Hindu year
5109 (dated by some from the beginning of the Kali Yuga in 3102 ), but
this will hardly get us very far because, as we all know, these examples are
provincial, culturally specific narrations of history and for that reason are
unlikely to gain global acceptance. This should give us pause for thought as
to what counts as ‘universal’ and what counts as ‘provincial’ and why.
Following Chomsky’s lead, the year 2008 Anno Domini, I suggest, could
be creatively re-narrated as the year 516 Anno Dominati (‘in the Year of
Our Domination’) in recognition of the pivotal global significance of the
year 1492 as the beginning of the period of European colonial domination
that has so dramatically reconfigured not only the geopolitical map of the
world but also impacted upon the cognitive mapping of worldviews amongst
European and non-European peoples alike.
The five centuries of European (now ‘Euro-American’) domination (which,
may or may not be in the process of unravelling – it is perhaps too early to
say for sure) has had an unprecedented impact on non-European civiliza-
tions and their ability to narrate alternatives to hegemonic and universalist
96
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
97
RICHARD KING
98
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
As a result the rich and complex civilizations that these terms purport to
represent became pared down, translated and subjected to a ‘conversion to
modernity’ premised on the cultural diffusion of a broadly Eurocentric and
Christian or perhaps we might say post-Christian view of the world (van der
Veer 1995).
We should note then that the modern conceptual distinction between a
realm of life known as ‘the religious’ from another called ‘the secular’ has
not been a feature of non-western civilizations before the advent of European
colonial expansion and the eventual spread of western(ized) conceptions of
the world and of history. It does not map well onto non-European civiliza-
tions without severe distortion of their own local histories and indigenous
categories (Fitzgerald 2000, 2007; King 1999). At an epistemological level,
the story of the normalization of western conceptions of the world is an
important chapter in the larger story of the birth of the modern world and
the transformation of non-western civilizations that this influence represents.
Through European colonialism and broader western influence across Asia,
the Americas and Africa, European assumptions about ‘the religious’ were
gradually universalized. ‘Religion’ effectively became naturalized as a feature
of ‘universal history’. The category could be re-defined and re-shaped to
a degree from one context to the next (indeed, recognition of a variety of
members of the genus ‘Religion’ required this), but the concept became
established as a normative category to such an extent that it becomes
increasingly difficult to question the category as a ‘naturally’ occurring fea-
ture of all cultures. Today, we simply assume that all cultures have one or
more ‘religions’ and never ask why this ‘common-sense’ appears so obvious
to us, when it would not have appeared so self-evident to many before the
advent of European colonialism. This largely unquestioned ideology
(though contested in a variety of ways, including ongoing attempts to re-
shape the category to fit non-European contexts) became the linchpin first
of a Christian missionizing vision of the world (‘they are all heathens and
we need to convert them to the truth of the gospel’) and then of a similarly
missionizing secularist modernism (‘we must bring our “enlightened” and
secular view of the world to liberate these poor superstitious and funda-
mentalist masses from their mystifying worldviews’). In this way the diverse
histories and civilizations of the ‘rest of the world’ become reduced to a
series of footnotes to the West.
As Tomoko Masuzawa has intimated, the cultural imperialism of the
‘world religions’ paradigm is less easily recognized as such because it does
not manifest itself in explicitly Christian terms. Christianity in fact becomes
one of a number of ‘world religions’ in this reconfiguration of world history.
However, what such apparently pluralistic and multicultural accounts occlude
are the set of broadly Christian cultural assumptions that prevail as forma-
tive features of the discourse. One no longer need accept explicit allegiance
to Christianity as a specific institution or communitas since the dominant
99
RICHARD KING
100
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
101
RICHARD KING
extent to which this notion can usefully be read back into a pre-modern/
pre-colonial India. In the 1990s a number of scholars (e.g. Frykenberg 1991;
King 1999; von Stietencron 1989, 1995) argued that an indigenous sense of
‘Hinduism’ as a unified religious tradition arose in the specific context of the
colonial encounter between European missionaries and orientalists (armed
with their own presuppositions about the nature of ‘religion’) and indigenous
Indian figures, most notably key members of the Brahmanical and pundit
communities. The popularized (if misguided) version of this thesis has dis-
seminated more widely as the ‘Hinduism is a western invention’ thesis.
When stated in this popularized fashion rather than interrogated, however,
such a view reflects an insufficiently nuanced understanding of the complex
colonial dynamic out of which ‘modern Hindu consciousness’ has emerged.
This popularized position has in turn come under increasing contestation
by scholars (notably David Lorenzen and most recently Brian Pennington)
who have argued that there was in fact a developed sense of Hindu religious
identity that preceded the introduction of Christian missionary and orientalist
influences from Europe. These important contributions require more attention
than I can pay to them in this context but I will nevertheless make some brief
remarks about them.
While it seems likely that the impact of the rise of Islam on the subcontinent
precipitated an awareness that ‘indigenous’ ‘Hindu’ communal identities,
beliefs and practices differed in significant ways from Islamic ones, this is not
the same as saying that ‘Hindu’ was universally understood in such a con-
trastive or ‘hermetically sealed’ manner in the pre-colonial period (indeed the
evidence suggests not), nor need such developments imply that differences
were coded according to a concept of ‘the religious’ (moreover, which concept
of ‘the religious’ would we be talking about here as the term is not uniformly
applied even in European discussions in the period 1200–1800 ). Finally,
it is not clear to me that one is avoiding anachronism when one speaks of
‘Hinduism’ as a unified religious tradition during this period. Nevertheless,
the impact of Islam and the long rise to prominence (in particular) of
Vaishnava monotheistic trends in parts of India from the thirteenth to eight-
eenth century may well have contributed to creating the conditions for a
greater receptivity to the notion of a unified ‘Hindu’ tradition in the pre-
colonial period. The catalyst for this modern development, however, I would
suggest, remains the colonial encounter with European rule and the assump-
tions that the European colonizers brought to the table about Indian society
and ‘religion’ – assumptions that derive from their own local histories and
not from India.
This is not (to restate my position) to argue that Hinduism is a western
colonial invention but rather to point out that the modern notion of
‘Hinduism’ was framed initially by European observers of Indian cultural
traditions and emerged out of the colonial encounter between Indians and
Europeans (particularly the British). Recognition of the disparity of power
102
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
103
RICHARD KING
104
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
Looking back at the specifics of British colonial rule and the emergence
of the concept of ‘Hinduism’, I would suggest that the dominant Anglo-
Protestant conception of religion that was at play in the British colonial
encounter with Indian traditions (and which continues to inform public dis-
course about ‘religion’) involved a strong emphasis upon the following six
basic and inter-related assumptions:
(2) The creedal emphasis (as in ‘the world faiths’): that religions (especially
the so-called ‘higher religions’, or what became known later as the ‘world
religions’) are primarily to be understood as systems of ‘beliefs’ involving
‘faith in’ or ‘assent to’ a set of specific truth-claims that all members of the
community are expected to adopt.
(4) Discreteness: that ‘religions’ by definition are (or at least should be) dis-
crete entities. Any evidence of ‘border-crossing’ or an ‘inappropriate’ mixture
of such ‘pure’ essences is evidence of contamination and ‘syncretism’.
105
RICHARD KING
(6a) Exclusivism: that religions (as discrete entities – see (4)) are naturally in
conflict with each other, grounded as they are in their own specific (absolutist)
and competing truth claims, or
106
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
107
RICHARD KING
108
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
109
RICHARD KING
he broke the precept. The Master replies, ‘I left the young woman by the side
of the river, but it seems that you are still carrying her with you’.
Similarly, the post-colonial challenge in articulating a ‘public Hinduness’
in the twenty-first century for both scholars and members of the Hindu
community is to develop new conceptual tools for representing the diversity
and distinctiveness of Indian culture, moving beyond a conception of Indian
civilization that remains just a little too culturally determined by Christian
and post-Christian conceptions of the world. The danger in such an
endeavour of course is that such strategies can (and sometimes do) morph
into a kind of reactionary indigenism that replicates many of the essentialist
and separatist features of the discourse it is seeking to displace.
The modern story of the rise of ‘Hinduism’ as a category seems to be a
story about the ways in which Indic civilization in its complexity and rich
diversity has become recoded and re-framed in a colonially framed modern-
ity according to a hegemonic, Euro-centred (mono-)logic – resulting in the
birth of ‘Hinduism’ (and other ‘-isms’ such as ‘Daoism’, ‘Confucianism’ and
‘Buddhism’) as ‘world religions’ and the partial occlusion (partial because
historical layers of Indic civilization continue to reassert themselves and
brush up against colonial epistemologies) of the polycentric nature of Indic
identity-formation. In my view we have yet to be able to develop appropriate
non-binary (dare I say: non-dualistic?) models to capture this polycentrism,
with the debate about ‘Hinduism’ remaining largely caught up in a binary
logic of ‘sameness (unity) vs. difference (fragmentation)’ that fails to capture
something significant about the relational-identities of Indic civilization.
One obvious way to explore such possibilities is to engage constructively with
indigenous Indian epistemologies and theories themselves, particularly those
that pre-existed the introduction of the universalized ‘discourse of religion’.
As Latin Americanist Walter Mignolo (2000: 9) has suggested, ‘alternatives
to modern epistemology can hardly come only from modern (western) epis-
temology itself’. This, in my view, remains the single most important task
confronting us – namely, how to extricate the history of Indian traditions
from its Eurocentric narration.
The key then is to change the language game – to develop models of repre-
sentation that are not premised on centripetalism, a myth of homogeneity
and an essentialist and hermetically sealed conception of mutually exclusive
‘religions’. Some of the intellectual resources for such a reconception can be
found from within the history of Indian thought itself. It may very well be
then that the quest for a postcolonial discourse of ‘Hinduism’ may require, if
not the explicit abandonment of the term itself, at least a rejection of many
of the modernist and Christocentric assumptions upon which it has been
based – with the aim of developing a public discourse about ‘Hinduness’ that
more adequately reflects rather than distorts an understanding and appreci-
ation of the internal dynamics and history of Indian civilization.
Finally, I would suggest that much of the scholarly debate about the
110
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
Notes
1 Pennington, however, rejects much of the contemporary critique of the concept of
religion and, in fact, suggests that it is dangerous because it undermines the ground
for further interreligious understanding between Hindus and Christians. Such a
characterization, of course, begs the question. Moreover, it occludes the subtle
Christocentrism of much ‘interfaith dialogue’. In describing Hinduism and Christi-
anity as ‘two great faiths’ in need of ‘better representation’ [185], the author seems
unaware that this characterization itself privileges one of the dialogue partners
[Christianity] in the emphasis upon ‘faith’ as a determining element in a tradition’s
identity formation. Thus, one could just as easily argue that the concept of ‘religion’
is an obstacle to a genuine appreciation of cultural difference. Pennington argues
that scholars of South Asia should remain sensitive to the needs of Hindus ‘to be
understood on their own terms, according to their own categories’ [182], yet this is
precisely why some question the usefulness of the term when applied to pre-colonial
Hindu traditions.
2 My use of the metaphor ‘centripetal’ here denotes an approach to identity-formation
111
RICHARD KING
that seeks to draw in diverse strands towards the centre, reflecting a strong impulse
towards homogenized unity and singular truth-claims. It can be implicitly contrasted
with ‘centrifugal’ models of identity-formation that resist a unitary, centralizing
focus and operate instead on the basis of interactive dispersal across a polycentric
network of nodes. I am aware that I am mixing my metaphors here, but this high-
lights the conceptual paucity of prevailing models for rethinking Indian traditions
and movements outside the terms and paradigms set by the universalized discourse
of ‘religion’.
3 For instance, H.H. Wilson’s emphasis on medieval bhakti as constitutive of the
essence of the Hindu tradition challenges premise 5 (on page 164); the conflictual
nature of religions is contested by those who argued for a mystical core common to
all traditions etc.
4 The classification of certain ‘world religions’ into ‘Abrahamic’ (or ‘Semitic
Religions’ or ‘Religions of the Book’) and ‘Indic’ is of course itself a by-product of
mid- to late-nineteenth-century attempts at a definitive classification of ‘religious
families’ and is further reinforced in a contemporary context by the disciplinary
specializations of scholars of religion who rarely cross this boundary in their schol-
arly and linguistic training.
Bibliography
Balagangadhara, S.N. (1994) ‘The Heathen in His Blindness . . .’ Asia, the West and
the dynamic of religion, Leiden: E.J. Brill; reprinted (2005), New Delhi: Manohar.
Chakrabarty, D. (2000; new edn 2007) Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and
historical difference, Princeton studies in culture/power/history, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1993) Year 501: the conquest continues, Boston: South End Press.
Derrida, J. (2002) ‘Faith and knowledge: the two sources of “religion” at the limits of
reason alone’, in G. Anidjar (ed.) Acts of Religion, New York: Routledge.
Dubuisson, D. (2003) The Western Construction of Religion: myths, knowledge and
ideology, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; original French edn
(1998) L’Occident Et La Religion: mythes, science et idéologie, Éditions Complexe.
Fitzgerald, T. (2000) The Ideology of Religious Studies, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
—— (2007) Discourse on Civility and Barbarity, Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
Frykenberg, R.E. (1991) ‘The emergence of modern “Hinduism” as a concept and
an institution: a reappraisal with special reference to South India’, in G.-D.
Sontheimer and H. Kulke (eds) Hinduism Reconsidered, New Delhi: Manohar
Publications.
King, R. (1999) Orientalism and Religion: postcolonial theory, India and ‘the mystic
East’, London and New York: Routledge.
Lipner, J.J. (1996) ‘Ancient banyan: an inquiry into the meaning of “Hinduness” ’,
Religious Studies, 32: 109–26.
Lorenzen, D.N. (1999) ‘Who invented Hinduism?’, Comparative Studies in Society
and History, 42: 630–59.
—— (2007) ‘Gentile religion in South India, China, and Tibet: studies by three Jesuit
missionaries’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 27:
203–13.
112
COLONIALISM, HINDUISM AND RELIGION
113
7
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
RETHINKING RELIGION
IN INDIA
Timothy Fitzgerald
Introduction
In this chapter, I will reflect on the issue of the representation of India in
Anglophone and more widely Europhone categories (‘religion’ being our
prime focus). I will take issue with the claim, made by David Lorenzen1 and
others, that ‘religions existed in India’ independently of colonial interven-
tions. More specifically I will introduce a number of features of the Anglo-
European history of the category ‘religion’ directly into the context of
a critique of David Lorenzen’s analysis of the situation in India. I will do
this mainly as it has been published in his famous essay ‘Who invented
Hinduism?’ (1999: 630–59) though I will also connect this with claims he has
made in his conference paper ‘Gentile religion in South India, China and
Tibet: studies by three missionaries’.2 What I hope to add to the discussion
is a view from the Anglo-European end of the relationship of the birth of the
modern Anglophone category ‘religion’ and its plural form ‘religions’ since
the seventeenth century, as well as its ideological function in the wider
colonial enterprise. I have also included a section on the use of the term
‘sects’, which Lorenzen seems to use as an unproblematic placeholder for
modern generic ‘religions’.
Many of the problems raised in the discussions and debates about the
category religion in India are paralleled in other non-western contexts such
as Japan. One of the virtues of Lorenzen’s paper ‘Gentile religion in South
India, China and Tibet: studies by three missionaries’ (2007) is that it draws
attention to the colonial classifications not only of Hinduism as a religion,
but of widely diverse ideologies such as Buddhism, Confucianism and
Daoism. He might also have added Shintoism. One problem is that Indolo-
gists, like Japanologists, Sinologists, or Tibetologists, tend to concentrate
their attention on what happens within India (or Japan or China or Tibet)
without considering in much detail either the wider picture of colonial power
114
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
115
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
116
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
truth and thus could be saved, though admittedly with difficulty. And thirdly,
without Christian conversion and baptism none of this natural religion by
itself could save one from hell anyway. Thus, the question concerning who
had true religion and who did not was a matter of heaven or hell,5 not merely
a middle class academic game. And probably the idea that religion must be
universal, which is such an article of faith among modern social scientists
and experts in various fields of the humanities, derives in the first place from
this Christian theological premise. The point here is that, when Indologists
(or Sinologists, Tibetologists or Japanologists) claim that religions existed in
India (or Tibet, China or Japan) before Christian colonization, how will they
distinguish their claim from this theological premise?
Much of modern British history has happened in other people’s countries,
and yet at the same time much of modern Indian history has happened
in English (as well as Portuguese, French, Dutch etc.). We cannot under-
stand the problems of representing India in English or more generally
Europhone categories without paying attention to what Christian missionar-
ies (or company and civil servants, traders and capitalists, or soldiers) pursu-
ing their interests in India were able to think within the discursive constraints
of the English, British or more widely European Christian imaginaire. For
example, if some scholar makes the claim that there were ‘religions’ in the
plural in pre-colonial India at a time when the concept would have seemed
absurd or ironic in England or Europe more generally then we should sense
that there is a problem with the claim. We would want to ask, why, if the idea
of ‘religions’ in the plural was conceptually problematic in Europe until the
seventeenth century, except possibly in an ironic sense, and only by the late
eighteenth century did it become an influential discursive formation among
the liberal elites in mainly Protestant countries – why should we imagine that
missionaries should be thinking in such liberal, enlightenment terms in an
earlier period? And why should people who were thinking in Hindi, Sanskrit,
Tamil or any other Asian language be thinking in such terms? This relates
back to the point just made: that ‘religions’ are not empirical objects that
exist in the world but classificatory categories and acts of the collective
imagination with dire practical implications. It matters very much what one
means when one makes claims about the existence of religions.
117
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
and often does) but neutrality and separation. In general terms the non-
religious domain includes the modern nation-state, its judiciary, legislature
and executive, and politics, economics, educational system, laws and so on.
Epistemologically it is underwritten by the invention of modern science in
the seventeenth century which created a non-religious domain of knowledge.
However, in the older discourse on religion the secular was a class of priests!
Within the context of that older discourse it would clearly have made no
sense to talk about non-religious priests, except in the entirely different sense
that the secular priests were not members of the religious orders. In a world
in which the Commonweal had been the dominant metaphor for God’s order
on earth, the modern nation-state and its written constitution which makes
‘religion’ a private right was either unthinkable or blasphemous before a
particular historical point of paradigm change.6
I would like to add here the point that the invention of the ‘non-religious’
was also the invention of the ‘religious’ in the modern generic sense of
special religious experience (as distinct from non-religious experience); or
religious institutions as distinct from secular (in the sense of non-religious)
institutions. The much older meaning of ‘the religious’ was a reference to
monks, nuns and friars, and the religious orders that they belonged to. The
medieval religious orders (which still survive) were not opposed to the
non-religious in the modern sense, but were distinguished from the secular
priesthood. These orders, like the secular priesthood, were all encompassed
by Christian truth, and were licensed by the papacy. These semantic distinc-
tions are unavoidable if we wish to see our problem clearly.
Thus historically speaking in the Christian European context there are at
least two quite distinct discourses with different semantic properties operat-
ing today, one of which did not exist before around the seventeenth century.
The modern idea of the distinction between religion and the non-religious
domain of civil governance and ‘politics’ seems to have been first clearly
imagined in the seventeenth century by Dissenters such as John Locke and
the Quaker William Penn7 who founded Pennsylvania and wrote its first Bills
of Rights. The new discourse which they generated held an elective affinity
with certain interest groups in North America, provided a powerful counter-
discourse to Puritan theocracy, and culminated in the US constitution.
However this counter-discourse was actively resisted in England which
arguably remained a confessional church-state well into the nineteenth cen-
tury. In England and presumably for the rest of Europe the secular and
secularization did not have a modern connotation of non-religious. For
example the entry for ‘secularization’ in the 1815 edition of the Encyclo-
paedia Britannica referred to the formal process whereby the governance of a
cathedral was formally transferred from a regular8 canon to a secular bishop.
It bears thinking that the Encyclopaedia Britannica was edited and published
in Edinburgh, the very city where forty years earlier Adam Smith had
published The Wealth of Nations. The point that I am making here is that
118
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
119
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
has not been a harmless game but has had dire consequences. Thus when
Protestants claimed that theirs was true religion and that the Catholic
Church was the Whore of Babylon and the epitome of superstitious barbarity
they were not merely playing a game of reclassification; people were whipped,
tortured and burnt. Christian missionaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries (and still today in the twenty-first century) were propagating
religion in order to save the world from pagan idolatry. The idea that they
were modern relativists who were primarily concerned with describing
people’s ‘systems of beliefs and practices’ in a mild and uncritical manner
must surely be a fantasy which only moderns (especially modern academics)
could believe. On the other hand individual missionaries who lived in
isolated conditions with courage and intelligence and without great power to
back up their zealous efforts of conversion may well have learnt to take a
more philosophical attitude to the practices they considered to be pagan
and damned, and perhaps even to have been partly converted to the local
practices themselves. This experience may have created the psychological
conditions for relaxing the normally absolute difference between true religion
and its irrational pagan substitutes. Out of this more relaxed atmosphere
have emerged liberal ecumenical theologies which have been an important
factor in the development of a modern idea of plural religions all leading to
the one truth. But this is a specifically modern form of theological enterprise.
This does not give us an unproblematic neutral category for what exists in
the world. It only tells us how a liberal minority elite uses words to express
their ideas in specific and limited theological contexts.
The issue therefore is not whether ‘religions’ existed in India (or Rome)
but whether and who could have imagined them to exist, and what kind of
imagining it was. Religion today is used rhetorically in so many diverse
contexts that it is very difficult to give the category any clear and specific
content, but there is no doubt that it is perceived widely as having strong
Christian meanings. Since, as I argue, European Christians did not imagine
religions to exist in the plural until the birth of modernity in approximately
the late seventeenth or eighteenth centuries (arguably much more recently)
except in the stretched parodic or ironic sense, it raises a very big doubt
about why we should wish to attribute these entities to the Sanskritic, Tamil,
Chinese or Tibetan imaginaires.
120
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
121
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
The use of language is important here. In the first sentence of this paragraph
Lorenzen rhetorically established the pre-existence of sects and religions
before any encounter with Christian missionaries. When they arrived they
encountered what was already there, even though in the same sentence they
categorized them. I do not think that Lorenzen is deliberately using language
to confuse the reader, but I do think that unconsciously he is adopting a
rhetorical technique by embedding the problematic classifications into the
text in a way that naturalizes them and makes them seem unchallengeable.
The same with the terms Hindus, Buddhists and Confucians; they already
constructed the categories that are in question! Note also the uncritical use
122
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
of the terms ‘religious’ (in ‘religious categories’) and ‘secular’ (in ‘secular
European scholars’). Again, the assumption that the categories are ‘religious’
is slipped into the discussion without any proper examination. What do these
terms mean and to whom are they applied?
One of the advantages of historicization is greater accuracy concerning
the nuances that actually have been conveyed by words; and Lorenzen shows
that the term ‘gentile’ has been used by Christians to refer also to heathens,
pagans and infidels, all of which terms had negative connotations:
Note again the way the term ‘religious’ is slipped into the discussion in the
expression ‘religious traditions’ without any critical comment. This allows
Lorenzen to by-pass the issue at stake, which is what is meant by calling
such traditions ‘religious’. Furthermore, it is not accurate historically to
distance this kind of biased and value-laden usage to ‘[b]efore the beginning
of the nineteenth century’ (Lorenzen 2007: 205), since many missionaries
still use this terminology with these meanings today.10
Lorenzen identifies the terms ‘sect’ and ‘religion’ in the usages of Catholic
missionaries:
123
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
all the key Anglophone terms he uses (‘man’, ‘God’, ‘supernatural’) are
unclear and need proper discussion. I would not contest his claim that the
Catholic missionaries used the term ‘sect’ to refer to Muslims or Vaishnavas
but I would suggest that this term is highly problematic in the context of
Anglophone history, and the kinds of very broad claims that Lorenzen is
making need to be tested against much greater historical accuracy, including
the incremental shift in meanings accruing from extension of typical Christian
usage to pagan practices.
I want to question what nuances usage of the term ‘sect’ may have had for
the users and for people who read their reports. I have analysed in detail
the relevant entry on ‘sect’ in the Oxford English Dictionary and the various
typical usages over the centuries.11 Close attention to the examples of usage
that are given by the dictionary’s compilers in my view dispels any illusion
that ‘sect’ has been a neutral analytical term which carries no Christian
bias. On the contrary, the predominant meanings and usages given in the
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) consistently tie this term to a negative
sense. The sense given for ‘sect’ as a verb resonates for the vast majority of
noun usages:
In the quote that the compilers of the Dictionary provide here to illustrate
typical usage, the reader should be in no doubt that religion here is best
glossed as Christian truth, that is religion itself rather than something that
pretends to be religion. The reference to ‘religious persons’ seems to be a
reference to members of the religious orders, as distinct from secular priests.
As a generalization based on the different examples given, the word
‘sect’ in its more common noun form has the sense of a ‘section’ of some
larger whole, or a ‘part’ or ‘division’ among people on the basis of some
belief, practice, following or organization. The larger whole is almost always
religion itself, understood as Christian truth, or the true Church. The sect is
that which destroys the unity of that larger whole. It also sometimes seems to
have the connotation of ‘faction’. It therefore has the sense of classification,
but rarely neutral. It has mainly been used as a negative, perhaps deriving
from the implication that when a part of the whole is emphasized or given
greater importance, then it is destructive of the unity of the whole. It also
provides no easy mandate for some generic modern usage that makes
sects the same as ‘religions’, and it would be doubtful what it would mean
(either for Catholic or Protestant missionaries, or for a contemporary scholar
124
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
This essay argues that the claim that Hinduism was invented or
constructed by European colonizers, mostly British, sometime after
1800 is false. The evidence instead suggests that a Hindu reli-
gion theologically and devotionally grounded in texts such as the
Bhagavad-gita, the Puranas, and philosophical commentaries on
the six darsanas gradually acquired a much sharper self-conscious
identity through the rivalry between Muslims and Hindus in the
125
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
period between 1200 and 1500 and was firmly established long
before 1800.
(Lorenzen 1999: 633)
It is explicitly claimed here that ‘a Hindu religion’ in some sense existed, but
it is difficult to understand from this and all subsequent passages what is
being claimed. The term religion almost always arrives by stealth in Loren-
zen’s writing, as though it is the most natural and unproblematic term to use
– which in a sense it is, that is the problem. In this way he embeds it in the
reader’s mind without any conscious attention being paid to it. This is not a
conscious strategy, but is a wide-spread feature of all rhetoric which seeks to
embed contentious claims about reality into a discourse in a way that natur-
alizes the terms and makes them seem ancient, unchallengeable, and in the
nature of things. This technique obliterates the reader’s consciousness that
such usage has a controversial, historical genesis and had been accompanied
by deep animosity in European history. It obliterates the context of colonial
power in the development of this new form of classification.
On the other hand attention is drawn here to the matter of self-identity.
This ‘self-conscious identity’ should not be confused with an ethnic identity
because for Lorenzen (and presumably for the Hindus) there is a definite
distinction between ethnic and religious identity:
There are a number of features of this passage that benefit from close exam-
ination. One is the repeated claim that a religion of the Hindus existed long
before the term ‘Hinduism’ was used – ‘the religion we now call Hinduism’.
The assumption that a religion already existed whatever we choose to call it
is slipped under the radar screen and established in the text while the author
gets on with the real job of discussing the appellation ‘Hinduism’. The impli-
cation is that this religion existed in the same sense that Hinduism now exists
126
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
today, whatever that sense may be – for Lorenzen never explains this to the
reader. Yet whatever sense he means, he is sure the religious sense is different
from the ethnic sense. However, by avoiding any real discussion of what it
means to say that there was a Hindu religion before (or indeed during) the
modern period, or how a religious sense of Hindu might differ from an
ethnic sense, the real nub of the issue is side-stepped.
I find it difficult to understand which issue Lorenzen thinks is really
important: that there existed an identifiable system of beliefs and practices
before the Christian colonialists came on the scene; that there existed a sys-
tem of beliefs and practices called Hinduism before the colonialists came on
the scene; or that there existed a religion before colonialism came on the
scene. My own view is that the real issue is whether or not there existed a
religion before colonialism came on the scene, and existed in the sense that
the relevant concept of religion was understood in all its ideological implica-
tions and contested complexities by Indian people whose own concept was
the same as the one indicated by the English language term ‘religion’. Once
the absurdity of this latter claim is clearly seen, then all the other issues
become irrelevant. No one, surely no one would doubt that there existed
coherent systems of beliefs and practices (institutions) which Indian people
created, named and classified in their own languages before the colonialists
came on the scene. The issue is: were they ‘religious’ institutions in all the
conflicting senses of that Anglophone (or more widely Europhone) word?
And this question leads us immediately into the semantic minefield of
contested Christian history that I outlined earlier.
In his Three Missionaries paper Lorenzen says
The reader should notice that such expressions as ‘these Asian religions’, and
‘religious beliefs and practices’ are used again and again as though religion is
an unproblematic descriptive and analytical category. They are already
embedded in the text, and thus slipped beneath the reader’s critical radar
screen. They have become naturalized as though there never have been any
issues of meaning and ideology behind their formulation. Lorenzen is thus
127
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
128
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
129
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
130
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
Charters and Bills of Rights of the dissenters who fled there. Most of
Europe, including England, remained confessional church-states with little
room for what was now being called toleration. My point is that these dis-
tinct and even contradictory discourses render the meaning of ‘religion’ pro-
foundly problematic. Which of these would be intended by scholars who
claim that religions existed in India in pre-colonial times? Are they referring
to the totalitarian or holistic concept of encompassing Christian truth? Or
to the modern, liberal constitutional idea of religion as a private ‘faith’ and
religions as voluntary associations allowed by the non-religious state? It
seems highly unlikely that either of these metaphors applied to the unique
constellation of practices and formations of power that operated in the
diverse regions of the Indian sub-continent. Until these issues are at least
addressed it seems doubtful that the current debate can make much sense.
Conclusion
I have argued that the question ‘Are there religions in India?’ or ‘Were
there religions in India before colonial intervention?’ is in the first place
a question about meaning and translatability. No one has ever seen ‘a
religion’, just as no one has ever seen a society or a state or a nation. These
are all abstract categories, not empirically observable phenomena. But
‘abstract’ here does not mean devoid of power or without consequences for
the ordering of human life! These meanings are conveyed in discourses that
express the interests of powerful elites (including modern academics) at dif-
ferent historical moments. They constitute attempts to classify the world
in accordance with imagined orders of power. I have argued that the English
language term ‘religion’ and associated terms such as ‘religions’ and the
adjective ‘religious’ need careful historical contextualization in order to
understand their complexity and to see that such terms do not have any easy
and self-evident meanings, and are not mere harmless labels. ‘Sect’ is also far
from being the easy, neutral and natural term that Lorenzen seems to believe.
I have suggested that the term ‘sect’ in most of the usages that the OED
provides as examples of its historically contextualized meanings link
it strongly to damaging divisions within the unity of Christendom. Usages
by missionaries and other scholars may have exemplified the stretching
of normal usage in the need for classification in a profoundly different lin-
guistic and institutional context, but in that case we have a shift from one
power context to another, in which the agents of a foreign ideology seek
to submit India (or China, Tibet and Japan) to its own categories. I have
argued that the meaning of a term such as ‘religion’ or ‘sect’ is not an
isolated event but is deeply connected to the meanings of other English
and more widely Europhone categories such as ecclesiastical, secular,
non-religious, nation-state, constitution, civil society, politics, law and eco-
nomics. All of these important terms have changed their meanings (some
131
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
have been invented quite recently) and are sustained by discourses which
have never operated in the kind of vacuum that Lorenzen and many other
writers uncritically assume. To translate a term such as ‘religion’ into San-
skrit, Hindi, Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese or any other language is also to ask
what it is being distinguished from; if we say that religions have always
existed in India, does this imply that non-religious institutions also always
existed? Did they also have written constitutions, secular law courts, and
capitalist economic concepts at the time of Buddha, or the Guptas? Did they
have these things in Europe at the time of the Medicis or the Tudors? My
proposal is that we go much more deeply into the historical and contextual
analysis of related terminology, and become more self-critical about our own
motivations, conscious or unconscious, for assuming that the world can fit
into our own categories in order to satisfy our own unanalysed classificatory
urges.
Notes
1 In this chapter, I am partly reacting to David Lorenzen’s position paper pre-
sented at the Rethinking Religion in India I conference, in January 2008, in
New Delhi. I am also grateful to David Lorenzen for sending me a copy of
‘Who invented Hinduism?’, which I have subsequently been able to locate in its
published form; and also ‘Gentile religion in South India, China and Tibet: studies
by three missionaries’, which was a paper Lorenzen wrote for another conference,
later published in Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East
(2007), and which I have taken the liberty of referring to several times here.
2 This paper was subsequently published as Lorenzen (2007: 203–13).
3 A similar point could be made about Richard King’s method in Orientalism and
Religion (1999).
4 For a discussion, see Fitzgerald 2007a, especially Ch. 4.
5 In the case of the Spanish colonization it was a matter of whether slavery was or
was not justified. Even Las Casas, who opposed the enslavement of the indigenous
Americans, did not object to the importation of black African slaves.
6 I have discussed these points in some detail in a recent book Discourse on Civility
and Barbarity (2007a), and what I say here is more or less a summary adaptation
of those discussions.
7 I am not saying that other writers did not imagine the non-religious space earlier
than this. Many of the conventional ways of thinking were subverted during
the revolutionary period of the interregnum. See my Discourse on Civility and
Barbarity (2007a) for a more detailed argument.
8 A ‘regular’ here refers to a member of the religious orders, as distinct from a
secular priest.
9 The ideas of natural reason and natural religion participated in this paradigmatic
shift, from meaning that which God had implanted in humans at creation to that
which inhered in the natural scientific order. Deism was a transition phase between
these two paradigms.
10 To take just one example, a US-based Protestant missionary in Mexico recently
told a researcher that her strategy was ‘impacting lostness’; see Carolyn Gallaher
(2007: 97), for this and other current usages including ‘pagan’ and ‘idolatry’.
11 There is no space to provide such a detailed analysis here.
132
WHO INVENTED HINDUISM?
12 The sociologist Eileen Barker argues against the use of terms such as ‘sect’ and
‘cult’ on the grounds that they have negative connotations in everyday parlance
and ‘it is neither necessary nor helpful to start from the implicit premise that the
movements are always “a bad thing” ’(Barker 1989: 4–5). See also her references to
the pejorative use of these terms and the consequent need to avoid them, in Barker
(1998: 11–16). It follows from my own view that her defence of the expression
‘New Religious Movements’ as a preferable alternative to ‘sect’ and ‘cult’ is also
theoretically problematic.
13 See for example my Ch. 7 on Samuel Purchas (2007a).
14 I do not mean that Calvinism was necessarily an individualistic ideology, and
there were Calvinist theocracies, the most obvious being the original in Geneva.
However, Weber has argued that, Calvinism lent itself through a process of
elective affinity to individualism and capitalism.
Bibliography
Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism, London: Verso.
Balagangadhara, S.N. (1994) ‘The Heathen in His Blindness . . .’: Asia, the West, and
the dynamic of religion, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Barker, E. (1989) New Religious Movements: a practical introduction, London: HMSO.
Barker, E. and Warburg, M. (1998) New Religions and New Religiosity, Aarhus,
Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
Bossy, J. (1982) ‘Some elementary forms of Durkheim’, Past and Present, 95: 3–18.
—— (1985) Christianity in the West, 1400–1700, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chidester, D. (1996) Savage Systems: colonialism and comparative religion in southern
Africa, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
—— (2007) ‘Real and imagined: imperial inventions of religion in colonial southern
Africa’, in T. Fitzgerald (ed.) Religion and the Secular: historical and colonial
formations, London: Equinox.
Dumont, L. (1986) Essays on Individualism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1815), Edinburgh.
Fitzgerald, T. (1990) ‘Hinduism and the world religion fallacy’, Religion, 20: 101–18.
—— (1996) ‘From structure to substance: Ambedkar, Dumont and Buddhism’,
Contributions to Indian Sociology, 30: 273–88.
—— (1999a) ‘Ambedkar, Buddhism and the concept of Religion’, in S.M. Michael
(ed.) Dalits in Modern India: essays in honour of Stephen Fuchs, New Delhi: Vistaar
Publications.
—— (1999b) ‘Politics and Ambedkar Buddhism in Maharashtra’, in I. Harris (ed.)
Buddhism and Politics in Twentieth Century Asia, London and New York: Pinter/
Cassells Academic Press.
—— (1999c) ‘The Mariai village festival in Maharashtra’, in M. Tanaka (ed.) Living
with Shakti: gender, sexuality and religion in South Asia, Senri Ethnological Series
no. 50, Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
—— (2000a) ‘Problems with the category “religion” in the study of Hinduism’, Inter-
national Institute of Indian Studies (Canada) Occasional Papers, July 2000; reprinted
in J.E. Llewellyn (ed.) (2005) Defining Hinduism: a reader, London: Equinox.
—— (2000b) The Ideology of Religious Studies, New York: Oxford University Press.
133
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD
134
8
ORIENTALISM,
POSTCOLONIALISM AND THE
‘CONSTRUCTION’ OF RELIGION
S.N. Balagangadhara
In this chapter, I do two things: while showing both the strengths and weak-
nesses of the postcolonial story about the creation of religions in India, I
also spell out a clear hypothesis on what religion is. There is much discussion
in contemporary religious studies about the status of the concept ‘religion’.
Some argue that the word is a creation of the scholar or that it has no
reference to anything in the world or that it is not possible to talk about
‘religion’ intelligibly. I argue that we need to have a theory of religion, if we
have to take an informed standpoint on any of the above issues. As a first
step in the process, I formulate a hypothesis about the nature of the phenom-
enon. I do this, however, while critically engaging with the arguments of some
of the contemporary scholars.
135
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
During the colonial period, the British created many things: an education
system, a legal system, a bureaucracy, roads and railways. None of these
existed in these forms before the British colonized India. Were religions like
‘Hinduism’ etc. also created in this way? Some postcolonial thinkers are
inclined to answer this question in the positive: the British, with the help of
a few upper-caste collaborators, created Hinduism as a religion in India,
the way they created the Indian Civil Service (ICS). In that case, it follows
that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the orientalist writings on
Hinduism. Some of them might have made false claims but we can correct
them as more accurate information accumulates. The contemporary writings
on Hinduism etc., whether from the field of Indology or of Religious Studies,
would remain continuous with the orientalist writings on the subject. That
is, the ‘facts’ that the orientalists provide become the point of departure for
the writings in social sciences. The latter either add to these facts or explain
them. In fact, this is also the status of the field today: the writings in the
humanities and social sciences maintain an unbroken line of continuity with
the orientalist writings on these ‘religions’ in India.
If this is the case, one can hardly understand what the excitement is about
regarding ‘orientalism’ or ‘postcolonial studies’. Of course, if one adds other
items to this creation story, one can blame western culture as the ‘big bad
wolf ’: the British, together with native collaborators, created ‘Hinduism’,
‘the caste system’, ‘communalism’ and anything else one feels like. Not only
is this exercise in apportioning blame uninteresting but it also transforms the
Indians into people bereft of all reason: a handful of people could do
what they wanted to with the Indian culture, introduce and create whatever
took their fancy, while the Indians stood around without even wanting
to move the thumbs they were sucking upon. To put it in the language of
postcolonial thinkers: such a story deprives the colonial subjects of their
agency.
136
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
137
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
‘Orientalism’ is how western culture came to terms with the reality that the
East is. That is, ‘orientalism’ refers not only to a discourse about experience
but also to the way of reflecting about and structuring this experience. In this
sense, even though orientalism is a discourse about western cultural experi-
ence, it is oblique. It is oblique because it appears to be about other cultures.
It is also oblique because the experience is not directly reflected upon. It is
western in the sense that it refers to the experiences of the members from
a particular culture. Orientalism is the western way of thinking about its
experience of non-western cultures. However, it takes the form of an apparent
discourse about the Orient.
This means to suggest that the West did two things: (a) created ‘Hinduism’
and ‘Buddhism’ etc. as coherent and structured units and (b) did so as reli-
gions. The issue is not whether western culture created a monolithic religion
instead of recognizing the multiplicity of theories and practices that go
under the label ‘Hinduism’. It is not even whether they experienced ‘Hinduism’
as a monolithic entity. Instead, it lies in the fact that ‘Hinduism’, as a concept
and as an experiential entity, provided the westerners with a coherent experi-
ence. To the extent it is a concept, it is a human construct, like all other
concepts. It is also a construct because, as an experiential entity, it unifies the
western experience. However, this concept has no reference in the world, i.e.,
there is no ‘Hinduism’ (whether as a religion, or as a multiplicity of religions)
in the Indian culture.
In his Orientalism, Said distinguishes between the Orient as a place and
‘the Orient’ as an entity that exists only in the western experience. Similarly,
one could argue that ‘Hinduism’ is both a false description of Indian reality
and it is an imaginary entity. It is false not because the West gave a false
description of some reality (‘Hinduism’ in this case) but because they falsely
assumed that their experiential entity was also a real entity in the world. It is
imaginary in the sense that it does not have an existence outside the experi-
ence of western culture. The same considerations apply to the caste system.
The notion of such a system unified the British experience of India; they
implemented certain political and economic policies based on their experi-
ence. However, this experience was not of the caste system. In fact, this
experience was of no particular object but constituted the basis of their
going-about with the Indians. By creating such a ‘system’ the British lent
stability, coherence and unity to their cultural experience. Both the caste
system and the Indian religions are constructs in this specific sense.
It is not as though colonialism brought ‘Hinduism’ and ‘the caste system’
into existence. The Europeans spoke about these entities as though they
existed. They acted as though these entities were real. However, neither before
nor after colonialism have such entities or phenomena existed. They are hip-
kapis. These entities merely lend structure and stability to the European
experience.
This, then, is the thesis I want to put across: except for Christianity, Islam
138
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
and Judaism, there are no other religions in India. Entities like ‘Buddhism’,
‘Hinduism’, ‘Jainism’, ‘Sikhism’ etc. which are called the ‘religions of India’,
exist, it is true, but they do so only in the western universities. These ‘reli-
gions’ are the ‘imaginative’ creations of the western savants and of the culture
to which they belong.
This means that all the books and articles, all the PhDs and all the com-
monsense talk about these religions tell you as much about India as other
‘relevant’ books, articles and interviews tell you about the length of the
unicorn’s horn – a creature which only virgins can see – or about the relation
between the upper and lower torso of a satyr or about the need for a curric-
ulum reform at Harry Potter’s magical school, Hogwarts.
A Newtonian anecdote
As soon as such a thesis is put across, huge questions appear on the horizon.
Here are some: are we to say that nearly four centuries of western intel-
lectuals and nearly two centuries of English speaking Indians (and others)
have been hallucinating? If they were not, what made them speak of Indian
religions? If they were, why were they hallucinating, whereas I claim I am not?
It is no part of my theory to suggest that the earlier generations were
hallucinating. Of course, by the simple privilege of being born after them,
from my vantage point and looking back, I do suggest that they were wrong.
However, I do not merely record that they are wrong and claim that I have
found ‘the truth’. What I do is something different altogether.
What I would like to argue is the following: thanks to their mistakes, we
have the possibility of correcting some of these mistakes today. To us, these
mistakes take the form of cognitive problems that our theories have to solve.
Not only that. The very same theories should also explain (without adding
any additional and ad hoc hypotheses) why thinkers from the earlier gener-
ations had to commit the mistakes they did commit. This cognitive require-
ment is important enough for us to think through a bit.
Let me recount a charming anecdote that circulates in intellectual circles
and which makes the epistemological point I want to make. It appears that
Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest geniuses we have known, was once
congratulated for being ‘a genius who towered over both his predecessors
and his contemporaries’. The alleged reply of Newton goes as follows: ‘Even
the shortest of pygmies sees farther than the tallest of men, when he stands
on their shoulders. And I, Sir, am standing on the shoulders of giants’.
Quite apart from expressing enviable intellectual humility, Newton’s reply
does something more: it tells us something about the growth of scientific
knowledge itself. Amongst other things, it tells us that Newton’s break-
through was possible only because other, earlier theories were there to build
upon. In exactly the same way, we can hope to create new theories today by
building upon the theories of earlier generations. That is to say, the orientalist
139
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
140
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
India; instead, it shows that there are deep lines of continuity between Islam
and Christianity.
In that case, what about generations of Indian intellectuals? Why do they
see religions in their own culture? The answer has to be located in what
colonialism is and what it does to a people: among other things, it generates
what I call a ‘colonial consciousness’ in its subjects (Balagangadhara et al.
2008). It is generated through violence, reproduced through asymmetries in
power and sustained by an ideology. Even though I cannot expand on this
theme here, let me draw attention to one aspect of such a consciousness.
Because the Indian culture does not have ‘native’ religions, its intellectuals
are blind to the existence of religions in their midst. Even where they look at
the Semitic religions in India, they think that these are variants of what exists
in India, namely, traditions. Consequently, either they simply mimic the
western thinkers while talking about religions or, where they do not, try to
re-describe Islam and Christianity as variants of Indian traditions. Hence
the reason why many Indian intellectuals call the Muslims to ‘reform’ the
Koran or call upon the Christians to ‘rewrite’ the Bible, so that they might
become better suited to the Indian culture.
In this sense, I cannot dream of suggesting that all our intellectual pre-
decessors and all the contemporary English speaking Indians were/are
hallucinating. Instead, I suggest that the theoretical frameworks and the
existing methodologies in the domain of religious studies are secularized
variants of Christian theology. That is to say, what we call ‘secular’ religious
studies is embedded in a Christian theological framework. There is nothing
secular or scientific about the domain of religious studies today.
141
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
statement utterly seriously. It means that many things we take for granted,
whether in the West or in India, are influenced by Christianity. As I said,
I claim that Christianity expands in two ways. Both of these have been pres-
ent ever since the inception of Christianity and have mutually reinforced
each other. The first is familiar to all of us: direct conversion. People from
other religions are converted to Christianity and this is how the community
of Christian believers grows. This is the surface or explicit expansion of
Christianity.
In a manner of speaking, the second way in which Christianity expands
is also familiar to us: the so-called process of secularization. I claim that
Christianity secularizes itself, as it were, in the form of ‘de-Christianized
Christianity’. Among other things, what this means is that typically Christian
doctrines spread wide and deep beyond the confines of the community of
Christian believers dressed up in ‘secular’ (that is, no longer recognizably
Christian) clothes.
The enlightenment period, which is identified as ‘the Age of Reason’, is
alleged to be the apotheosis of the so-called process of ‘secularization’.
What people normally mean by ‘secularization’ here is the following:
the enlightenment thinkers successfully fought against the dominance that
religion (especially, Christianity) had exercised over social, political, and
economic life. From then on, so goes the standard textbook story, human
kind began to look to ‘reason’ instead of ‘religion’ in matters social, civic,
political etc. The spirit of scientific thinking, which dominated that age, has
continued to gain ascendancy in our own day and time. As heirs to this
period, which put an end to all forms of irrational subservience, we are
proud citizens of the modern-day world. We are against all forms of despot-
ism and we are believers in democracy; we believe in the role of reason in
social life; we recognize the value of human rights; and we should under-
stand that religion is not a matter for state intervention, but a ‘private’ and
personal affair of the individual in question, and so on. As I say, this is
the standard textbook story. The problem with this story is this: the
enlightenment thinkers have built their formidable reputation (as opponents
of ‘all organized religions’ or even ‘religion’ tout court) by selling ideas from
Protestant Christianity as though they are ‘neutral’ and ‘rational’.
As an example, consider the claim that ‘religion’ is not a matter for state
intervention and that it is a ‘private’ affair of the individual in question.
If we look historically, we discover that the contrast between the ‘secular’
realm and the ‘religious’ realm (often formulated also as a contrast between
the ‘temporal’ and the ‘spiritual’), and the debates about the relationship
between these two realms (or ‘spheres’) have characterized the history of
Christianity for the last two thousand years. This debate was primarily a
theological one. It revolved around the question of who the Vicar of Christ
was. With the Gregorian revolution and the emergence of Canon Law (about a
thousand years ago), the Catholic Church settled this issue in one particular
142
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
way. This theological debate was an answer to the question of the relation-
ship between the king (the emperor) and the Pope. That is to say, it was an
issue about the relationship between the Church as a ‘spiritual’ entity and its
relationship to ‘secular’ authorities: was the king subordinate to the Church
or the other way round? Did they both have different spheres of influence,
viz., the spiritual and the temporal? If the latter, what was the relationship
between these two spheres? And so on.
With the Protestant Reformation, this theological debate became more
generalized, especially in continental Europe. It now involved every single
Christian: could the laws and institutions of men (the secular structures and
their injunctions) in any way restrain the revelations of God? Could an insti-
tution like the Catholic Church, which was seen as a human institution by
the Protestants, add anything to the word of God? Much like the earlier
debate, this was also theological and political. Theologically at stake was the
nature of the Catholic Church and its theology; politically, it involved the
relationship between ‘religion’ and ‘state’.
Protestant theologies make the following claim: nothing can come between
an individual and God except God’s revelation. No human law or organiza-
tion can dictate how a man worships or what he worships. Neither the Catholic
Church nor the secular authorities could interfere in the affairs of religion,
which involves the relationship between the individual and God. Any such
incursion in the worship of God is the corrupting influence of the Devil.
Being a Christian believer is a matter between the Maker (i.e. God) and the
individual. It was ‘God’ (i.e. the Christian God), who judged man; and men
could not judge each other in matters of faith.
The theories of state neutrality we have (the so-called liberal theories)
secularize this Protestant theological claim. That is to say, the separation of
state from religion (to put it crudely) is a theological doctrine of Protestant
Christianity. Over the centuries, intellectuals and political thinkers in Europe
have been ceaselessly selling Protestant theology (albeit dressed in secular
clothes) as the summum of human civilization (De Roover and Balagangad-
hara 2008). Note well that though a Christian claim, it is typically Protestant
in nature. The triumph of Protestantism in Europe has led even the Catholic
Christians to accept a watered-down version of this theological claim as a
political doctrine.
This claim makes sense only in relationship to what religion is (i.e. in what
form and fashion Christianity is a religion), and the line it draws between
the ‘secular’ and the ‘sacred’. That is, the lines of distinction between the
‘religious’ and the ‘secular’ spheres are drawn within a religion. Historically
speaking, this demarcation is the work of Christian theology and our polit-
ical theories are Christian theologies in disguise. The enlightenment thinkers
repeated this Protestant story and this has become our ‘secularism’.
That is to say, the so-called ‘religious-secular divide’ is a distinction drawn
within a religion and is internal to it. No possibility exists of conceptualizing
143
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
Religion: a hypothesis 2
Which properties transform some phenomenon into a religion? What makes
the Semitic religions into religions at all? Why do I argue that Indian culture
does not have ‘native’ religions? Even though I cannot give detailed answers
to these questions in the course of this article, let me provide the outlines
of my answer. My characterization of religion is that it is an explanatory
intelligible account of both the cosmos and itself. The reason why the Semitic
religions are ‘religions’ and not something else has to do with the fact that
each possesses this property: each is an explanatory intelligible account of
the cosmos and itself. What does it mean to speak of explanatory intelligibil-
ity accounts? Let me use an analogy to explain the sense in which religions
are such accounts.
Consider a non-smoker who objects to others smoking in the same room
where he is present. Let us say that we need to account for this behaviour:
why does he object if others smoke in his presence? Let us now consider the
144
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
145
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
explanatory intelligible account of that being and its actions. The reason for
calling it thus must be obvious: the causes of the action are also its reasons.
Further, because each type of action instantiates one and only one purpose,
prediction becomes possible as well. The causal law will be general, predict-
ive power is not reduced, and the causes are the intentions of such a being.
Suppose that we now have a doctrine which says the following: such a
being exists, such actions exist too, but we could never provide a complete
description of the actions of such a being, nor possibly observe all the
actions of that being. At best, we could have a very fragmented and partial
description of such actions. It adds further that this being has communicated
its purposes to us – the understandability of this message is again restricted
by the descriptive possibilities open to us. In such a case, we have two sources
of knowledge: some sets of actions that we try to understand; the message,
which we try to make sense of.
Suppose further that this being is called ‘God’; His actions are the uni-
verse; His message is precisely the above doctrine. We now have on our hands
what we call a ‘religious doctrine’. This doctrine makes the cosmos into
an explanatorily intelligible entity but not by providing us with a detailed
explanation of all events, happenings, and phenomena. It claims that all
there is, was, and shall be (the ‘cosmos’, that is) are expressions of a will that
constitutes the cementing bond of the cosmos. However, this claim about the
nature of the cosmos is not a bare and simple statement but is itself couched
in the form of an account. Which kind of account? It is an account that not
only says that the cosmos is explanatorily intelligible but also one which
makes the cosmos into such an entity. Among other things, the latter involves
that the ‘religion’ itself exemplifies such explanatory intelligibility.
To get a better grasp on the issue, consider what religion does. First, it
imparts knowledge by saying that the world is the expression of the purposes
of God. Because this is what the world is, the knowledge of the world will be
an explanatory intelligible account. Since the religion in question is making a
claim about the world, it is a knowledge claim. It is not just any knowledge
claim but one which brings reasons and causes together in an extraordinary
way. In so far as it makes this particular claim about the cosmos, it must also
exemplify that property which makes the universe into a specific kind of a
place. That is, a religious account must itself be explanatorily intelligible.
Second, this knowledge of the world is also in the world. If the universe is
explanatorily intelligible, so is this knowledge about the world. Consequently,
it is not enough that the doctrine ‘says’ that the world expresses the will of
God, but it must also exhibit or ‘express’ the very same will of God as well.
Religion makes both the cosmos and itself explanatorily intelligible. That is,
it must not only tell us why God created the world and us but also why He
gave religion to humankind.
This, then, is what makes an explanation ‘religious’: it is knowledge of the
cosmos which includes itself. It is the explanation of the universe which
146
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
147
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
clubs very regularly. Equally regularly, he chases after women on such occa-
sions and, let us say, he succeeds in picking them up – each time a different
woman. Puzzled, you ask him one day why he does this. His answer goes
like this: ‘I always want a woman I cannot get – that is why I go after women
at the parties. As soon as I get them, I lose all interest, which is why I drop
them.’ Even though what you have on your hands is a mere re-description of
his action, which you yourself have observed, this account makes it intelli-
gible. As Davidson (1963) formulates it: ‘[T]here is no denying that this is
true: when we explain an action, by giving the reason, we do redescribe the
action; redescribing the action gives the action a place in a pattern, and in
this way the action is explained’ (in Davis (ed.) 1983: 64). That is, ‘a reason
makes an action intelligible by redescribing it’ (ibid: 67).
Those who have found meaning in their lives do precisely this: re-describe
the lives they are leading. ‘Where I can help people using my skills’, said a
doctor to me once, ‘I do so; this is what makes my life meaningful to me’.
Neither you nor I are any the wiser for this piece of knowledge; but we can
see that it has the structure of an intelligibility account. Your friend made
his action of chasing after women intelligible not merely by describing the
pattern in his actions; by re-describing the pattern he also appears to place it
in a bigger pattern accessible to you. The description of a pattern in one’s life
also re-describes the pattern in one’s life; it also places it in a bigger pattern.
To those from the outside, the bigger pattern appears absent, which is why
this account of life does not appear intelligible. From the inside though,
i.e. to those to whom their own lives appear meaningful, a pattern appears to
be present. They feel that their lives are placed in a pattern and not merely
that their lives have a pattern.
They cannot tell you what that pattern is, any more than your friend can
tell you about the pattern where his women-chasing activity is placed. In this
sense, it is not true to say that one cannot communicate the meaning one has
found to one’s life because it is ‘an intensely personal thing’ or because such
a deep personal thing is not communicable. No. In fact, these people are able
to communicate the meaning of their individual lives; from the outside, to
someone who listens to such accounts, the intelligibility appears missing
because the pattern where it requires to be placed is not known.
Put in general terms, the answer to the question of the meaning of life is
not to be sought in the answer to the question but elsewhere, namely, in that
belief which enables the formulation of such a question. Religion enables one
to raise such questions because it is the only framework where such queries
can be formulated. Religion was not invented to answer questions about the
meaning and purpose of the life of some or another specific individual. Such
questions come into being within the framework of religion. These problems
do not antedate religion; instead, religion generates them. Having done so,
the religious framework tantalizingly hints that the problem is solvable. Take
religion away, you will also take these questions away.
148
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
As an account, religion tells us what the Cosmos is like (step 1); makes itself
into an object by telling us how we could know that such is the case (step 2);
characterizes both itself as an account and the account of the Cosmos as
true (step 3). What is paradoxical, perhaps even impossible, when viewed
from the standpoint of finite individuals with finite knowledge and abilities,
ceases being so when claimed to instantiate the infinite knowledge of some
‘totally other’ kind of being. The problem that we could have with respect to
such knowledge is not epistemic but hermeneutic in nature: our interpret-
ative abilities are finite; therefore, the sense that we could make of this know-
ledge is fallible unless, of course, this divine Being would also help us out in
this case. Candour requires me to add: rumour has it that this Being is
known to do precisely that, even if His criterion for selecting individuals
remains rather vague and mysterious.
Looked in terms of what human beings do and what they think, religion
149
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
involves a peculiar kind of reflexivity. It is its own justification, its own truth,
founded on nothing that is human. Given the nature of this object, we need
not wonder anymore that we have to take recourse to religious/theological
vocabulary in order to explicate the concept of religion.
150
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
151
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
152
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
suggesting that we cannot study religion using theories and methods from
the sciences.
But my characterization of religion does imply the following: it enables us
to come to grips with authors like Schleiermacher and Otto, who have spoken
of religious experience, without accusing them of bad faith or imputing
‘apologetic motivations’ to them. Both argue that having a religious experi-
ence presupposes that one belongs to a religion, and that the non-rational
elements are related to the rational. Indeed so. Religion is an account that
involves concepts. To accept it is to feel a part of the purposes of that Being
and depend on Him. Without such an account, there is no question of
experiencing the ‘absolute dependency’ that Schleiermacher talks about; at
best, all we can experience is a kind of relative dependency upon each other.
In such a case, the ‘other’ is not ‘the Totally Other’ of Schleiermacher. To
have the kind of experience that Schleiermacher talks about, we need to accept
the explanatory intelligible account of the Cosmos, i.e. accept religion.
It is this property that makes not only Christianity but also Judaism and
Islam into religions. However, that which makes them into religions also
divides them and this dispute among them is unsolvable, because it has no
solution. Each is a specific religion, that is, each is an explanatory intelli-
gible account and each makes the Cosmos into an explanatory intelligible
entity to those who accept this account. Some individual, at any given moment
of time, may switch from one to the other on the ground that one is superior
to the other. But his ground is that one succeeds better than the other in
making the Cosmos explanatorily intelligible to him. He may even believe –
and, indeed, he has to – that this superiority arises from the fact that one is
better than the other. But he can only do so after the other account has made
the Cosmos explanatorily intelligible to him but not before. That is to say, he
can judge that one religion is better than the other, only after trading places.
A ‘formal’ conversion may (and often does) come later, but the point is that
there is no vantage point for the human being to judge the superiority of
one religion against the other. The reason is, of course, simple: religion must
make the Cosmos explanatorily intelligible to the individual in question.
Very often, believers make the claim that one cannot investigate the nature
of religion, unless one is a believer oneself. Brilliant and reputed thinkers
have tried to argue for this point of view. Equally often, such people have
been accused by their opponents of bad faith and dogmatism, and suspected
of harbouring apologetic motivations. Any phenomenon can be studied
scientifically, the opponents have maintained, including both religion and
science. Why should one believe in God in order to discuss His existence?
One does not have to be a stone to describe its fall, any more than one has
to be a neurotic to discuss the nature of neurosis. Therefore, why should one
be religious to scientifically investigate religion?
Consider what I just said above regarding how anyone could judge the
superiority of one religion against the other. One can only do so from within
153
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
the framework of some specific religion or another. The reason lies in the
fact that they are all explanatory intelligible accounts. Only from within
the framework of one religion can we judge the ‘adequacy’ of the other.
In the starkest possible terms: to investigate religion – as an explanatory
intelligible account of the Cosmos – we need to accept some or another
explanatory intelligible account of the Cosmos. That is, religion can be
investigated only by being religious yourself; religion is an object of investi-
gation from within some or another religion. This position stands to reason
because, as I have said, religion makes itself explanatorily intelligible too. The
believers are not, I submit, dogmatic when they say, as Söderblom did, that
the only science of religion could be theology.
Again, it is important to note what I am saying and what I am not. Any
specific doctrine within a specific religion – say, for example, the doctrine of
trinity – is not immune from criticism or beyond discussion. After all, those
who do not accept it do criticize and discuss this doctrine. In this sense, in
all probability, every single doctrine of every religion has been discussed and
criticized at one time or another. So, if a Jew can criticize the doctrine of
trinity, why not someone else, who denies the existence of God? Belonging
to a religion is not equivalent to holding a party card.
To begin with, let me make three logical points about his ‘reconstruction’ of
my argument. In the first place, the ‘conclusion’ that Sweetman attributes
to me is not derivable on the basis of these two premises alone: as it stands,
no one can derive from the above argument (without adding additional
premises) that ‘Hinduism is not a religion’. As a result, second, as it stands
now, the conclusion is invalid: the only possible conclusion that one can draw
from the above is the following: ‘Hinduism is not prototypically what a
religion is’. (Of course, this could imply that ‘Hinduism’ is a religion, even if
it is not prototypically what a religion is). Third, Sweetman wants to take
154
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
issue with the truth of the conclusion but he does so by throwing doubts upon
the truth of the premises. This is not possible. In deductive logics, truth is
transmitted from the premises to the conclusion, but not falsity. Falsity
travels, again in deductive logics, the other way round: falsity is transmitted
from the conclusion to the premises. In other words, there is an asymmetry
in the transmission of truth and falsity in deductive logics. Thus, Sweetman
cannot contest the truth of the conclusion (that he attributes to me) on
logical grounds by challenging the truth-value of the premises.
Let me take up the more substantive issues. In my book, I do take Christi-
anity as a prototypical example of religion. There are multiple reasons for
this move, including an understanding of what a definition is and what it
should do. Let me enumerate some of these reasons, beginning with the kind
of definition I provide.
My statement about the exemplary (or prototypical) nature of Christianity
must, above everything else, be situated in the context of providing an ostensive
definition of the (English) word ‘religion’. Such an ostensive gesture – though
given in language instead of in physical gestures – does not make any claims
about the nature of religion except to point out that, in our language-use (in
western languages), the English word ‘religion’ refers at least to Christianity.
Such an ostensive definition does not mean that Christianity is the best
religion or the most perfect one or the only one. In fact, it is easily conceivable
that Christianity is not even a religion and that our language use is wrong.
However, it is sensible to say this only when we have a theory of religion and
not before. In other words, one’s view of Christianity – whether it is a ‘true’
religion or merely false consciousness – does not affect the definition I am
putting forward. My definition registers a fact about language use but makes
no further ontological assertions either about Christianity or about religion.
I am not providing an explicit definition of the word ‘religion’; I am simply
identifying an example, a prototypical example, of the category ‘religion’.
I am not making any assumptions about what religion is, or what makes
Christianity into one. My only argument is: if Christianity is not an
exemplary instance of ‘religion’, then we have no other examples of religion.
Therefore, I make no assumptions about the nature of religion or of Christi-
anity in beginning a study of religion. In fact, I do not even assume the
existence of religion. Rather, I merely point out the fact that unless we can
show that our language-use refers to an entity that does not exist in our
world – in which case we need not study religion at all – we may not reject
our linguistic practice. If ‘religion’ refers to something at all, and the history
of our natural language-use with respect to this word suggests that it does,
it must at least refer to Christianity. Otherwise, it picks out a ‘fictitious entity’
– and this is a theoretical claim that one cannot make at the preliminary
stage of defining a word in a theory.
Suppose that we extend this argument further. The very same linguistic
practice that I talk about also refers to the following entities: ‘leprechauns’,
155
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
‘Cyclopes’, ‘satyrs’ and ‘unicorns’. Our linguistic practice not only assures us
that these words refer to creatures in the world, but also provides us with
entertaining tales about the behaviour of such creatures. We can take issue
with the claims about the existence of such creatures (and, thus, whether
these words have any reference in the real world) by accepting the theories in
evolutionary biology and not merely by talking about some or another
philosophical claim about ‘meaning’ and ‘reference’. In this sense, if one
wants to challenge the linguistic use with respect to the word ‘religion’, it is
advisable that one possesses a substantial theory about the relevant part of
the world. A bare philosophical claim about ‘meaning’ and ‘reference’ will
not do (see De Roover and Claerhout in this volume).
156
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
Let us say that in some phenomenon this or that property, or even a group
of them, is absent; let us assume that these very same properties are present
in Christianity. This situation does not tell us a great deal: it could be that the
former is merely less prototypical than Christianity; or that the former is a
‘truer’ religion than Christianity; it could be that both have all the properties
of religion etc.
Could we answer the question about the existence or nonexistence of
religion by simply looking at the properties of Christianity? That is, can we
argue that because some properties characteristic of Christianity are absent
from traditions elsewhere, (say, in ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Buddhism’) the latter can-
not possibly be religions? Such an argument is possible only if one is able to
show that the properties of Christianity which one has identified are also the
properties of religion. In the absence of such a proof, all that one can do is
to notice that Christianity and some other tradition differ from each other.
However, one cannot argue that, because of these differences, some other
tradition is not a religion.
This is so obvious a point that one wonders how Sweetman (2003) could
possibly see me arguing the opposite. Consider the distinction between
Christianity as a historical movement and Christianity as a religion. Today,
the former owns buildings, land, telephones, television studios, aircrafts etc.
These are the properties – in both the senses of possessions and predicates –
of Christianity. Is it any more or less of a religion because of that? The only
way we can answer this question either way is by postulating (or having a
theory about) the relation between Christianity and religion. One may want
to argue that Christianity has progressively become less of a religion because
it is now more interested in earthly possessions. Or the other way round.
Notice, however, that this argument can work only if we know what religion
is. By looking at Christianity alone – as a prototypical example of the con-
cept of religion – we can make no such claim.
157
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
generic Christianity is. In other words, one cannot test a hypothesis about
religion through building a hypothesis by studying the properties of generic
Christianity. That is to say, any inductive generation of hypotheses is doomed
to failure. That is why I do not build a hypothesis inductively: neither generic
Christianity nor Protestant Christianity is at the basis of my hypothesis
about religion. In fact, it is my claim that such induction is neither interesting
nor possible. The definition of ‘religion’ (that is, Christianity as a proto-
typical example of religion) is quite distinct from my hypothesis about
religion (that is, religion is an explanatory intelligible account of the Cosmos
and itself). How, then, does my argument proceed? There are four distinct
steps to the building of my hypothesis.
As I have argued, if the word ‘religion’ picks out something, it refers at
least to Christianity because the latter refers to itself as a religion (i.e. it uses
the word with respect to itself). This self-reference is not a few centuries old:
it has been so used ever since the inception of Christianity. If Christianity
refers to itself as a religion and recognizes itself as one, then the terms in
which it does so gives us ‘its’ concept of religion. This concept not only
enabled Christianity to describe itself as a religion, but also helped it to
recognize some of the rivals it encountered as religious rivals. Therefore to
study Christianity as a religion is to study those properties by virtue of which
not only did Christianity think of itself as a religion but also confronted rival
or competing religions. This is the first step of the argument. This step
merely allows us to establish the terms of description. These very same
terms, however, allow us to take the second step.
Christianity is a historical movement. So are Judaism and Islam. The for-
mer has construed the latter as rival religions. Whatever goals they were/are
competing for, they did/do so as religions. Judaism and Islam were not merely
baptized as rival religions by Christianity. These two also saw Christianity
as a rival religion under the same description.
The second step establishes that the terms under which Christianity recog-
nized itself as religion are also the terms under which Islam and Judaism
recognize themselves as religions (using whatever word they use). That is
to say, the concept used by Christianity to call itself a ‘religion’ is also the
one which makes some (Judaism and Islam) who do not call themselves as
‘religions’ into religions (because it is also their self-description). Therefore,
the ‘Christian’ concept is not just Christian. It cuts across the three Semitic
religions. This is not my concept or your concept, but the self-descriptions of
these religions. At the same time, it suggests that the concept of religion is
itself part of a religious framework and vocabulary. This lends greater
probability to the claim that whether or not Judaism and Islam use the word
‘religion’, they too are religions. That is, if Christianity is a religion, so are
Judaism and Christianity. These two steps merely succeed in telling us that
any hypothesis about religion will be tested at least against these three
phenomena.
158
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
However, this is not enough. Indeed, one could build a hypothesis that
captures the generic properties of these three Semitic religions. Consequently,
a hypothesis that tells us why and how Judaism, Christianity and Islam are
religions could merely be informing us about the generic properties of Semitic
religions without telling us what makes these three into religions. After all, a
hypothesis about religion should tell us what religion is. Here is where the
subsequent two steps come in.
The third step picks out two salient facts. One: the terms under which
Christianity transformed Islam and Judaism are also those that make Judaism
and Christianity rivals to Islam, and Islam and Christianity rivals to Judaism.
The possibility that Judaism and Islam were merely reacting to the attacks of
Christianity – and were, therefore, forced to accept the terms of Christianity’s
self-description – is ruled out by the second salient fact: all three singled
out exactly the same rivals under the same description elsewhere unerringly.
Judaism had singled out the Roman religiones as its rivals before Christianity
was even born; Islam had picked out precisely those Indian traditions as its
rivals, which Christianity was also to identify, centuries before the European
Christians launched their major and massive evangelizing activities.
The fourth step completes this argument by looking at the reaction of the
rivals identified by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These rivals, the Roman
religiones and the Indian traditions, did not recognize themselves in the
description provided by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Nor did they
see the relationship between themselves and the latter as religious rivalry.
Incomprehension of the terms of description and indifference to the alleged
rivalry characterize the reactions of those belonging to the Roman religiones
and the Indian traditions. ‘There are different roads to heaven’, said one
shrugging his shoulders; ‘How could only your religion be true and ours
false?’ asked the other uncomprehendingly. Even under persecution, this
tone did not change. The persecution of Christians in the early Roman
Empire did not take place using those terms which Christianity would use
to persecute the pagans centuries later.
The third and the fourth step, together, establish the following case: the
terms under which Christianity recognized itself and identified rival religions
were also those that provided self-identity and rivals to Judaism and Islam.
Precisely this description was incomprehensible to those in whose language
the word ‘religion’ existed (the Roman ‘religio’) and to those who had no
such word (the Indians). Neither recognized itself in this description; neither
fought the others as rivals under this description.
These four steps constitute the historical constraints under which we must
generate our hypothesis about religion. On the one hand, our hypothesis
must capture the self-description of the Semitic religions; further, it must
also explain why ‘Hinduism’, ‘Shintoism’ etc., also appear as ‘religions’ (even
if they are ‘false religions’) to them. On the other hand, the very same
hypothesis must also explain why neither the Hindus nor the Romans were
159
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
160
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
in extant writings will lead us to the conclusion that the word was used in
a variety of ways, that it disappeared for centuries to re-emerge much later
in yet other ways, that the meaning of the word has undergone changes
according to the multiple linguistic and historical contexts in which it was
used etc. In fact, one does not even have to do a survey to predict such a
conclusion. As though this is not enough, we have to do the same with
respect to Judaism and Islam. Here, we confront another unsolvable prob-
lem: neither uses the word ‘religion’ – unless in modern writings on the
subject. Consequently, this avenue is closed to us, if we intend to understand
what religion is.
There is another solution to this empirical problem. If one can generate a
hypothesis of religion and show that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam recog-
nize themselves in such a portrayal, then this problem is solved. That is,
by talking about the object that religion is; by arguing that the presence
of ‘something’ makes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam into religions; and
showing that it captures their self-descriptions; one can argue backwards
to their ‘concept of religion’.
This generates the historical problem: such a hypothesis of religion has to
solve two further questions: (a) Why do Semitic religions see religions every-
where? (b) Why have neither the Roman religiones nor the Indian traditions
recognized themselves in this description? Needless to say, these questions
would have to be answered without appealing to ad hoc hypotheses. That is,
any hypothesis on religion will have to simultaneously solve both the empir-
ical and the historical problem in one move. That, precisely, is what my
hypothesis does (see Balagangadhara 1994: 362–69).
Conclusion
Let me bring this rather long chapter to its conclusion. In contradistinction
to many writers on the subject, I do argue that religion can be studied.
However, I add that it could be studied at multiple levels: studying religion as
religion is to accept its self-description and, in that case, being forced to do
theology. The peculiar self-reflexivity of religion explains to us how to under-
stand authors like Schleirmacher, Otto and Söderblom without accusing
them of apologetic motivations. In a very specific sense, they were entirely
right when they suggested that one could study religion only by being a
believer oneself. At this level of description, that is, at the level of self-
description of religion, it is simply impossible for us human beings to have
access to an ‘outsider perspective’. Our ‘data’ are the experiences of the
believers and the properties of religion (‘faith’, ‘worship’ and such like).
Jonathan Smith (1982) is totally wrong when he says there is ‘no data’ for
religion. As he knows, the word was historically not coined by ‘the scholar’
during the enlightenment period: it was used in polemics and apologetics in
Ancient Greece and Rome. The believers took over the word ‘religio’ and
161
S. N. B A L AG A N G A D H A R A
gave it a different meaning than the one it had in Classical Rome. However,
this does not mean that one cannot study religion scientifically: one can and
should do this, but at a different level of description. It is only at this level
that we could hope to develop a scientific theory about religion and the role
it plays in human societies and cultures.
‘Religions’ were constructed in India as experiential entities by people who
had a religion. There is no ‘religion’ in India, nor has there been one, pro-
vided one does not take the presence of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
in India into account. In any case, entities like ‘Hinduism’, ‘Buddhism’,
‘Jainism’ are fictional entities the way the ‘satyr’ and the ‘unicorn’ are.
Notes
1 This and the following subsection reproduce material from Balagangadhara and
Keppens (2009).
2 The subsections in this part reproduce material from Balagangadhara (1994).
Bibliography
Balagangadhara, S.N. (1994; 2nd edn 2005) ‘The Heathen in his Blindness . . .’: Asia,
the West, and the dynamic of religion, New Delhi: Manohar.
Balagangadhara, S.N. and Keppens, M. (2009) ‘Reconceptualizing the postcolonial
project: beyond the strictures and structures of Orientalism’, Interventions, 11:
50–68.
Balagangadhara, S.N., Bloch, E. and De Roover, J. (2008) ‘Rethinking colonialism
and colonial consciousness: the case of modern India’, in S. Raval (ed.) Rethinking
Forms of Knowledge in India, Delhi: Pencraft International.
Davidson, D. (1963) ‘Actions, reasons, and causes’, The Journal of Philosophy, 60:
685–700; reprinted in S. Davis (ed.) (1983) Causal Theories of Mind: action, know-
ledge, memory, perception, and reference, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
De Roover, J. and Balagangadhara, S.N. (2008) ‘John Locke, Christian liberty, and
the predicament of liberal toleration’, Political Theory: an international journal of
political philosophy, 36: 523–49.
Lorenzen, D. (1999) ‘Who invented Hinduism?’, Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 41: 630–59.
McCutcheon, R.T. (1997) Manufacturing Religion: the discourse on sui generis religion
and the politics of nostalgia, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Otto, R. (1917; reprint edn 1950) The Idea of the Holy, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pennington, B. (2005) Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the colonial con-
struction of religion, New York: Oxford University Press.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Schleiermacher, F. (1799; reprint edn 1988) On Religion: speeches to its cultured
despisers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, J.Z. (1982) Imagining Religion: from Babylon to Jonestown, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
162
O R I E N TA L I S M , P O S T C O L O N I A L I S M A N D R E L I G I O N
163
9
THE COLONIAL CONSTRUCTION
OF WHAT?
164
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
Is religion a construct?
The academic literature of the last few decades has seen an explosion of
writings on ‘social construction’. In addition to gender and race, quarks,
genes and countless other things have also become ‘constructs’ (see Hacking
1999: 1–34). Religion could not remain absent from this list. Unfortunately,
this increase of things ‘socially constructed’ has not given rise to growing
clarity in the notion of construction. What could it possibly mean to say that
religion is a construct?
Famously, Jonathan Z. Smith was one of the first to make the point that
religion is only a creation of the scholar’s study:
165
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
166
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
167
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
Is Hinduism a construct?
If it is pointless to speak of religion as a construct, claims about the con-
struction of Hinduism may face similar difficulties. Yet, we will argue that
Hinduism is indeed a construct, but only in a limited empirical sense, not as
a part of some general epistemological thesis of social construction. We will
draw upon Balagangadhara’s hypothesis that ‘Hinduism’, ‘Buddhism’ and
several other ‘religions’ are fictitious entities, which exist in the minds, books
and libraries of the West and the western-educated, but not among the
people whose religions they are supposed to be (Balagangadhara 1994).
This hypothesis about the creation of Hinduism and Buddhism does not
depend on any general proposition that religion is a construct, but rather on
the empirical conditions under which Europeans approached and understood
other cultures. When European travellers, missionaries and scholars tried to
make sense of the cultural traditions they confronted in Asia and elsewhere,
they could not but construe these as religions.
First of all, Christian theology had predicted that religion would exist
among all nations, because God had gifted religion to humanity at the time
of creation. Over the centuries, different perspectives developed on this issue.
For instance, some said that God had given knowledge of His will to Adam
and that it was later corrupted by Satan and his minions. Others suggested
that the Creator had inscribed a sense of divinity in the human soul, which
was misdirected to the worship of false gods; yet others that He had created
human reason in such a way that it naturally discovered religion. Later some
thinkers substituted ‘nature’ for ‘God’ and suggested that human nature was
the cause of the universality of religion. Generally, however, the theological
prediction that one would find religion among ‘all nations and tribes’ shaped
the expectations and experiences of travellers to Asia and elsewhere. Even
when one did not find religion among certain groups at first sight, different
conceptual manoeuvres and modifications ensured that it would turn out
that ‘no nation was so barbarous, no people so savage, that it had no religion’
(see Kors 1990).
The empirical process of the ‘construction’ of Hinduism built on the
foundation of this theological certainty that India could not but have religion.
Elements of the traditions of India – their intellectual treatises, stories, rit-
uals, practices, temples, their devas and devis etc. – were gradually interpreted
and linked to each other in such a way that coherent patterns came into
being in the European descriptions of India. From treatises and stories,
European scholars extracted the presumed sacred doctrines, beliefs and
laws; rituals became worship practices that embodied these doctrines; temples
had to be houses of worship; and devas and devis were gods, of course. While
one had originally described internal variations or sects within what was
called ‘pagan’ or ‘heathen religion’, one began to distinguish these coherent
entities as several separate religions in the course of the nineteenth century:
168
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
169
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
170
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
these fictitious entities really exist. Yet again, this should not lead us to a
philosophical puzzle about whether religion really exists out there in the
world or is only a conceptual tool. Rather, it generates research questions
concerning the mechanisms behind two processes. First, we should examine
the process that has allowed Europe to present a description of its own cul-
tural experience as a valid description of India. Second, the process needs to
be discovered that has caused Indian intellectuals to also accept this reflec-
tion of the western cultural experience of India as a veridical description of
their own country and culture (Balagangadhara et al. 2008).
In spite of the occasional overlap, the hypothesis about the creation of
religions like ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Buddhism’ is logically independent of any
general thesis about the construction of religion. Epistemologically, one
can be a constructivist, empiricist or realist and still accept the claim that
‘Hinduism’ and ‘Buddhism’ are entities or patterns within the western cul-
tural experience of India, which do not exist in Indian society. One could
consistently take the realist position that Christianity exists ‘in reality’ and,
at the same time, deny the existence of Hindu religion, because that religion
is a fictitious entity.
What is constructed?
Today, most accounts about the colonial construction of religion in India
agree on the following: modern Hinduism was constructed as a result of the
colonial encounter in India, but this process of construction was not a simple
one-sided process. Orientalist scholars, colonial officials and Indian elites col-
laborated in the construction of a uniform religion of Hinduism, modelled on
Brahmanical texts. Thus, the construct of Hinduism emerged out of the agency
of Europeans and Indians – the product of dialectical exchange between
colonizer and colonized, incorporating both pre-colonial and colonial ele-
ments. As one author puts it, Hinduism should be understood as ‘a negotiated
territory between factions instead of solely being the creation of one dominant
group’ (Haan 2005: 13).
In his The Social Construction of What? (1999), Ian Hacking points out
that there is no clarity as to what is being constructed in the so-called process
of ‘construction’ – concepts or objects, ideas or things? In the contemporary
study of India also, accounts about colonial construction alternate between
the claim that ‘Hinduism’ is a concept constructed by the colonial encounter
and the claim that it is an empirical reality or object that has really come into
being. These are two very different claims. What is the product of the dialect-
ical process of construction? Is ‘Hinduism’ only a concept or has it also
become a reality in modern India?
Take Robert Frykenberg’s early constructionist account, which initially
discusses the concept Hinduism and relates its ‘jumble of inner contradic-
tions’ and multiplicity of definitions to the historical circumstances in which
171
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
Hinduism emerged not only as an idea, but also as a reality. That is,
Pennington suggests that Hinduism started out as the idea that a range of
divergent traditions in India could be understood as manifestations of one
pan-Indian religion called ‘Hinduism’. He discusses the crystallization of
this concept, but adds that the changes he charts are ‘both conceptual and
actual’ (ibid.: 1–2). The changes are actual as well as conceptual, because this
Hinduism gradually became a reality through the agency of British colonials,
Brahmin elites and Hindu self-representation. In other words, the Hindu
religion came into being as an object also.
In order to acquire some clarity, let us distinguish strictly between the
construction of Hinduism-as-a-concept and that of Hinduism-as-a-reality.1
If it concerns the construction of concepts alone, the constructionist argument
can be understood in several ways. It could mean that Europeans introduced
172
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
new words to designate social phenomena that existed in India and that
native informants adopted these words. Even though Indian languages had
no equivalent for the term ‘religion’, one might argue, India did know of
the religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, long before
Europeans called them so. From this perspective, the fact that Indians did
not have a word for ‘religion’ is as relevant as the fact that they had no word
for ‘genes’, before modern genetics showed that all human beings, including
Indians, have genes. Such a view would imply that the so-called ‘construction’
was simply a matter of coining terms to refer to already existing religious
traditions in the Indian society.
Since few would challenge that the British introduced a new language into
India, this interpretation is not very promising. The analogy with genetics
indicates its central problem: on what theoretical grounds could one con-
clude that India always had religions? In the case of genetics, we have a well-
developed theoretical paradigm that gives us criteria to infer and test the
presence of genes; in the case of religion, we possess no such criteria. Certainly,
the fact that the term ‘Hindu’ was used in pre-colonial times in order to
distinguish the majority population of India from ‘Turks’ or Muslim groups
does not provide any evidence as to the existence of a religious institution or
identity, since ‘Hindu’ could well be a marker of ethnic difference here (see
Lorenzen 1999).
Perhaps the most typical understanding of colonial construction is that a
variety of religious traditions had originally existed on the subcontinent and
that the construction of Hinduism reduced this variety to the conceptual
unity of one religion. Brahmanical elites, European scholars and colonial
officials created a Brahmanical, textual and uniform model of Hinduism to
be superimposed on the diversity of local Hindu traditions. This model was
then taken up by upper-caste Hindu nationalists in order to try and unite
these different traditions (e.g. Frykenberg 1989, 1993; Thapar 1989a, 1989b;
von Stietencron 1989).
However, this understanding of the construction of Hinduism is vulner-
able to several counter-arguments. The postulation of ‘Hinduism’ does not
deny that it could cover a variety of traditions, any more than the concept
of Christianity denies the variety of denominations within the Christian
fold. Many colonial authors acknowledged the diversity covered by the
label ‘Hinduism’ or distinguished between the coherent philosophical and
textual Hinduism of the Brahmins and the inchoate variety of practices of
popular Hinduism (e.g. Barrows 1899: 139; Crooke 1907: 223–24; Geden
1922: 47; Harcourt 1924: 19, 28; Strachey 1911: 317; Wilson 1862: 1). So,
rather than superimpose uniformity on variety, the concept of Hinduism
never prevented recognition of this variety of ‘religious traditions’ in India;
nor has it denied the difference between the so-called ‘Brahmanism’ and
other traditions.
Some point out that there has never been a single ‘Hinduism’ and prefer to
173
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
174
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
175
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
cultural traditions and how this constrains the semantics of terms like ‘puja’
and ‘murtipuja’. But the most promising route to developing such a hypoth-
esis is to circumscribe the misunderstanding and distortion that occurred
when Indians began to talk in terms of ‘worship’ and ‘idol worship’. The
difference between their use of these words and the conceptual structures
behind the European-Christian understanding of ‘worship’ and ‘idol wor-
ship’ will reveal how the two groups were talking about completely different
things. This mismatch then allows us to characterize the underlying con-
ceptual structures of the Indian cultural experience by contrasting them to
the European-Christian conceptual structures.
A concrete illustration of this approach would take us far beyond the
confines of this chapter. Here, we merely intend to make the following theor-
etical point: in the process of theorizing the conceptual structures of Indian
cultural traditions, we will also reveal their decisive impact on the manner in
which Indians took over the vocabulary of the Europeans. It is only once we
have done this kind of research that we can meaningfully begin to analyse
the Indian contribution to the formation of ‘Hinduism’. In the absence of
this research, it is premature to present the fact that Indian elites also talked
in terms of ‘Hinduism’ and ‘religion’ as evidence for the claim that they
co-built Hinduism, as though Europeans and Indians had the same things in
mind when they spoke of ‘Hinduism’, ‘religion’, ‘worship’ etc.
Given this state of affairs, how viable is the suggestion that the colonial
encounter resulted in the construction of Hinduism-as-a-reality or a new
religion in Indian society? Inevitably, the use of ‘Hindu religion’ as a cat-
egory of colonial rule had certain effects on Indian society. Because of legal
procedures, censuses and several other policies and interactions between
Europeans and Indians, many Indians also began to talk about ‘Hinduism’,
‘religion’ and ‘worship’, as though these things truly existed in their society.
However, this does not entail that Hinduism has really come into being as
a religion.
As other authors have pointed out, it is unlikely that a relatively small
group of British colonials could transform the very structures of a body of
Indian traditions in less than two centuries (Pennington 2005: 5). Even if
certain groups of Brahmins and other elites collaborated with them, how
could they ever have created a pan-Indian religion, Hinduism? Whatever
their policies and categories, how could they have built a new religion and
then spread this over the subcontinent? This version of colonial construction
attributes miraculous powers to European colonials and Brahmanical elites,
granting them the ability to mould Indian society and Indian minds like clay.
In order to contemplate the effect that the creation of the concept of
Hinduism has had on Indian society, we can borrow Hacking’s idea of
‘interactive kinds’. As he explains:
176
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindus’ are interactive kinds. Some of the people classified
as ‘Hindus’ or ‘followers of Hindu religion’ have become aware of this clas-
sification and have indeed modified their behaviour. Some state officials and
politicians also behave differently towards the people described as followers
of Hinduism, because of this classification. Plenty of scholars and tourists
approach the same people as ‘believers of Hindu religion’ and this undoubt-
edly has had an impact upon many Indians.
One effect that has certainly occurred is that Indians have learned to use
the terminology of ‘Hinduism’ and ‘religion’ pragmatically. To give one illus-
tration, when the British Government of Bengal implemented a policy of
religious toleration, it proclaimed that it would tolerate certain practices only
if native subjects could show that these practices were religious, i.e. were
sanctioned by ‘Hindu scriptures’. In response, pundits employed by the colo-
nial courts began to argue about particular practices, which they desired to
retain, that these practices had scriptural sanction and thus belonged to
Hindu religion (De Roover and Balagangadhara 2009). Similarly, from the
nineteenth century onwards, educated Indians belonging to the relevant tra-
ditions have learned that they should respond with ‘Hindu’ whenever official
forms or informal inquiries ask them about their religion.
Another related effect is that many Indians have begun to believe that the
religion of Hinduism exists and act accordingly. They feel they have to iden-
tify the common foundation or central teachings and commandments of
this religion or show that it is superior to other religions. However, again,
this does not imply that Hindu religion has come into being. For one, the
problem remains that, even though these Hindus have adopted words like
‘religion’ and ‘Hinduism’ and certain ways of talking, one does not know
what these words mean to them and to what extent semantic distortion takes
place in the process of adoption. The ease with which many of the same
people – Hindu nationalists in particular – have conceded that ‘Hinduism is
not really a religion, but rather a way of life’ indicates that the term ‘religion’
does not mean much to them.2
Even if we admit that Hinduism has come into being in some sense,
because certain groups of people believe it exists and act accordingly, this
could never entail that Hinduism exists as a religion (certainly not a pan-
Indian one). Rather, within the variety of Indian traditions, there is now also
one that practices ‘Hinduism’ in the sense that it seeks to identify the true
teachings and commandments of what it believes to be Hindu religion. This
tradition is particularly vibrant among non-resident Indians in the United
States, among descendants of nineteenth-century Hindu reform movements
177
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
and among some Hindu nationalists. But this does not entail that Hindu
religion has come into being like, say, Christianity or Islam.
At this point, the following objection may arise: Is it not presumptuous
of academics to deny that Hindus have their own Hindu religion, when (at
least some) Hindus believe this to be the case? Or as Pennington puts it,
since academic historiography should not interfere in the sphere of religion,
‘a sphere over which practitioners alone should have custody’, scholars ought
not to argue that the Hindu religion is a modern invention, because this
is ‘tantamount to a theological statement about the normative constitution
of religious identity’ (Pennington 2005: 5). This type of argument begs the
question in several ways. First, it insinuates that the denial that Hindu tradi-
tions are religion implies a value judgement of some kind. It does not. This
is a cognitive hypothesis about the difference in kind between these traditions
and religions like Christianity and Islam. The hypothesis aims to explain
where the stubborn belief in the existence of religions like Hinduism originates
and what sustains it.
Second, the objection presupposes what it has to prove: namely, that there
is a sphere of religion in Indian society, that Hindu traditions are religion
and that Hindus have a religious identity. Only if that is the case could the
above concerns about religion as ‘a sphere over which practitioners alone
should have custody’ and ‘the normative constitution of religious identity’
be of import here. But our point is that there is no such sphere of Hindu
religion and, hence, these concerns about the special status of the religious
domain are largely irrelevant. Nevertheless, this objection remains valuable
if reformulated as an explanatory task: when one denies the existence of
Hinduism, one should be able to explain as to why certain Indians as well as
Europeans believe that Hinduism exists.
Conclusion
Fundamentally, most accounts on the construction of Hinduism operate
within the same framework as earlier orientalist descriptions of India, but
merely dispute specific ‘historical facts’ of that theoretical framework. Almost
all of these accounts begin with the certainty that there must be religion in
Indian culture. They may dispute the number of religions present and the
homo- or heterogeneity of these religions; they may disagree over how and at
what precise point of time ‘Hinduism’ came into being in Indian society; or
they may agree that ‘Christian presuppositions’ have informed the western
understanding of Indian religions and that we need a ‘better’ concept of
religion. Yet, most would find it absurd to doubt that Indian culture ever had
its own indigenous religions.
Where does this certainty come from? Does one possess clear empirical
criteria or properties to establish the presence of religion? Has one, at some
point in time, tested and demonstrated its existence in India? Or is there
178
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
some theory that has produced theoretical proof of the cultural universality
of religion, so that its existence in Indian culture becomes indisputable?
None of these is the case. Instead, there are two fundamental continuities
between orientalist descriptions of India and contemporary accounts of the
construction of Hinduism.
The first is that the Christian theological certainties of yesterday have
retained the force of self-evidence today. When early modern Europeans saw
religion in Indian culture and society, they could see it only because of a back-
ground framework that shaped their perception, experience and reasoning. If
we want to reconstruct the rational cognitive grounds of these descriptions
of ‘religion’ in India, we cannot but take recourse to a generic framework of
Christian beliefs about the world and humanity.3 However, this is not merely
some claim about the historical conditions under which the descriptions of
India in terms of religion emerged. It is a thesis about the basic intelligibility of
these descriptions: to this day, this intelligibility depends on the background
theological framework and so does the belief that Hindu religion exists.
Some may oppose this by claiming that the concepts of religion and
Hinduism are no longer theological and have now become ‘flexible’, ‘poly-
valent’, ‘elastic’ or ‘polythetic’ (Pennington 2005: 15, 175–83; Sweetman
2001: 218–19). However, a term like ‘religion’ is not some kind of free-floating
conceptual tool that can become more ‘elastic’ and ‘flexible’ in order to
encompass presumed manifestations of ‘religion’. Rather, it is embedded in
an entire system of concepts following a certain conceptual logic. In the case of
religion, this conceptual system is that of an increasingly generic Christian
theology. While conceptual change has certainly occurred within this system
and the connotations of the term ‘religion’ have changed over time, no alter-
native framework has been proposed to re-conceptualize religion and the
facts in need of explanation.
Of course, we do not mean to deny that modern thinkers have tried to
develop, say, ‘naturalistic’, ‘sociological’, ‘Marxist’ or even ‘biological’ theor-
ies of religion (Dennett 2006; Preus 1987). However, these secondary theories
intend to account for ‘facts’ that have already been structured by the primary
framework of generic Christian theology. They have never questioned the
existence of religion in Indian society or any other society; they have not
radically re-examined these different cultures, but have reproduced descrip-
tions of ‘religions’ around the world as ‘facts’ in need of explanation. The
constructionist accounts form no exception here. They do not dismantle
these descriptions at the basic level and re-conceptualize the ‘facts’; they also
presuppose that there has to be religion in India, but lament that it has been
homogenized and viewed through western-Christian lenses. In contrast, our
claim is not that Indian religions were incorrectly conceptualized because of
western-Christian biases, but rather that the very belief in the existence of
religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism is the product of an experience
constituted by Christianity.
179
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
Notes
1 Hardcore constructivists might have problems with this distinction, since an
abstract concept like Hinduism never corresponds to an empirical or ‘ontological’
reality according to them. However, they could reformulate the distinction as follows:
180
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
Bibliography
Balagangadhara, S.N. (1994) ‘The Heathen in His Blindness . . .’: Asia, the West, and
the dynamic of religion, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
—— (2005) ‘How to speak for the Indian traditions: an agenda for the future’, Journal
of the American Academy of Religion, 73: 987–1013.
Balagangadhara, S.N. and Keppens, M. (2008) ‘Reconceptualizing the postcolonial
project: beyond the strictures and structures of orientalism’, Interventions, 11:
50–68.
Balagangadhara, S.N., Bloch, E. and De Roover, J. (2008) ‘Rethinking colonialism
and colonial consciousness: the case of modern India’, in S. Raval (ed.) Rethinking
Forms of Knowledge in India, Delhi: Pencraft International.
Barrows, J.H. (1899) The Christian Conquest of Asia: studies and personal observations
of Oriental religions, Delhi: Subhi Publications.
Buruma, I. and Margalit, A. (2004) Occidentalism: a short history of anti-westernism,
London: Atlantic Books.
Crooke, W. (1907) ‘Hinduism’, in M. Eliade (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Religion,
New York: Macmillan.
Dalmia, V. and von Stietencron, H. (eds) (1995) Representing Hinduism: the construc-
tion of religious traditions and national identity, New Delhi: Sage.
Dennett, D.C. (2006) Breaking the Spell: religion as a natural phenomenon, New York:
Allen Lane.
De Roover, J. and Balagangadhara, S.N. (2009) ‘Liberty, tyranny and the will of God:
the principle of toleration in early modern Europe and colonial India’, History of
Political Thought, 30: 111–39.
Engler, S. (2004) ‘Constructionism versus what?’ Religion, 34: 291–313.
Feyerabend, P. (1999) ‘The problem of the existence of theoretical entities’, in
J. Preston (ed.) Knowledge, Science and Relativism: philosophical papers, vol. 3,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frykenberg, R.E. (1989; 5th and revised edn 2001) ‘The emergence of modern
“Hinduism” as a concept and as an institution: a reappraisal with special reference
to South India’, in G.-D. Sontheimer and H. Kulke (eds), Hinduism Reconsidered,
New Delhi: Manohar.
—— (1993) ‘Constructions of Hinduism at the nexus of history and religion’, Journal
of Interdisciplinary History, 23: 523–50.
Geden, A.S. (1922; repr. edn 1994) Comparative Religion, New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services.
181
J A KO B D E RO O V E R A N D S A R A H C L A E R H O U T
Gelders, R. (2009) ‘Genealogy of colonial discourse: Hindu traditions and the limits
of European representation’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 51:
563–89.
Gelders, R. and Derde, W. (2003) ‘Mantras of anti-Brahmanism: colonial experience
of Indian intellectuals’, Economic and Political Weekly, 38: 4611–17.
Haan, M. (2005) ‘Numbers in Nirvana: how the 1872–1921 Indian censuses helped
operationalise “Hinduism” ’, Religion, 35: 13–30.
Hacking, I. (1999) The Social Construction of What?, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Harcourt, H. (1924) Sidelights on the Crisis in India: being the letters of an Indian
civilian and some replies of an Indian friend, London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Inden, R.B. (1986) ‘Orientalist constructions of India’, Modern Asian Studies, 20:
401–46.
—— (1990) Imagining India, Oxford: Blackwell.
King, R. (1999a) ‘Orientalism and the modern myth of “Hinduism” ’, Numen, 46:
146–85.
—— (1999b) Orientalism and Religion: postcolonial theory, India, and ‘the mystic
East’, London: Routledge.
Kors, A.C. (1990) Atheism in France 1650–1729, vol. 1: the orthodox sources of dis-
belief, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lipner, J. (1994) Hindus: their religious beliefs and practices, London and New York:
Routledge.
Lorenzen, D.N. (1999) ‘Who invented Hinduism?’, Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 41: 630–59.
Masuzawa, T. (2005) The Invention of World Religions: or, how European universalism
was preserved in the language of pluralism, Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
McCutcheon, R.T. (1997) Manufacturing Religion: the discourse on sui generis religion
and the politics of nostalgia, New York: Oxford University Press.
Oddie, G.A. (2006) Imagined Hinduism: British Protestant missionary constructions of
Hinduism, 1793–1900, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Pennington, B.K. (2001) ‘Constructing colonial Dharma: a chronicle of emergent
Hinduism, 1830–31’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 69: 577–603.
—— (2005) Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the colonial construction of
religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Preus, J.S. (1987) Explaining Religion: criticism and theory from Bodin to Freud,
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Smith, J.Z. (1982) Imagining Religion: from Babylon to Jonestown, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Sontheimer, G.-D. and Kulke, H. (eds) (1989; 5th and revised edn 2001) Hinduism
Reconsidered, New Delhi: Manohar.
Strachey, J. (1911) India: its administration & progress, London: Macmillan.
Sugirtharajah, S. (2003) Imagining Hinduism: a postcolonial perspective, London and
New York: Routledge.
Suppe, F. (ed.) (1977) The Structure of Scientific Theories, Urbana and Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.
Sweetman, W. (2001) ‘Unity and plurality: Hinduism and the religions of India in
early European scholarship’, Religion, 31: 209–24.
182
T H E C O L O N I A L C O N S T RU C T I O N O F W H A T ?
183
INDEX
185
INDEX
186
INDEX
187
INDEX
188
INDEX
189
INDEX
190
INDEX
191
INDEX
192