Hinduism, Hindu“tva” and Dharma: Part I
I will start this—what is going to be a fairly long—set of blogs with the customary “I don’t care if people read this; The purpose of this blog piece is just an archiving of my personal thoughts, learnings and opinions” remark. I mean that more than ever, for these blogs are an encapsulation—if not a culmination (for the learnings are a continuing exercise)—of all I have learnt over the better half of 2 years of reading on different aspects of this subject. Barring all the childhood stories and hymns I might have learnt from my mom—and other people “here and there”—it was only for the past 2 years that I took a concerted effort to sit and read on it academically. The infatuation mostly started with an understanding of how political Hindutva looks: the history of the Hindutva movement for most of the colonial period. Simultaneously, through participating in MUNs, I was prompted to read on subjects like the Waqf Act and the POWA (something I will detail in this blog(s)). It was in this timeline that I went through a huge learning curve: a lot of books, lectures, and podcasts later, I am starting to see a complete picture of this entire discussion—being hence in a position to have my own opinion on several of these subjects: opinions I wish to preserve somewhere.
The blogs are going to be a rather vast set of seemingly random amalgamation of several political, theological, philosophical, and historical subjects. The goal is not to give you a piece of research—although a lot of “research” has gone into writing this vast piece—but instead to lay down my opinions on a lot of these subjects. Personally, this is just an effort of putting my opinions down for my own good somewhere so that they don’t disappear from my head one day (likely to happen given placements season starting soon). I hope you guys like it :)
Defining Hinduism
The general notion of “Hinduism is not a religion, but instead a way of life” comes from the 1966 Sastri Yagnapurushadji case and was reaffirmed in a 2023 judgment. Using this argument beyond the scope of the case for which the judgment was given is mischievous and has often led to wrong conclusions. Hence, for the rest of this section, I will try to define what Hinduism is: While it is easy for people in popular discourse to tell you what it is not, I will try telling you what it is—the core that makes it.
Hinduism tends to be a fairly fuzzier concept than Abrahamic conceptions. The idea—that I hold is that—Hinduism is certainly nothing but a “religion”: just that it is much different from a Western conception of what religion entails.
The reason I would consider Hinduism to be a religion is as follows: just like other religions, it too contemplates the place that a person holds in this universe; dwells on ethics, rituals, traditions, among other things.
Where Hinduism would certainly differ in its core from other “religions” is the idea of pluralism (a theory or system that recognises more than one ultimate principle—or in this context, one that recognises the presence of multiple faith systems, and respects it). The Abrahamic conception of religion rests on the idea of you having to believe in a set of axioms to be part of that religion: for example, to be a Muslim, you would have to believe that Mohammed was the last messenger of god, and that there is only one god, among a set of other things. Again, of course, there are other nuances to the interpretation of what these religions entail (for example, the several sects that exist as part of Islam in this context). But regardless of the sect, there is no denying that there is a uniform set of these axioms that must be accepted—across all sects—for they represent the core identity of the religion: making it a “monoist”ic ideology at its core. The same explanation can be applied to other Abrahamic religions as well.
Hinduism, however, is different: for it does not have any set of starting axioms, i.e. there is nothing that defines who is a Hindu. You can be a polytheist, a monotheist, or an atheist or a combination of any of these, or even have an entirely new belief: all this and still be a Hindu.
The immediate question then would be to ask “What are the boundary conditions?” (the quintessential engineer’s question), i.e. what brings unity in all of your beliefs to call it one unit—”Hinduism”. I will answer this vaguely right now, but just stick with me till the end for you will get a much clearer picture!
What brings Hinduism together is all about the questions it asks, the processes of inquiry, idioms, all the texts bring together in order to allow for a framework of conversation, various rituals and festivals changed among a multitude of other things: it allows for plurality, scepticism, preference for liberty and openness (We shall come back to this idea).
To start to better understand that very question, let us start by understanding the architecture of Hinduism.
The Architecture
Hinduism has no set number of religious texts: history tells us that texts have emerged for millennia. For example, the Skanda Purana had several portions of it which came into existence after the 1200s, while you have the Vedas themselves, dated to about somewhere between 1500 and 2000 BC. Texts in Hinduism—among other ways of classification—can be distinguished into the following two sets:
- The Shruti
- The Smriti
Going by the strict definition, the Shruti stands for that which is divinely inspired or heard, while the Smriti refers to that which is remembered—the great thoughts.
In our context, this definition would mean that the Shruti texts are the only true canonical texts of Hinduism: the true word of god, while the Smriti texts are literally any other Hindu text out there.
The Ramayana and the Bhagavat Gita would be considered by most naive ones to be the “great sacred texts of Hinduism”. Rishi Sunak, too, for example, when taking his oath as the British Prime Minister, swore on the Gita, not any other Hindu religious text. Hence, going by sheer popularity, one would consider the Gita or Ramayana to be the “Shruti”.
But, in reality, Hinduism—strictly speaking—has only 3 canonical texts: the first three Vedas, i.e. the Rig, Sama and Yajur Vedas. These three—in broad conception—make up the authoritative/primary texts of Hinduism. The Ramayana, Mahabharata, and pretty much any other religious text you can think of is a Smriti: non-canonical, and “non-binding”—in lawyer language.
For example, the much-hated Manusmriti too is a Smriti text. The Manusmriti is one of the many Dharmaśāstras of Hinduism that discusses an array of topics: including the duties, rights, laws, conduct, and virtues. However, several condemned the prescriptions of the Manusmriti, including Dr B. R. Ambedkar, who famously burned copies of the Manusmriti in 1927 to protest its influence on caste discrimination, reasoning that it was a foundation for caste oppression. For all the hate it receives, the religion in no way enforces it on its followers. Scholars doubt whether the text was ever enforced in Ancient or Medieval times by any rulers. The first known enforcers of the text were actually the British, who used it as one of the canonical texts of Hinduism when codifying “Hindu Law”. The Smriti texts, as I said earlier, are non-binding i.e. it is not compulsory for a hindu to follow it: yet they were codified by the British as “Hindu Law”, reducing centuries of vigorous development of total ethical, religious and social systems to fit their own preconceived European notions of what Hindu “law” should be: and then enforcing it on the very same people. This codification of “Hindu Law”—which, by the way, is still followed in Indian law—reduced an organic, living and ever-evolving system to what a 3rd-century text says: retarding the entire dynamical system of the practice changing over time.
Coming back to the Smriti texts, as a whole—they are by definition non-enforceable on anyone. You can literally write your own text if you disagree with any of them.
To put it in simpler terms, Shruti is like a bookshelf, and the Smritis are like the books themselves. You can add, remove, and hence constantly keep changing the bookshelf: This entire ecosystem is what forms Hinduism.
Now, let me play the devil’s advocate for a bit—here is the question that is posed: How can Hinduism be called a “plural” and “all accepting” ideology when you are literally saying that the Vedas are the core? For example, Muslims too believe in the Holy Quran (it can be called a Smriti in this context), while Fatwas are issued constantly across the world as interpretations of the Quran and Islamic law in general (So in this context, I can call the Fatwas the Shruti—constantly open to change). Or in other words, how is Hinduism any more plural than an Abrahamic religion per se when it too relies on the Shruti texts as the base.
The answer is 2 fold (and a little complex):
- You do not have to exactly accept the Vedas for their word to be a Hindu. The reason I call them canonical is that most ideas in Hinduism can be traced back to these 3 Vedas: historically and philosophically (and in terms of a lot of deities we worship). The Vedas are not in any way binding on any future texts that come: you can oppose the Vedas and still be a Hindu. For example, the Veera Shaiva movement fundamentally rejected Vedic authority, yet it was still considered to be part of the Hindu umbrella, as a Nastika tradition (a non-Vedic tradition).
- The Shruti texts themselves are fundamentally plural (More on this in the next section)
The Origin of the Shruti Texts: The Rig Veda
The Rig Veda itself is a Bronze Age text—written somewhere between 1500 and 2000 BC. The tribe was led by a king named Sudasa, and his guru—Vasishta, who defeated 10 tribes to the east, on the banks of the river Ravi, and another few to the east: on the banks of the Yamuna. They arguably created the first known Indian empire in the early Vedic period.
Interestingly, after defeating these 10 tribes, they did not attempt to declare the supremacy of their god(s) on the rest—instead, they brought together the sages of all these tribes that they had defeated too: to compile the best ideas of the time. This gave us what we now know as the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda was not the beginning of the ideas of a civilisation; it was the mere compilation, hence culmination of a lot of existing ideas.
The infamous Gayatri Mantra—one of the most popular Hindu Mantras—was composed by Vishwamitra as part of the Rig Veda: a Rishi from one of the 10 defeated tribes.
Further, our history textbooks tell us of how “Indira and Agni were ancient Vedic gods. Vishnu and Shiva are later gods”. This is a mischievous attempt, for the deity “Vishnu” appears in the Rigveda, mentioned 93 times across various hymns. The statement is rather vague, leading you to misconstrue that Vishnu and Shiva did not exist in early Vedic times—they certainly did. Maybe they were not as significant as Agni, or Indra—but they did exist.
The Norm of the Time
Notwithstanding how long before the Vedas did Hinduism, and Hindu gods exist—it is safe to acknowledge the presence of several other civilizational faith systems that existed across the world: Taoism, the Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Greek religions, among others.
For many of these faith systems preceded this form of codified Vedic religion, it is completely possible that there was some form of confluence of ideas between these different civilisations. Much of this confluence gives us a similarity we see in ritual and the deities worshipped across these different civilisations.
For example, take the Egyptian deity Anubis: associated with the colour black, dog-faced, and known as the deity for funerary rites, also the protector of the graves, and the guide to the underworld. Hinduism has a deity of a similar kind, too: Bhairava. Bhairava’s vahana (the animal associated with the deity) is a dog; Also associated with the colour black. Bhairava is a cremation ground deity, worshipped as the kshetrapala (the guardian of the area).
These similarities are not isolated to any one Hindu deity—for it is evident that there was some form of synchretization where deities/rituals/several aspects were borrowed from one culture to another. Hence it is completely possible for Hinduism to have borrowed deities from the outside, or even for similar deities to have parallely come about in different cultures for metaphysical reasons we do not understand.
Hence, Hinduism’s plural values were not unique to its time—pluralism was the norm of the time of Hinduism’s development, along with an evident borrowing of ideas that possibly occurred across various faith systems of the then world, if not for an indigenous parallel development. The existence of plural faith systems preceded the Vedic religion across the world: Hinduism was probably not the first. However, the reason for the stark difference of pluralistic values comes from the mere fact that Hinduism is the sole surviving one of these ancient systems—as opposed to the rather newer Abrahamic, monotheistic idea of faith.
Boundary Conditions
My broad thesis for all I have said until now is how Hinduism, at its core, respects pluralism. To put it into perspective, let me reiterate it as follows—the plural nature of Hinduism is reflected at 2 fronts:
- At its core: Wherein the formation of the vedas itself were a plural exercise of these different tribes—who ultimately got their gods all together into one piece of literature. Hence, it all starts of with the fundamental text itself respecting all different practices and ideas across the different tribes, and their different gods: the epitome of plural values.
- Beyond the core: Neither the Shruti, nor the Smriti texts are binding on any follower—you can selectively agree with one or more texts, have your own interpretation, or even discard the Vedas themselves in your ideology: all this and still be a Hindu.
But again, lets come back to the original question—can prettymuch any idea be integrated into Hinduism?
Again this comes back to a concept of liberalism I would want to draw parallels with—the “Paradox of Tolerance”. In this regard, I shall reproduce an extract from Karl Popper’s book: Open Society and its Enemies:
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
, i.e. liberalism in itself cannot be so open/tolerant that it starts to incorporate and allow ideas that ultimately will lead to the destruction tolerance itself.
This leads me back to answer my question: and the answer in my opinion is this—Hinduism cannot allow for ideas that are completely monolithic and dont allow for other views of things: this is necessary to protect the idea of pluralism: this is what many believe is the only true form of blasphemy in Hinduism.
An Example of Integration
An example I would often give would be the integration of several indigenous deities of forest communities into the Hindu fold. The worship of Jagannath in Odisha, or the story of Chenchu Lakshmi of Andhra Pradesh, or even that of several ancient temples of the Devi in Kerala are all examples of tribal deities, myths, and rituals that were integrated into the Hindu fold.
While later liberals would akin this integration to “Brahminization”, and some form of Hindu missionary activity of ridding the locals and tribals of their religion and practices, I fail to see how this is not a story of absorption. The “Brahminization” in many ways retained this very same deity as part of the larger Hindu pantheon—for example, often linking fierce worrier goddesses to being forms of Kali, or Parvathi.
Much of the cultural diversity you see across Hinduism—from ritual, to the stories is all a thanks to the fact that this absorption was not an egalitarian step to applying some Hindu culture on everyone, but instead absorbing those local folklore, ritual, and culture into the Hindu fold: giving them each a unique place in the “Brahminical” tradition.
The puranas aided this too—these local stories, and rituals would get codified into the fabric of Hinduism throught texts called the Puranas. You will often find sthala puranas for almost every ancient shrine—the text telling us about the history, and the origin stories of the temple. The Puranas ultimately created this complex and intricate framework that brought together hinduism as we know of it now.
What Brings it all together
This too is quite a difficult question: not for there is not much bringing Hinduism together, but simply put—there are a multitude of things. From shared rituals, to a geography with several of our sacred sites, to the festivals we follow, the pilgrimages we attend across the subcontinent—all of it points to a syncretic, shared central identity.
A Vaishnavite might believe that Vishnu is the supreme lord of the universe, while a Shivite might believe that their lord is supreme—but at the end of the day, the lore will also give us a Harihara: a form showing us that the 2 are no different.
A Brahmin might not be a practitioner of blood sacrifices and alcohol offering rituals, but he would always be more than willing to take his son to a Kali temple to sacrifice a goat, for it would improve his son’s health.
Regardless of all that shared identity, there is no denying the fact that the “Hindu identity” at large was shaped by the foreigner’s interaction with this land and its faith systems.
A lot of Hindutva—the muscular form you see today—is a result of a colonial and precolonial trauma: a trauma of having to unite the practitioners of all these different indigenous faith systems (not completely independent of each other)—a syncretic creature—into one unit to defend itself from the foreigner’s conception of religion: something I will explore in the next part of this Blog.
Defining the Religion: About the Next Blog
This is where the political debate starts—of what one would call the “pure” Hinduism, and what one would call the “impure”: The different interpretations of those “Boundary Conditions”. While the liberals will argue of the ever-evolving nature of the religion—and hence how we should embrace all that has changed, some conservatives would argue of the need to “Decolonise” Hinduism to rid it of all the non-hindu “impure” influences and changes.
All this is what the next blog will dwell into: how hinduism was shaped by the Islamic Invasions, and colonization subsequently: how this entire period lead to the fructification—in a lot of ways—of Hindutva as it is seen now: a politico-religious entity.
Do leave me a text if you liked my blog! :)